Economic assessment of changes to an existing medication therapy management program of a large regional health plan.

BACKGROUND: Although medication therapy management (MTM) has specific eligibility criteria and is mandated for specific Medicare Part D enrollees, some health plans have expanded MTM eligibility beyond the minimum criteria to include other Medicare Part D enrollees, Medicaid, and commercial health plan patients. Differences exist in the mode of delivery, location of services, type of personnel involved in managing the service, and the subsequent outcomes. The type and intensity of MTM services delivered have evolved with time to more streamlined and robust interventions, necessitating ongoing evaluation of the effect on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of changes to an existing MTM program on cost of care, utilization, and medication adherence. METHODS: UPMC Health Plan made changes to an existing MTM program by expanding eligibility (customized by the type of health plan), intervention types, pharmacist involvement, and patient followup contacts. After matching our intervention cohort (identified January 2017-June 2018) with the pre-2016 MTM historical controls (patients identified January 2014-June 2015 who would have been eligible if we used the intervention cohort eligibility criteria), we estimated that the effect of the program changes with a difference-in-difference model (preintervention [2014-2016] and postintervention [2017-2019]). Outcomes of interest included cost (total cost of care including medical, pharmacy, and unplanned care [i.e., unscheduled health care use such as emergency department visits] in 2017 U.S. dollars); utilization; medication adherence (proportion of days covered); and return on investment (ROI). Target population included continuously enrolled patients aged ≥ 21 years in the commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid health plans. RESULTS: Total propensity score-matched members was 10,747, 55% of which were in the historic control group. The average (SD) ages after matching the groups were similar (historical control group: 57.08 years [14.23], intervention group: 56.79 years [14.21]) and the majority was female (57%). Comorbidities identified most for patients included hypertension (77%), dyslipidemia (70%), and diabetes (52%). Forty-one percent were in the commercial, 37% in the Medicaid, and 23% in the Medicare health plans. Proportion of care activities undertaken in the intervention period compared with the control period were significantly different: "sent letter to physician" (67% vs. 87%), "sent letter to member" (15% vs. 0%), "pharmacist phone call to physician" (15% vs. 0.1%), and "pharmacist phone call to member" (13% vs. 7%). There were statistically significant reductions in unplanned care across all health plans especially in the Medicare population, in total cost of care, and increases in medication adherence in 4 therapeutic classes: anticoagulants (OR = 1.25, P = 0.005), cardiac medications (OR = 1.20, P < 0.001), statins (OR = 1.21, P < 0.001), and antidepressants (OR = 1.15, P < 0.001). There was a positive ROI of $18.50 per dollar spent, which equated to a cumulative net savings of $11 million over 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In a large health plan, expanding MTM eligibility, intensifying patient follow-up contact and pharmacist involvement, and improving provider awareness had favorable clinical and economic benefits. DISCLOSURES: There was no funding for this project except employees' time. All authors are employees of UPMC and have no conflicts of interest to report.

The effects of coding intensity in Medicare Advantage on plan benefits and finances.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how beneficiary premiums, expected out-of-pocket costs, and plan finances in the Medicare Advantage (MA) market are related to coding intensity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: MA plan characteristics and administrative records from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the sample of beneficiaries enrolled in both MA and Part D between 2008 and 2015. Medicare claims and drug utilization data for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were used to calibrate an independent measure of health risk. STUDY DESIGN: Coding intensity was measured by comparing the CMS risk score for each MA contract with a contract level risk score developed using prescription drug data. We conducted regressions of plan outcomes, estimating the relationship between outcomes and coding intensity. To develop prescription drug scores, we assigned therapeutic classes to beneficiaries based on their prescription drug utilization. We then regressed nondrug spending for TM beneficiaries in 2015 on demographic and therapeutic class identifiers for 2014 and used the coefficients to predict relative risk. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that, for each $1 increase in potential revenue resulting from coding intensity, MA plan bid submissions declined by $0.10 to $0.19, and another $0.21 to $0.45 went toward reducing plans' medical loss ratios, an indication of higher profitability. We found only a small impact on beneficiary's projected out-of-pocket costs in a plan, which serves as a measure of the generosity of plan benefits, and a $0.11 to $0.16 reduction in premiums. As expected, coding intensity's effect on bids was substantially larger in counties with higher levels of MA competition than in less competitive counties. CONCLUSIONS: While coding intensity increases taxpayers' costs of the MA program, enrollees and plans both benefit but with larger gains for plans. The adoption of policies to more completely adjust for coding intensity would likely affect both beneficiaries and plan profits.

