4.2 Article

Comparing Patient OOP Spending for Specialty Drugs in Medicare Part D and Employer-Sponsored Insurance

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 388-+

出版社

MANAGED CARE & HEALTHCARE COMMUNICATIONS LLC
DOI: 10.37765/ajmc.2020.88489

关键词

-

资金

  1. Commonwealth Fund
  2. Arnold Ventures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Per capita spending on specialty drugs increased 55% between 2014 and 2018. Individuals aged 55 to 75 years using specialty drugs make the transition from employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) to Medicare Part D coverage. We compared out-of-pocket (OOP) spending across ESI, Medicare fee-for-service (FFS), and Medicare Advantage (MA) prescription drug plans to examine the impact of benefit design on OOP spending. STUDY DESIGN: Analyses consisted of Truven MarketScan and Medicare Part D prescription drug claims from 2013 to 2017 for individuals enrolled in ESI, FFS, and MA drug plans taking at least 1 drug among the top 4 specialty drug classes: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), cancer, and hepatitis C. METHODS: Multivariate regression analyses with fixed effects were used to assess whether there are differences in OOP spending by insurance type and the impact of benefit design differences. A secondary outcome was drug choice within a therapeutic class. RESULTS: There were small differences in drug choice between Medicare and ESI but significant differences in OOP spending. Monthly OOP spending for ESI relative to FFS was $ 108 less for RA drugs, $288 less for MS drugs, $504 less for cancer drugs, and $1437 less for hepatitis C drugs. Spending was slightly greater for beneficiaries in MA plans compared with FFS. Higher Medicare spending was driven by gaps in coverage in the Part D benefit phases because beneficiaries pay a percentage of list price. CONCLUSIONS: OOP spending was substantially higher for Medicare enrollees compared with ESI enrollees as a result of the Part D benefit structure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据