Health Care Service Price Comparison Suggests That Employers Lack Leverage To Negotiate Lower Prices.

Almost two-thirds of the 153 million nonelderly people in the United States who have health insurance through their employer are in self-insured plans. In contrast to fully insured plans, employers using self-insured plans assume responsibility for employees' medical costs and therefore have an incentive to reduce the prices of health care services. We compared prices for common services in self-insured plans with those in fully insured plans. Using the Health Care Cost Institute's data set of claims for one-third of the US population with employer-sponsored insurance, we found that unadjusted prices were higher in self-insured plans for most of the services we studied, with the largest differences found for endoscopies (approximately 8 percent higher in self-insured plans), colonoscopies (approximately 7 percent), laboratory tests (approximately 5 percent), and moderate-severity emergency department visits (4 percent). When patient characteristics, plan type, and geography were adjusted for, differences were generally smaller but were consistent with these findings. Higher prices in self-insured plans suggest that there may be opportunities for employers to lower prices and for policy makers to act where employers have limited leverage to negotiate with providers.

Service Utilization for Parent Management of Early Childhood Behavior Problems in a Private Outpatient Behavioral Clinic: The Impact of Out-of-Pocket Cost, Travel Distance, and Initial Treatment Progress.

Poorly-managed early childhood disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) have costly psychological and societal burdens. While parent management training (PMT) is recommended to effectively manage DBDs, appointment adherence is poor. Past studies on influential factors of PMT appointment adherence focused on parental factors. Less well studied are social drivers relative to early treatment gains. This study investigated how financial and time cost relative to early gains influence PMT appointment adherence for early childhood DBDs in a clinic of a large behavioral health pediatric hospital from 2016 to 2018. Using information obtained from the clinic's data repository, claims records, public census and geospatial data, we assessed how owed unpaid charges, travel distance from home to clinic, and initial behavioral progress influences total and consistent attendance of appointments for commercially- and publicly-insured (Medicaid and Tricare) patients, controlling for demographic, service, and clinical differences. We further assessed how social deprivation interacted with unpaid charges to influence appointment adherence for commercially-insured patients. Commercially-insured patients had poorer appointment adherence with longer travel distances, or having unpaid charges and greater social deprivation; they also attended fewer total appointments with faster behavioral progress. Comparatively, publicly-insured patients were not affected by travel distance and had higher consistent attendance with faster behavioral progress. Longer travel distance and difficulty paying service costs while living in greater social deprivation are barriers to care for commercially-insured patients. Targeted intervention may be needed for this specific subgroup to attend and stay engaged in treatment.

Comparison of Prices for Commonly Administered Drugs in Employer-Sponsored Insurance Relative to Medicare.

This cross-sectional study compares unit prices and price growth in employer-sponsored insurance and Medicare over 2016 through 2020 for physician-administered drugs with the highest use and those with the highest spending.

Factors Associated With Overuse of Health Care Within US Health Systems: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries From 2016 to 2018.

Importance: Overuse of health care is a pervasive threat to patients that requires measurement to inform the development of interventions. Objective: To measure low-value health care use within health systems in the US and explore features of the health systems associated with low-value care delivery. Design Setting and Participants: In this cross-sectional analysis, we identified occurrences of 17 low-value services in 3745 hospitals and affiliated outpatient sites. Hospitals were linked to 676 health systems in the US using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of Health Systems. The participants were 100% of Medicare beneficiaries with claims from 2016 to 2018. Exposures: We identified occurrences of 17 low-value services in 3839 hospitals and affiliated outpatient sites. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitals were linked to health systems using AHRQ's Compendium of Health Systems. Between March and August 2021, we modeled overuse occurrences with a negative binomial regression model including the year-quarter, procedure indicator, and a health system indicator. The model included random effects for hospital and beneficiary age, sex, and comorbidity count specific to each indicator, hospital, and quarter. The beta coefficients associated with the health system term, normalized, reflect the tendency of that system to use low-value services relative to all other systems. With ordinary least squares regression, we explored health system characteristics associated with the Overuse Index (OI), expressed as a standard deviation where the mean across all health systems is 0. Results: There were 676 unique health systems assessed in our study that included from 1 to 163 hospitals (median of 2). The mean age of eligible beneficiaries was 75.5 years and 76% were women. Relative to the lowest tertile, health systems in the upper tertile of medical groups count and bed count had an OI that was higher by 0.38 standard deviations (SD) and 0.44 SD, respectively. Health systems that were primarily investor owned had an OI that was 0.56 SD higher than those that were not investor owned. Relative to the lowest tertile, health systems in the upper tertile of primary care physicians, upper tertile of teaching intensity, and upper quartile of uncompensated care had an OI that was lower by 0.59 SD, 0.45 SD, and 0.47 SD, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US health systems, higher amounts of overuse among health systems were associated with investor ownership and fewer primary care physicians. The OI is a valuable tool for identifying potentially modifiable drivers of overuse and is adaptable to other levels of investigation, such as the state or region, which might be affected by local policies affecting payment or system consolidation.