Medicare Part D: Time for Re-Modernization?

OBJECTIVE: To understand the mechanisms that have held Part D beneficiary premiums stable despite increasing reinsurance subsidies. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data on Part D plan bids, federal subsidies, and claims from 2007 through 2015. STUDY DESIGN: Comparisons of standardized, enrollment-weighted average Part D plan bids and reinsurance bids with plan and reinsurance liability calculated from Part D claims data. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Part D plan payment data were merged with premium data to derive plan bids, which were merged with claims-based spending measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Plan bids and reinsurance bids increasingly diverged from the spending observed in the claims data over the study period. This divergence was attributable to the growth in rebates and systematic under-bidding of expected reinsurance payments, enabling plans to hold premiums low and collect excess federal subsidies of approximately 3 percent of total Part D spending in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Revenue from rebates and excess federal subsidies via reinsurance reconciliation has played an important role in holding Part D premiums low, despite increasing federal reinsurance subsidies. While policy makers should consider implementing reforms to address these misincentives in the program, doing so is likely to result in unavoidable premium increases to levels more reflective of actual net spending.

Impact of Star Rating Medication Adherence Measures on Adherence for Targeted and Nontargeted Medications.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, Medicare incorporated medication adherence targeting oral antidiabetic medications, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists, and statins as highly weighted components in its Star Ratings Program. In the same year, health plans began receiving quality bonus payments for higher star ratings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how these policy changes affected adherence to targeted and other chronic disease medications in the United States. METHODS: We performed interrupted time series analyses to assess monthly changes in medication adherence from 2010 to 2016 using health plans' Medicare claims submitted to a large pharmacy benefits manager. We conducted 2 sets of analyses. The first examined whether policy changes affected adherence to the 3 targeted therapy classes, and the second assessed the association between policy changes and adherence to 5 chronic disease classes not targeted by star ratings. For the second analysis, we further compared adherence between members who concomitantly used and did not use targeted medications. RESULTS: For star-ratings analyses, we studied 240 811 members on oral antidiabetic medications, 500 958 on RAS antagonists, and 471 135 on statins. Adherence for all star rating-targeted and nontargeted medications increased after 2012 (P < .001). Oral antidiabetic, statin, and RAS antagonist adherence was, respectively, 11.2%, 3.7%, and 8.1% higher than adherence without policy changes (P < .001). Nontargeted antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic adherence trends were higher among those concomitantly on star rating-targeted medications compared with those who were not (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: As policy makers strive to identify optimal quality measures for improving healthcare delivery, it is important to consider that incentives can promote improved performance in both targeted measures and related outcomes.

A pharmacy-based referral program to assist low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: The Certified Aging Resource Educated Specialist (C.A.R.E.S.) Program was developed to increase pharmacist awareness of available programs for Medicare patients with limited income and to integrate an efficient referral process into the pharmacy workflow. The objective is to describe the program in terms of pharmacy personnel satisfaction, pharmacy personnel knowledge, and network outcomes including enrollment and referrals. SETTING: Alabama community pharmacies. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: The C.A.R.E.S. Program, a partnership between the School of Pharmacy and the Alabama Department of Senior Services, has recruited pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy students to participate on a voluntary basis since its launch in 2015. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Pharmacies with at least one pharmacist who completed the comprehensive training program can enroll in the pharmacy network. Enrolled pharmacies receive a referral kit containing referral cards and prestamped envelopes. Pharmacy personnel identify patients who appear to have limited income or fall into the Medicare coverage gap and refer these patients to local Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs). ADRC counselors contact and screen referred patients for all available benefits, including the Medicare Savings Program and the Low-Income Subsidy. EVALUATION: One hundred seventy-nine pharmacy personnel have completed the 1-hour introductory continuing pharmacy education, with 99 completing the full 3-hour training. Knowledge was assessed before and immediately after training with an online survey and compared using a paired samples t test. RESULTS: Mean knowledge scores increased significantly (P < 0.001). Twenty-nine pharmacies have enrolled in the pharmacy network. As a result of this pharmacy referral system, 130 patients have been screened for subsidy programs by ADRC counselors. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first identifiable program connecting local pharmacies and ADRCs, equipping pharmacists with the knowledge and means to provide long-term solutions for patients. Other states might consider replicating this partnership to develop similar programs to benefit Medicare beneficiaries with limited income.

