university of maryland baltimore
DESCRIPTION
University of Maryland Baltimore. School of Pharmacy. Do Large Gaps in Prescription Coverage Matter Beyond the Obvious Fact that they Reduce Generosity of Coverage?. Bruce Stuart,* Joseph Terza,** Lirong Zhao* AcademyHealth annual meetings, Orlando 6/4/07 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1University of Maryland Baltimore
School of Pharmacy
Do Large Gaps in Prescription Coverage Matter Beyond the
Obvious Fact that they Reduce Generosity of Coverage?
Bruce Stuart,* Joseph Terza,** Lirong Zhao*
AcademyHealth annual meetings, Orlando 6/4/07*University of Maryland Baltimore, **University of Florida
![Page 2: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Acknowledgement
The Authors wish to thank the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for research support
![Page 3: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Background
The “doughnut hole” in the standard Medicare Part D benefit design is controversial for 3 reasons
• It reduces the average value of the policy for medium-high spenders
• It impacts beneficiaries differentially• The large gap may have pernicious
effects in disrupting medication regimens
![Page 4: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Background
Large literature supports assertion that less generous drug coverage reduces demand
Small literature on coverage gap effects Studies by Stuart et al. (2005), Simoni-
Wastila et al. (2007) Studies of M+C benefit caps
No study (that we are aware of) that examines independent effect of gaps controlling for generosity
![Page 5: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Research questions
Do Medicare beneficiaries who experience benefit gaps in prescription coverage spend less on medications than those with continuous coverage holding generosity constant?
Does the relationship vary with gap duration?
Does relationship vary at different levels of drug spending?
![Page 6: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Research strategy
Construct a test that captures essential elements of Medicare beneficiaries’ exposure to standard Part D design in 2006
Restrict to community-dwelling beneficiaries with some Medicare supplementation who spent >$250 per year on drugs measured in 2006 dollars
No Medicaid recipients No gaps longer than 5.3 months per year Annual average generosity of benefits (%
spending paid by 3rd party) >30%
![Page 7: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Data
Medicare Current Beneficiary Surveys from 1997 – 2003
Desirable qualities of MCBS Can identify beneficiaries with gaps in
prescription coverage and gap duration Can also identify gaps and gap duration in
Medicare supplemental insurance Can compute average generosity of drug
coverage Less desirable qualities
No plan design information
![Page 8: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Study samples
Base sample: N=27,802 person-years meet study inclusion/exclusion criteria
Subsamples (non-exclusive) Employer sponsored Rx coverage (n=17,697) Medicare HMO Rx coverage (n=6,231) Self-purchased Rx coverage (n=5,682)
![Page 9: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Measures
Dependent variable: annual drug spending converted to 2006 constant dollars
Independent variables Generosity (% spending paid by 3rd party) Rx coverage gap (0/1) Continuity of Rx coverage (% year with coverage) Continuity of Medicare supplement (% year with
coverage) Covariates: age, sex, race, income, education,
residence, health status, health care contacts, HCC risk adjuster, death, year dummies
![Page 10: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Statistical analysis
Regression models predicting drug spending for base sample and subsamples All person-years Person years with spending $250-$2,250 Person years with spending >$2,250
Model specification (GLM with Gamma and log link using robust command in Stata) Models with Rx gap (0/1) variable to test
disruption hypothesis Models with continuity-of-Rx-coverage variable to
test duration of gap hypothesis
![Page 11: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Statistical issues
Ex-post measure of generosity is endogenous
Gap variables may or may not be endogenous depending on (unobserved) causal factors generating gaps
Prior research indicates that HCC risk adjuster controls for Rx plan selection in studies using MCBS data Stuart et al., 2005, Stuart et al., 2006, Stuart et
al, 2007
![Page 12: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Sample
Continuous coverage Coverage gaps
% of sample
Mean generosity
% of sample
Mean generosity
Base Sample
90% 73% 10% 65%
ESI 92% 76% 8% 70%
MHMO 90% 68% 10% 61%
Self-purchased
85% 67% 15% 60%
Sample characteristics
![Page 13: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Sample
Continuous coverage Coverage gaps
% of sample
Mean Rx spend
% of sample
Mean Rx spend
Base Sample
90% $2,155
( 2,309)
10% $1,817
( 2,053)
ESI 92% $2,332
( 2,474)
8% $1,904
( 2,357)
MHMO 90% $1,610
(2,051 )
10% $1,362
( 1,359)
Self-purchased
85% $2,025
( 2,132)
15% $1,765
(1,537 )
Mean annual Rx spending (sd) in 2006 constant dollars
![Page 14: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Marginal effects (elasticities) of generosity in models with dichotomous Rx gap variable
Sample Spending $250 - $2,250
Spending > $2,250
Base Sample 5.3***(0.34)
30.4***(0.56)
ESI 7.1***(0.46)
31.7***(0.59)
MHMO 5.2***(0.34)
29.9***(0.57)
Self-purchased 2.8***(0.16)
25.3***(0.43)
statistical significance ***p<.01, **p<,05, *p<.10
![Page 15: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Marginal effects for dichotomous Rx coverage gaps variable
SampleSpending
$250 - $2,250Spending
> $2,250
Base Sample -30.6** 1.4 (ns)
ESI -67.1*** 10.0 (ns)
MHMO 12.2 (ns) -267.3 (ns)
Self-purchased -23.0(ns) -156.8 (ns)
statistical significance ***p<.01, **p<,05, *p<.10
![Page 16: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Marginal effects (elasticities) for continuity of prescription coverage variable
SampleSpending
$250 - $2,250Spending
> $2,250
Base Sample 1.1***(0.10)
-3.1 (ns)
ESI 1.9***(0.16)
-4.6 (ns)
MHMO 0.4 (ns) 5.4 (ns)
Self-purchased 0.8 (ns) 1.1 (ns)
statistical significance ***p<.01, **p<,05, *p<.10
![Page 17: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Discussion
Study confirms previous research showing that generosity of coverage is a significant driver of drug spending
Mixed support for idea that Rx coverage gaps have independent impact on drug spending
Small gap effects found in base sample and ESI sample for those with spending between $250 and $2,250
No evidence that Rx coverage gap reduces spending among those spending >$2,250
![Page 18: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Study limitations
Ex-post measure of generosity is clearly endogenous but difficult to instrument (direction of potential bias also unclear)
Endogeneity in gap variables is likely to bias results to the null (assuming that beneficiaries who chose—or fail to avoid—gaps have less need for medications)
Control for gaps in underlying Medicare supplementation reduces likelihood of bias
![Page 19: University of Maryland Baltimore](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081603/56814b6c550346895db858c8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Conclusions
Findings are suggestive but not definitive regarding impact of the Part D doughnut hole on beneficiary spending over the year
They do suggest that the debate over the doughnut hole should distinguish generosity-reducing effects from gap-specific dislocations in medication regimens