Medicare Advantage coverage restrictions for the costliest physician-administered drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of step therapy, prior authorization, and Part D formulary exclusion by 4 large Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers to manage 20 physician-administered drugs with the highest total Medicare expenditures (top 20 drugs). STUDY DESIGN: We collected data for United Healthcare, CVS/Aetna, Humana, and Kaiser plans to create a database of 2020 Part B coverage restrictions and conducted a retrospective analysis of 2018-2020 Part D formularies. METHODS: For each insurer, we calculated the number of top 20 physician-administered drugs subject to prior authorization and step therapy. For physician-administered drugs for which there were no similar or interchangeable alternatives, we examined which insurers required prior authorization or step therapy. Finally, we examined whether insurers restricted access to physician-administered drugs by reducing coverage on Part D formularies. RESULTS: Of the top 20 physician-administered drugs, 17 were subject to prior authorization and 10 were subject to step therapy by at least 1 insurer. For 5 physician-administered drugs without a similar or interchangeable alternative, none were subject to step therapy and all were subject to prior authorization by at least 1 insurer. Across the 4 insurers, 16 physician-administered drugs were covered on all or some of the Part D formularies in 2018, which decreased to 6 in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Four large MA insurers managed access to expensive physician-administered drugs with a combination of prior authorization, step therapy, and Part D formulary design. When a low-cost alternative exists, these tools can help reduce wasteful spending, but the administrative barriers may also reduce access.

Site-based payment differentials for ambulatory services among individuals with commercial insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare prices paid by commercial insurers for ambulatory services in physician office and hospital outpatient settings. DATA SOURCES: MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database obtained from Truven Health Analytics. STUDY DESIGN: We examined ambulatory service claims for a sample of privately insured individuals who were continuously enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, preferred provider organization plan, high-deductible/consumer-driven health plan, or exclusive provider organization plan in 2018. We categorized services into five categories: Evaluation & Management, Medical Services & Procedures, Pathology/Lab, Radiology, and Surgical. We identified services commonly provided in both outpatient and office settings and computed the price differential between outpatient and office services overall and for each service category, controlling for observable patient characteristics and geography. DATA COLLECTION: We examined 89 services (defined by Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code) that were provided in both office and outpatient settings in our sample (102.7 million claims, 8.3 million individuals). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adjusting for patient and geographic characteristics and across all services, total payment for an ambulatory service was, on average, 145% higher in a hospital outpatient department than the same service in a physician office. Out-of-pocket spending was 109% higher. Price differences between outpatient and office services were highest for pathology/laboratory services. Patients receiving services in outpatient departments had higher mean risk scores and received more services on the date of their visit (in addition to the index CPT being studied) than patients receiving the same index CPT in a physician's office. CONCLUSIONS: Payments in hospital outpatient departments were significantly higher than payments for the same services in physician offices among commercially insured patients. Policies such as site-neutral payment would lower costs and could reduce incentives for further consolidation in health care markets. Care must be given to adjusting for patient severity across settings.

Patient cognitive impairment associated with higher home health care delivery costs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether home health agencies incur significantly higher care delivery costs for patients with cognitive impairment across three timeframes relevant to home health payment policy. DATA SOURCES: Linked Medicare home health claims and patient assessments, National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), and home health agency cost reports for a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health between 2011 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We modeled care delivery costs incurred by the home health agency as a function of patient cognitive impairment using multivariable, propensity score-adjusted, generalized linear models. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified NHATS participants who experienced an index home health episode between 2011 and 2016 (n = 1214; weighted n = 5,856,333) and linked their NHATS survey data to standardized patient assessment and claims data for the episode, as well as cost report data for the home health agency that provided care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across the first 30, 60, and 120 days of caring for a patient with cognitive impairment, we estimate additional costs of care to the home health agency of $186.19 (p = 0.02), $282.46 (p = 0.01), and $740.91 (p = 0.04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Home health agencies incur significantly higher costs when caring for a patient with cognitive impairment. As patient cognitive function is not considered in the most recent Medicare home health reimbursement model, agencies may be disincentivized from providing care to those with cognitive impairment. Policy makers and researchers should carefully monitor home health access among Medicare beneficiaries with cognitive impairment and further investigate the inclusion of patient cognitive function in future risk adjustment models.