Findings from a National Survey of Medicare Beneficiary Perspectives on the Medicare Part D Medication Therapy Management Standardized Format.

BACKGROUND: The Medication Therapy Management (MTM) Program Standardized Format (SF) is a written summary of a comprehensive medication review (CMR) that must be provided to Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Concerns have been raised regarding the number of pages of the SF, mailing costs, the static nature of the document, and the lack of integration into beneficiaries' electronic health records. To date, limited research exists on beneficiaries' perceptions of the SF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perspectives of beneficiaries regarding the utility of the SF to inform potential modifications for optimal use. METHODS: An online survey, designed based on the standard approach to measuring patient satisfaction with health service attributes and previous qualitative research, was distributed through Medicare Part D plans to beneficiaries who had received a CMR in the past year. Survey distribution began July 1, 2018, and data collection ended on October 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics are reported for demographic information; health status; perceived value and helpfulness of the SF and its 3 components (cover letter, medication action plan [MAP], personal medication list [PML]); updates to the SF; alternate formatting; and integration of the SF into health records. RESULTS: A total of 9,975 surveys were sent electronically by 4 Medicare Part D plans to beneficiaries who had received a CMR in the past year. Of the 434 unduplicated survey respondents (response rate of 4.3%), 58.5% were aged 65 to 84 years; 60% identified themselves as white; and 49.1% had at least a college education. The most commonly reported comorbidities were diabetes (50.5%) and high cholesterol (43.1%), with 10.7% of respondents rating their health as "very good" or "excellent" and 27.4% choosing "poor" or "fair." Beneficiaries rated how well the SF helped improve different aspects of their medication management (e.g., solving medication-related problems, keeping track of medications, correctly using medications, and understanding why medications are being taken), with 40.8%-44.9% choosing "very good" to "excellent" for each aspect. Helpful sections included "What we talked about" and "What I need to do"for the MAP, and medication name, strength, dosage form, and "How and why I use the medication" for the PML. Less helpful were the fill-in sections of the MAP, with 48.6% reporting that they did not write in any information. In contrast, 44.7% of the participants noted that they updated their PML. A wallet card version of the PML, if available, would be used by 54.6% of participants. About one third of Medicare beneficiaries shared the SF with their doctor, and 26% of the participants gave copies of their medication summary to their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of the respondents perceived the SF as very good or excellent in helping them to manage their medications. This national survey provides Medicare beneficiary-focused evidence that more work is needed to improve the usability and portability of the SF. This can be achieved by allowing flexibility in the design of the SF, while including essential elements. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), which provided a grant to the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy to conduct this study. Carden and Kumbera are AMCP employees. Brandt reports a grant from IMPAQ and consulting fees from Rand, outside of this study. Pellegrin is a member of the AMCP MTM Advisory Board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

