Cost-related Medication Nonadherence and Its Risk Factors Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Unaffordability of medications is a barrier to effective treatment. Cost-related nonadherence (CRN) is a crucial, widely used measure of medications access. OBJECTIVES: Our study examines the current national prevalence of and risk factors for CRN (eg, not filling, skipping or reducing doses) and companion measures in the US Medicare population. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey-weighted analyses included logistic regression and trends 2006-2016. SUBJECTS: Main analyses used the 2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Our study sample of 12,625 represented 56 million community-dwelling beneficiaries. MEASURES: Additional outcome measures were spending less on other necessities in order to pay for medicines and use of drug cost reduction strategies such as requesting generics. RESULTS: In 2016, 34.5% of enrollees under 65 years with disability and 14.4% of those 65 years and older did not take their medications as prescribed due to high costs; 19.4% and 4.7%, respectively, experienced going without other essentials to pay for medicines. Near-poor older beneficiaries with incomes $15-25K had 50% higher odds of CRN (vs. >$50K), but beneficiaries with incomes <$15K, more likely to be eligible for the Part D Low-Income Subsidy, did not have significantly higher risk. Three indicators of worse health (general health status, functional limits, and count of conditions) were all independently associated with higher risk of CRN. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the risk profile for CRN since Part D reflect the effectiveness of targeted policies. The persistent prevalence of CRN and associated risks for sicker people in Medicare demonstrate the consequences of high cost-sharing for prescription fills.

Near Real-time Surveillance for Consequences of Health Policies Using Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: New health policies may have intended and unintended consequences. Active surveillance of population-level data may provide initial signals of policy effects for further rigorous evaluation soon after policy implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the utility of sequential analysis for prospectively assessing signals of health policy impacts. As a policy example, we studied the consequences of the widely publicized Food and Drug Administration's warnings cautioning that antidepressant use could increase suicidal risk in youth. METHOD: This was a retrospective, longitudinal study, modeling prospective surveillance, using the maximized sequential probability ratio test. We used historical data (2000-2010) from 11 health systems in the US Mental Health Research Network. The study cohort included adolescents (ages 10-17 y) and young adults (ages 18-29 y), who were targeted by the warnings, and adults (ages 30-64 y) as a comparison group. Outcome measures were observed and expected events of 2 possible unintended policy outcomes: psychotropic drug poisonings (as a proxy for suicide attempts) and completed suicides. RESULTS: We detected statistically significant (P<0.05) signals of excess risk for suicidal behavior in adolescents and young adults within 5-7 quarters of the warnings. The excess risk in psychotropic drug poisonings was consistent with results from a previous, more rigorous interrupted time series analysis but use of the maximized sequential probability ratio test method allows timely detection. While we also detected signals of increased risk of completed suicide in these younger age groups, on its own it should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the policy caused the signal. A statistical signal indicates the need for further scrutiny using rigorous quasi-experimental studies to investigate the possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This was a proof-of-concept study. Prospective, periodic evaluation of administrative health care data using sequential analysis can provide timely population-based signals of effects of health policies. This method may be useful to use as new policies are introduced.

Effects of Transitioning to Medicare Part D on Access to Drugs for Medical Conditions among Dual Enrollees with Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage on the use of noncancer treatments among dual enrollees with cancer. METHODS: We leveraged a representative 5% national sample of all fee-for-service dual enrollees in the United States (2004-2007) to evaluate the impact of the removal of caps on the number of reimbursable prescriptions per month (drug caps) under Part D on 1) prevalence and 2) average days' supply dispensed for antidepressants, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering agents overall and by race (white and black). RESULTS: The removal of drug caps was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering medications (days' supply 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-5.70). Among blacks in capped states, we observed increased use of lipid-lowering therapy (any use 0.08 percentage points; 95% CI 0.05-0.10; and days' supply 4.01; 95% CI 2.92-5.09) and antidepressants (days' supply 2.20; 95% CI 0.61-3.78) and increasing trends in antihypertensive use (any use 0.01 percentage points; 95% CI 0.004-0.01; and days' supply 1.83; 95% CI 1.25-2.41). The white-black gap in the use of lipid-lowering medications was immediately reduced (-0.09 percentage points; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.04). We also observed a reversal in trends toward widening white-black differences in antihypertensive use (level -0.08 percentage points; 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05; and trend -0.01 percentage points; 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01) and antidepressant use (-0.004 percentage points; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the removal of drug caps under Part D had a modest impact on the treatment of hypercholesterolemia overall and may have reduced white-black gaps in the use of lipid-lowering and antidepressant therapies.

The Effects of the Transition From Medicaid to Medicare on Health Care Use for Adults With Mental Illness.