Participation, Pricing, and Enrollment in a Health Insurance "Public Option": Evidence From Washington State's Cascade Care Program.

Policy Points Policymakers considering introduction of a health insurance "public option" to lower health spending and reduce the number of uninsured can learn from Washington State, which offered the nation's first public option ("Cascade Care") through its state exchange in 2021. This article examines insurer participation, pricing, and enrollment in the Washington public option. The public option was the lowest-premium standard silver plan in 9 of the 19 counties in which it was offered. Cascade Care is available solely through private insurers. Voluntary participation of these insurers and uncertainty about the willingness of providers to participate may have hindered greater premium reductions and enrollment in the public option's first year. CONTEXT: State and federal policymakers considering introduction of a health insurance "public option" can learn from Washington State, which established the nation's first public option, with coverage beginning in January 2021. Public option plans were offered voluntarily by private insurers through the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and were subject to state-mandated plan design and payment requirements. METHODS: We used plan data from the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, linked to data from the US Census Bureau, the American Hospital Association, and InterStudy. We compared geographic availability and premiums of, and enrollment in, public option and non-public option plans, as well as characteristics of counties where the public option was available and counties where the public option was the lowest-premium plan. FINDINGS: At least one public option plan was available in 19 of 39 counties and was the lowest-premium option in 9 of the 19 counties where it was available. Five insurers offered public option plans, including one new entrant to the state and one new entrant to the Exchange. While public option availability was more common in counties where the Exchange was bigger and more competitive, public option plans had the lowest premium in smaller, less competitive counties. In the first year, 1% of enrollees selected the public option, in part due to automatic reenrollment of the majority of returning enrollees in their 2020 plan. CONCLUSIONS: Public option plans offered a low-premium choice in counties that otherwise had fewer affordable plans, but voluntary participation of insurers and providers and accompanying uncertainty about participation hindered widespread and substantial premium reductions. States should consider tying public option participation by insurers and providers to other state programs and using decision support tools to promote active enrollment. Federal policymakers can support state efforts while considering establishment of a national public option.

Prescribing of low- versus high-cost Part B drugs in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: Examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage is associated with more efficient prescribing of Part B drugs than traditional Medicare (TM) coverage. DATA SOURCES: Twenty percent sample of 2016 outpatient and carrier TM claims and MA encounter records and Master Beneficiary Summary File data. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed whether MA enrollees compared to TM enrollees more often received the low-cost Part B drug in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly effective drugs exist: (1) anti-VEGF agents to treat macular degeneration, (2) bone resorption inhibitors for osteoporosis, (3) bone resorption inhibitors for malignant neoplasms, and (4) intravenous iron for iron deficiency anemia. We then estimated differences in spending if TM prescribing aligned with MA prescribing. Finally, using linear probability models, we examined whether differences in MA and TM prescribing patterns were attributable to differences in the hospitals and clinician practices who treat MA and TM enrollees or differences in how these hospitals and clinician practices treat their MA versus TM patients. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all cases, a larger share of MA enrollees received the low-cost drug compared to TM enrollees, ranging from 8 percentage points higher for anemia to 16 percentage points higher for macular degeneration in the unadjusted analysis. Results were similar in regression analyses controlling for enrollee characteristics and market factors (5-13 percentage points). If TM prescribing matched MA prescribing, we estimated savings ranging from 6% to 20% of TM spending for each scenario. Differences in prescribing patterns were driven both by MA enrollees receiving treatment at more efficient hospitals and clinician practices and hospitals and clinician practices more often prescribing low-cost drugs to their MA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show MA enrollees were more likely than TM enrollees to receive low-cost Part B drugs in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly or equally effective treatment options exist.

Labor Market Concentration and Worker Contributions to Health Insurance Premiums.