The Effect of Plan Type and Comprehensive Medication Reviews on High-Risk Medication Use.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted a star rating system using performance outcome measures to assess Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) and Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) providers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between 2 performance outcome measures for Medicare insurance providers, comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), and high-risk medication use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included Medicare Part C and Part D performance data from the 2014 and 2015 calendar years. Performance data were downloaded per Medicare contract from the CMS. We matched Medicare insurance provider performance data with the enrollment data of each contract. Mann Whitney U and Spearman rho tests and a hierarchical linear regression model assessed the relationship between provider characteristics, high-risk medication use, and CMR completion rate outcome measures. RESULTS: In 2014, an inverse correlation between CMR completion rate and high-risk medication use was identified among MAPD plan providers. This relationship was further strengthened in 2015. No correlation was detected between the CMR completion rate and high-risk medication use among PDP plan providers in either year. A multivariate regression found an inverse association with high-risk medication use among MAPD plan providers in comparison with PDP plan providers in 2014 (beta = -0.358, P < 0.001) and 2015 (beta = -0.350, P < 0.001), the CMR completion rate in 2015 (beta = -0.221, P < 0.001), and enrollee population size in 2015 (beta = -0.203, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that MAPD plan providers and higher CMR completion rates were associated with lower use of high-risk medications among beneficiaries. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Silva Almodovar reports a fellowship funded by SinfoniaRx, Tucson, Arizona, during the time of this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Impact of telephonic comprehensive medication reviews on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of studies on medication therapy management (MTM) have focused on the conduct of in-person comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs). Although face-to-face MTM services may be the most well-known mode of delivery, there are other ways CMRs can be implemented as part of an MTM service. Specifically, telephonic CMR is an alternative method of offering MTM services that many patients may welcome. The purpose of this commentary was to highlight current findings regarding the impact of telephonic CMRs as a component of MTM services on health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Review of available literature analyzing the impact of telephonic CMRs on health outcomes. METHODS: PubMed was used to identify studies published between January 1980 and December 2016 using the search terms medication therapy management (MTM), telephonic MTM, comprehensive medication reviews, and targeted medication reviews. This search was limited to publications in English. Case reports were excluded. RESULTS: CMRs conducted telephonically as part of an MTM program may potentially reduce healthcare expenditures, hospitalizations, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although study results have shown telephonic CMRs to be an effective way to enhance patient care and reduce healthcare expenditures, the components of telephonic MTM programs that make them most effective and the population on which they have the greatest impact are unknown. Moving forward, further evaluation of these programs is necessary to determine which specific factors, such as access to patient electronic health records, patient follow-up frequency, and the use of collaborative practice agreements, are most vital to improving patient outcomes.

Impact of formulary restrictions on medication use and costs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of formulary restrictions on utilization and costs of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), statins, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists among low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients in Medicare Part D plans. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed a 5% sample of 2012 Medicare data from the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse together with a customized dataset capturing beneficiaries' histories of plan assignment. METHODS: We constructed 3 nonexclusive study cohorts comprising of users of OHAs, statins, and RAS antagonists. Eligible study subjects were LIS recipients randomized to benchmark plans. Formulary restrictions of interest were noncoverage, prior authorization, and step therapy. Study outcomes included generic dispensing rate (GDR), mean cost per prescription fill, and medication adherence based on proportion of days covered (PDC). Random intercept regression models were performed to estimate the effects of formulary restrictions on the study outcomes by drug class. RESULTS: After covariate adjustment, beneficiaries who were subject to formulary restrictions on brand name pioglitazone and single-source brand name dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and sitagliptin-metformin) had a GDR 3 percentage points higher and a cost per prescription fill $10.8 less, but similar PDC compared with those who faced no restrictions. Restricting access to brand name atorvastatin and single-source brand name statins (rosuvastatin and ezetimibe-simvastatin) was associated with a GDR 14.9 percentage points higher and a cost per prescription fill $29.6 less, but with no impact on PDC. Restricting use of single-source brand name RAS antagonists (olmesartan, valsartan, and valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide) was associated with a GDR 15.0 percentage points higher, a cost per prescription fill $27.2 less, and a PDC 1.3 percentage points lower. CONCLUSIONS: Placing formulary restrictions on brand name drugs shifts utilization toward generic drugs, lowers the overall cost per prescription fill, and has minimal impact on overall adherence for OHAs, statins, and RAS antagonists among LIS recipients.

In-gap discounts in Medicare Part D and specialty drug use.

