Impact of medicare part D on access to and cost sharing for specialty biologic medications for beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Many worry that the use of specialty tiering for biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) by Medicare Part D plans imposes a heavy financial burden on beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To date, no one has examined the cost‐sharing structures for biologic DMARDs in Part D plans or the resulting cost burden for patients.

Methods

We followed 14,929 vulnerable, low‐income patients with RA who were enrolled in the Medicare Replacement Drug Demonstration (MRDD) in 2005. As the MRDD population transitioned into Part D in 2006, we examined correlates of Part D enrollment and compared the cost‐sharing provisions for biologic DMARDs in the Medicare Advantage and stand‐alone plans. We simulated the out‐of‐pocket costs of beneficiaries under 3 cost‐sharing scenarios.

Results

Eighty‐one percent of MRDD beneficiaries with RA enrolled in Part D. Enrollment predictors were female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.32–1.67), prior MRDD benefit use (OR 2.29, 95% CI 2.04–2.58), other self‐reported drug coverage (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.36–1.71), and receiving an MRDD subsidy (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.74–2.30). Compared with stand‐alone plans, Medicare Advantage plans had lower deductibles, lower premiums, and fewer prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limit restrictions. However, ～75% of all plans used coinsurance as the preferred form of cost sharing. Out‐of‐pocket costs exceeded $4,000 annually in all cost‐sharing scenarios.

Conclusion

Most MRDD beneficiaries with RA enrolled in Part D. Although plans assume some costs for biologic DMARDs, the majority of costs are shifted to beneficiaries and to Medicare. Such cost shifting may place these medications out of the beneficiary's financial reach and expose Medicare to high financial liability.     

Medicare Part D's effect on the under- and overuse of medications: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the literature regarding the effect of Medicare Part D on the under‐ and overuse of specific medications and corresponding health outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Medline search of the peer‐reviewed literature from January 1, 2006, to October 8, 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries who obtained drug insurance from the Part D program. MEASUREMENTS: The review evaluated changes in the use of specific drugs or drug classes after implementation of Part D, as described in original, peer‐reviewed articles. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met inclusion criteria. Part D's implementation was associated with greater use of essential medications such as clopidogrel and statins, especially in beneficiaries who had been previously uninsured, but increases in inappropriate antibiotic use for the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections and increases in claims for the often overused proton pump inhibitor drug class were also observed. In the Part D transition period, dually eligible beneficiaries' drug use remained largely unchanged. When beneficiary cost sharing increased in the coverage gap, use of essential and overused medications declined. CONCLUSION: Increasing drug coverage led to greater use of underused essential medications and inappropriate, or overused, medications under Medicare Part D. Despite efforts to have it do so, the Part D benefit did not sufficiently discriminate between essential and nonessential medication use.     

Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures

Background  

Although Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.     

Medicare Part D and nursing home residents

The objective of this study was to analyze national Part D formulary data to assess adequacy of coverage across seven drug classes commonly used by nursing home residents and older people, focusing on individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and plans in which they enroll. Focusing at the molecule level, reasonably broad coverage across drug classes and minimal prior authorization overall was found. Of nonprotected classes, 69% of plans cover at least four of five Alzheimer's medications, 76% cover at least three of four bisphosphonates, 86% cover at least three of five proton pump inhibitors, and 61% cover at least four of six 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). Nevertheless, a minority of plans are less generous, and some drug formulations important to nursing home residents are covered less well. For example, 11% of plans cover only one or two of the six statins. Of protected drug classes, plans generally cover all molecules, as expected. The majority of plans require no prior authorization for covered medications in six of seven classes reviewed (excepting bisphosphonates). A minority of plans once again are more stringent. For example, 22% and 9% of Part D Plans nationally require prior authorization for all covered Alzheimer's drugs and proton pump inhibitors, respectively. Random assignment of dually eligible patients to below-benchmark plans means that some residents initially will be enrolled in these more-restrictive plans. Part D allows nursing home residents to switch plans at any time, but there are important barriers to residents' self-advocacy. Finally, it is unclear how well nursing homes and the pharmacies they work with will work across Part D plans, and vigilance will be required as the benefit proceeds.