In concentrated labor markets, where workers have fewer employers to choose from, employers may exploit their monopsony power by contributing less to workers' health benefits. This study examined if labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums. We combined publicly available data from the Census to calculate labor market concentration and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance/Employer Component to determine premium contributions from 2010 to 2016 for metropolitan areas. After controlling for year fixed-effects and market characteristics, we found that higher labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums, lower take-home income, and no change in employer contributions to premiums, consistent with the hypothesis that greater labor market concentration is associated with less generous health benefits. When evaluating the effects of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets, regulatory agencies should critically assess worker contributions to health insurance premiums.

Large self-insured employers lack power to effectively negotiate hospital prices.

OBJECTIVES: Self-insured employers cover more people than Medicare, Medicaid, or direct purchasers of private insurance.This study examined the ability of self-insured employers to negotiate hospital prices and the relationship between hospital prices and employer market power in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated cross-section analysis of commercial claims. METHODS: We used the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns data to estimate employer market power at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-year level and used the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims to estimate mean hospital prices and price ratios at the MSA-year level (2010-2016). We calculated descriptive statistics for employer market power, mean hospitalization prices, and a case mix-adjusted price ratio measure during the study period and analyzed the 10 most concentrated labor markets. We estimated MSA-year-level ordinary least squares regressions of hospitalization price and the price ratio measure on employer market power. RESULTS: Large self-insured employers had concentrated market power in very few MSAs in 2016. The mean value of our employer market power measure was 62 for 2016, compared with the mean value of 5410 for hospital market power in the United States. Regression analyses find a slight relationship: A 1-point increase in employer market power was associated with a $6.61 decrease in the hospitalization price (mean = $20,813), but this result becomes statistically insignificant once the models control for hospital wages. CONCLUSIONS: Employer market power is low in most MSAs. Self-insured employers may consider building purchase alliances with state and local government employee groups to enhance their market power and lower negotiated prices for hospital services.

Frequency and Costs of Out-of-Network Bills for Outpatient Laboratory Services Among Privately Insured Patients.

Importance: Patients may be unaware of which laboratory is processing their clinical tests, limiting their ability to choose an in-network laboratory. Out-of-network laboratory services could increase patients' out-of-pocket costs and their reluctance to obtain necessary tests. Objective: To evaluate the frequency and cost of out-of-network bills for outpatient laboratory services compared with other services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of claims data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims database evaluated claims from 3 946 210 individuals (30.5% of the total) in the MarketScan database who were continually enrolled in health maintenance organization plans, preferred provider organization plans, exclusive provider organization plans, or consumer-driven health plans/high-deductible health plans with at least 1 outpatient clinical laboratory service in 2018. Outpatient laboratory services occurred in independent laboratories, physician offices, and outpatient centers. Laboratory bills from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, were studied. Exposures: Receipt and cost of outpatient laboratory service. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatient laboratory services billed as out of network. The secondary outcome was the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with the out-of-network bill, the sum of observed cost sharing, and the potential balance bill. Results: Of the 12 958 130 in the total sample, 30.5% (3 946 210) had a laboratory test, of whom 5.9% received an out-of-network laboratory test. In comparison, 7.1% of the total sample had an emergency department visit, of whom 4.9% had a service billed as out of network, and 1.6% had an inpatient anesthesiology service, of whom 3.4% had an out-of-network service. Observed out-of-pocket spending was $24.59 higher for an out-of-network laboratory service than an in-network laboratory service. In addition, patients with an out-of-network laboratory service may receive an additional balance bill from the laboratory service; the estimated mean balance bill was $80.63. For the most common laboratory services, the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with an out-of-network bill ranged from $15.68 for venipuncture to $88.09 for lipid panel but was as high as $303.18 for a drug screening test. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, out-of-network laboratory services were 5 times more common than out-of-network emergency department visits and 34 times more common than out-of-network anesthesiology services. It is important for patients that consumer protections against out-of-network bills apply to laboratory services.

Characteristics of Copayment Offsets for Prescription Drugs in the United States.