OBJECTIVES: Specialty drugs can bring significant benefits to patients, but they can be expensive. Medicare Part D plans charge relatively high cost-sharing costs for specialty drugs. A provision in the Affordable Care Act reduced cost sharing in the Part D coverage gap phase in an attempt to mitigate the financial burden of beneficiaries with high drug spending. We examined the early impact of the Part D in-gap discount on specialty cancer drug use and patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. STUDY DESIGN: Natural experimental design. METHODS: We compared changes in outcomes before and after the in-gap discount among beneficiaries with and without low-income subsidies (LIS). Beneficiaries with LIS, who were not affected by the in-gap discount, made up the control group. We studied a random sample of elderly standalone prescription drug plan enrollees with relatively uncommon cancers (eg, leukemia, skin, pancreas, kidney, sarcomas, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma) between 2009 and 2013. We constructed 4 outcome variables annually: 1) use of any specialty cancer drug, 2) the number of specialty cancer drug fills, 3) total specialty drug spending, and 4) OOP spending for specialty cancer drugs. RESULTS: The in-gap discount did not influence specialty cancer drug use, but reduced annual OOP spending for specialty cancer drugs among users without LIS by $1108. CONCLUSIONS: In-gap discounts in Part D decreased patients' financial burden to some extent, but resulted in no change in specialty drug use. As demand for specialty drugs increases, it will be important to ensure patients' access to needed drugs, while simultaneously reducing their financial burden.

Does the offer of free prescriptions increase generic prescribing?

OBJECTIVES: To test if offering zero generic co-pays for oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and statins increases generic dispensing for low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients with diabetes enrolled in Medicare Part D. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed a natural experiment in which LIS recipients were randomized to Part D plans in 2008. Some plans placed selected generic OADs and statins on zero co-pay tiers whereas others did not. Randomization eliminated selection effects which could bias the study findings. METHODS: We analyzed a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes from the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse using Part D claims, formulary provisions, and co-pay tiers together with a special file prepared by CMS that identified all randomly assigned LIS recipients in 2008. We calculated proportions using generic drugs in the 2 classes and annual days' supply among users in plans with and without zero co-pay tiers for the country as a whole and California (where zero co-pay plans were particularly popular). RESULTS: We found that the demand for generic OADs was not significantly different in plans with and without zero co-pay tiers. By contrast, a large difference was observed in the percent of LIS recipients using generic statins in plans with zero co-pay tiers (61.4% vs 54.6%; P <.01). However, the difference disappeared once we controlled for formulary restrictions on the most popular brand statin at the time (Lipitor). CONCLUSIONS: This cautionary tale suggests that policy makers should give greater consideration to formulary provisions when evaluating the effects of free generics in value-based insurance designs.

Can a More User-Friendly Medicare Plan Finder Improve Consumers' Selection of Medicare Plans?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy for consumers of two potential enhancements to the Medicare Plan Finder (MPF)-a simplified data display and a "quick links" home page designed to match the specific tasks that users seek to accomplish on the MPF. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Participants (N = 641) were seniors and adult caregivers of seniors who were recruited from a national online panel. Participants browsed a simulated version of the MPF, made a hypothetical plan choice, and reported on their experience. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a fully factorial design: 2 home pages (quick links, current MPF home page) × 2 data displays (simplified, current MPF display) × 2 plan types (stand-alone prescription drug plan [PDP], Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage [MA-PD]). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The quick links page resulted in more favorable perceptions of the MPF, improved users' understanding of the information, and increased the probability of choosing the objectively best plan. The simplified data display resulted in a more favorable evaluation of the website, better comprehension of the displayed information, and, among those choosing a PDP only, an increased probability of choosing the best plan. CONCLUSIONS: Design enhancements could markedly improve average website users' understanding, ability to use, and experience of using the MPF.