Importance: Despite ongoing debate regarding the high prices that patients pay for prescription drugs, to our knowledge, little is known regarding the use of coupons, vouchers, and other types of copayment "offsets" that reduce patients' out-of-pocket drug spending. Although offsets reduce patients' immediate cost burden, they may encourage the use of higher-cost products and diminish health insurers' ability to optimize pharmaceutical value. Objective: To examine the drugs most commonly covered by offsets, the percentage of out-of-pocket costs covered by offsets, and the characteristics of patients using offsets for retail pharmacy transactions in the United States in 2017 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of a 5% nationally random sample of anonymized pharmacy claims from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer, which captures more than 60% of all US pharmacy transactions. This analysis focused on 631 249 individuals who used at least 1 offset between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Offset source, types of drugs covered by offsets, offset dollar value and percentage of out-of-pocket payment covered, and county characteristics of offset recipients. Results: The 631 249 individuals in the study (361 855 female participants [57.3%]; mean [SD] age, 45.7 [18.6] years) had approximately 33 million prescription fills, of which 12.8% had an offset used. Of these, 50.2% originated from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, 47.2% originated from a pharmacy or pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), and 2.6% originated from a state assistance program. A total of 80.0% of manufacturer-sponsored offsets were concentrated among 6.2% of unique products, and 79.9% of pharmacy-PBM offsets were concentrated among 4.9% of unique products. Most manufacturer offsets (88.2%) were for branded products, while most pharmacy-PBM offsets were for generic products (90.5%). The median manufacturer offset was $51.00, covering 87.1% of out-of-pocket costs; the median pharmacy-PBM offset was $16.30, covering 39.3% of out-of-pocket costs. There was no meaningful association between offset magnitude and county-level income, health insurance coverage, or race/ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of patient-level pharmacy claims from 2017 to 2019, approximately half of all offsets involved pharmacy-PBM contractual arrangements, and half were offered by manufacturers. All offsets were associated with a significant reduction in patients' out-of-pocket costs, were highly concentrated among a few drugs, and were generally not more generous among individuals in counties with lower income or larger Black or uninsured populations.

Physician Network Breadth and Plan Quality Ratings in Medicare Advantage.

This cross-sectional study examines the extent of narrow networks across Medicare Advantage, types of counties where they are common, enrollment in narrow network plans, and how networks are associated with star ratings.

Payment incentives and the use of higher-cost drugs: a retrospective cohort analysis of intravenous iron in the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVES: Medicare Part B payment methods incentivize the use of more expensive injectable and infused drugs. We examined prescribing patterns in the context of intravenous (IV) iron, for which multiple similarly safe and efficacious formulations exist, with wide variations in price. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of IV iron utilization and payment in the Medicare population between 2015 and 2017. METHODS: This analysis used a national, random 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with Part B claims for IV iron between January 2015 and December 2017-a period before, during, and after a national shortage of iron dextran. This sample included 66,710 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 Part B claim for IV iron. RESULTS: The greatest increase in utilization occurred in the most expensive iron formulation, ferric carboxymaltose; its market share rose from 27.4% of use in 2015 to 47.7% in 2017. The use of a less expensive formulation, iron dextran, decreased from 26.7% to 18.7% over the same period. An alternative payment model in Maryland hospitals was associated with markedly less utilization of ferric carboxymaltose, accounting for 4.7% of IV iron utilization in Maryland hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in the dispensing of a higher-priced IV iron formulation associated with a shortage of a less expensive drug that persisted once the shortage ended. These findings in IV iron have broader implications for Part B drug payment policy because the price of the drug determines the physician and health system payment.

The impact of global budget payment reform on systemic overuse in Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Medical overuse is a leading contributor to the high cost of the US health care system and is a definitive misuse of resources. Elimination of overuse could improve health care efficiency. In 2014, the State of Maryland placed the majority of its hospitals under an all-payer, annual, global budget for inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This program aims to control hospital use and spending. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the Maryland global budget program was associated with a reduction in the broad overuse of health care services. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of deidentified claims for 18-64 year old adults from the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. We matched 2 Maryland Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to 6 out-of-state comparison MSAs. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in systemic overuse in Maryland vs the comparison MSAs before (2011-2013) and after implementation (2014-2015) of the global budget program. Systemic overuse was measured using a semiannual Johns Hopkins Overuse Index. RESULTS: Global budgets were not associated with a reduction in systemic overuse. Over the first 1.5 years of the program, we estimated a nonsignificant differential change of -0.002 points (95%CI, -0.372 to 0.369; p = 0.993) relative to the comparison group. This result was robust to multiple model assumptions and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that Maryland hospitals met their revenue targets by reducing systemic overuse. Global budgets alone may be too blunt of an instrument to selectively reduce low-value care.

Comparing patient OOP spending for specialty drugs in Medicare Part D and employer-sponsored insurance.

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.

Innovative payment to scale up access to medications for opioid use disorder.

Bundled payments offer promise as a supplement to existing payment models to promote scaling up of opioid use disorder treatment using buprenorphine.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.