Comprehensive Medication Reviews in Long-term Care Facilities: History of Process Implementation and 2015 Results.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, Part D sponsors have been required to offer comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) to all beneficiaries enrolled in their medication therapy management (MTM) programs at least annually, including those in long-term care (LTC) settings. Since that time, MTM providers have found that accessing and completing CMRs with beneficiaries is frequently prohibitively complex, since the process often requires a live, face-to-face interactive interview where the beneficiary resides. However, with the migration of the CMR completion rate from a star ratings display measure to an active measure, coupled with the new CMR completion rate cutpoints for 2016, accessing this population for CMR completion has heightened importance. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Our proprietary consultant pharmacist (CP) software was programmed in 2012 to produce a cover letter, medication action plan, and personal medication list per CMS standardized format specifications. Using this system, CPs were trained to perform and document CMRs and the interactive interviews. MTM-eligible Part D beneficiaries, identified by several contracted clients as residing in LTC serviced by Omnicare, were provided CMRs and summaries written in CMS standardized format by CPs. Residents with cognitive impairment were identified using 3 data elements in the Minimum Data Set (MDS). OBSERVATIONS: In 2015, 7,935 MTM-eligible beneficiaries were identified as receiving medications from an Omnicare pharmacy. After excluding those who were disenrolled by their prescription drug plans, discharged from the LTC facility, or resided in a LTC facility no longer serviced by Omnicare, 5,593 residents were available for CMR completion. Of these, only 3% refused the CMR offer, and 5,392 CMRs (96%) were completed successfully. Thirty-nine percent of residents had cognitive impairment per MDS assessments; in those instances, CMRs were conducted with someone other than the beneficiary. Based on the CMRs and interactive interviews, 7,527 drug therapy problem recommendations were made to prescribers, about 50% of which resulted in an alteration in therapy, including reductions in polypharmacy and high-risk medications. IMPLICATIONS: The CMR process and written summary in CMS standardized format works effectively for residents in LTC when performed by CPs in the facility, as evidenced by high completion rates and drug therapy problem identification/resolution. Part D plans should further consider using CPs to conduct CMRs in LTC settings. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. All authors are employees of Omnicare, a CVS Health Company, and are stockholders of CVS Health. O'Shea and Zarowitz have received research funding (unrelated to the submitted work) from Acadia, AstraZeneca, and Sunovion. The abstract for this article was presented as a research poster at the Academy of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 21, 2016; San Francisco, California. Study concept and design were contributed by O'Shea and Zarowitz, along with Erwin. O'Shea collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by O'Shea, along with Zarowitz and Erwin. The manuscript was written by O'Shea, along with Zarowitz, and revised primarily by Zarowitz, along with O'Shea and Erwin.

Navigating Medicare Part D Websites: Are the Part D Plans in Compliance?

Today, more than one half of older adults use the internet to obtain health-related information, and there is growing interest from governmental agencies in providing information online. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides guidance to Part D prescription drug plan sponsors about information to include on their websites. The current article examines compliance with the 2014 CMS guidance for Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program information on Part D plan sponsors' websites. There were 59.5% of plan sponsors that had a dedicated MTM program webpage, accessible within two clicks from the plan sponsor's home page and provided basic information, eligibility for MTM services, and access to a blank copy of a personalized medication list document. Although improvements in the provision of information about plan sponsors' MTM programs can be made, future work should evaluate the usability and effectiveness of the online MTM program information provided to Medicare beneficiaries. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 42(10), 9-14.].

Eligibility For And Enrollment In Medicare Part D Medication Therapy Management Programs Varies By Plan Sponsor.

Medicare Part D prescription drug plans must offer medication therapy management to beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and high drug expenditures. However, plan sponsors have considerable latitude in setting eligibility criteria. Newly available data indicate that enrollment rates in medication therapy management among stand-alone prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage drug plans averaged only 10 percent in 2012. The enrollment variation across plan sponsors-from less than 0.2 percent to more than 57.0 percent-was associated with the restrictiveness of their eligibility criteria. For example, enrollment was 16.4 percent in plans requiring two chronic conditions versus 9.2 percent in plans requiring three, and 12.7 percent in plans requiring the use of any Part D drug versus 4.4 percent in plans requiring the use of drugs in specific classes. This variation represents inequities in access to medication therapy management across plans and results in missed opportunities for interventions that might improve therapeutic outcomes and reduce spending. The new Part D Enhanced Medication Therapy Management model of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to significantly increase the impact of medication therapy management by aligning financial incentives with improvements in medication use and encouraging innovation.

Medicare program; contract year 2016 policy and technical changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit programs. Final rule.

This final rule amends the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D) regulations to implement statutory requirements; improve program efficiencies; strengthen beneficiary protections; clarify program requirements; improve payment accuracy; and make various technical changes. Additionally, this rule finalizes two technical changes that reinstate previously approved but erroneously removed regulation text sections.