BACKGROUND: The transition from Medicaid-only to dual Medicare/Medicaid coverage has the potential to reduce financial barriers to health care for patients with serious mental illness through increased coverage or expanded access to clinicians as their reimbursement increases. AIMS: To estimate the effect of dual coverage after Medicaid enrollment during the required waiting period among adults with serious mental illness on health care use, overall and related to mental health and substance use disorders (MHSUD). METHODS: Data include enrollment and claims from Medicaid and Medicare in Missouri and South Carolina, from January 2004 to December 2007. We used an interrupted time-series design to estimate the effect of dual coverage on average use of outpatient, emergency department (ED), and inpatient care/month. RESULTS: After 12 months of dual coverage, the probability of outpatient care use increased in both states from 4% to 9%. In Missouri, the mean probability and frequency of ED visits, total and MHSUD related, increased by 21%-32%; the probability of all-cause and MHSUD-related inpatient admissions increased by 10% and 19%, respectively. In South Carolina, the mean probability of any inpatient admission increased by 27% and of any MHSUD-related inpatient admission by 42%. DISCUSSION: The increase in use of outpatient care is consistent with the expected increase in coverage of, and payment for, outpatient services under dual coverage relative to Medicaid-only. Sustained increases in ED and inpatient admissions raise questions regarding the complexity of obtaining care under 2 programs, pent-up demand among beneficiaries pretransition, and the complementarity of outpatient and inpatient service use.

Did Medicare Part D Affect National Trends in Health Outcomes or Hospitalizations? A Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D increased economic access to medications, but its effect on population-level health outcomes and use of other medical services remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in health outcomes and medical services in the Medicare population after implementation of Part D. DESIGN: Population-level longitudinal time-series analysis with generalized linear models. SETTING: Community. PATIENTS: Nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 56,293 [unweighted and unique]) from 2000 to 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in self-reported health status, limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) (ADLs and instrumental ADLs), emergency department visits and hospital admissions (prevalence, counts, and spending), and mortality. Medicare claims data were used for confirmatory analyses. RESULTS: Five years after Part D implementation, no clinically or statistically significant reductions in the prevalence of fair or poor health status or limitations in ADLs or instrumental ADLs, relative to historical trends, were detected. Compared with trends before Part D, no changes in emergency department visits, hospital admissions or days, inpatient costs, or mortality after Part D were seen. Confirmatory analyses were consistent. LIMITATIONS: Only total population-level outcomes were studied. Self-reported measures may lack sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Five years after implementation, and contrary to previous reports, no evidence was found of Part D's effect on a range of population-level health indicators among Medicare enrollees. Further, there was no clear evidence of gains in medical care efficiencies.

Persistent medication affordability problems among disabled Medicare beneficiaries after Part D, 2006-2011.

BACKGROUND: Disabled Americans who qualify for Medicare coverage typically have multiple chronic conditions, are highly dependent on effective drug therapy, and have limited financial resources, putting them at risk for cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN). Since 2006, the Part D benefit has helped Medicare beneficiaries afford medications. OBJECTIVE: To investigate recent national trends in medication affordability among this vulnerable population, stratified by morbidity burden. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We estimated annual rates of medication affordability among nonelderly disabled participants in a nationally representative survey (2006-2011, n=14,091 person-years) using multivariate logistic regression analyses. MEASURE: Survey-reported CRN and spending less on other basic needs to afford medicines. RESULTS: In the 6 years following Part D implementation, the proportion of disabled Medicare beneficiaries reporting CRN ranged from 31.6% to 35.6%, while the reported prevalence of spending less on other basic needs to afford medicines ranged from 17.7% to 21.8%. Across study years, those with multiple chronic conditions had consistently worse affordability problems. In 2011, the prevalence of CRN was 37.3% among disabled beneficiaries with ≥ 3 morbidities as compared with 28.1% among those with fewer morbidities; for spending less on basic needs, the prevalence was 25.4% versus 15.7%, respectively. There were no statistically detectable changes in either measure when comparing 2011 with 2007. CONCLUSIONS: Disabled Medicare beneficiaries continue to struggle to afford prescription medications. There is an urgent need for focused policy attention on this vulnerable population, which has inadequate financial access to drug treatments, despite having drug coverage under Medicare Part D.

Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

BACKGROUND: The use of lipid-lowering agents is suboptimal among dual enrollees, particularly blacks. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the removal of restrictive drug caps under Medicare Part D reduced racial differences among dual enrollees with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN: An interrupted time series with comparison series design (ITS) cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 8895 black and white diabetes patients aged 18 years and older drawn from a nationally representative sample of fee-for-service dual enrollees (January 2004-December 2007) in states with and without drug caps before Part D. MEASURES: We examined the monthly (1) proportion of patients with any use of lipid-lowering therapies; and (2) intensity of use. Stratification measures included age (less than 65, 65 y and older), race (white vs. black), and sex. RESULTS: At baseline, lipid-lowering drug use was higher in no drug cap states (drug cap: 54.0% vs. nondrug cap: 66.8%) and among whites versus blacks (drug cap: 58.5% vs. 44.9%, no drug cap: 68.4% vs. 61.9%). In strict drug cap states only, Part D was associated with an increase in the proportion with any use [nonelderly: +0.07 absolute percentage points (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09), P<0.001; elderly: +0.08 (0.06-0.10), P<0.001] regardless of race. However, we found no evidence of a change in the white-black gap in the proportion of users despite the removal of a significant financial barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part D was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering drugs, but racial gaps persisted. Understanding non-coverage-related barriers is critical in maximizing the potential benefits of coverage expansions for disparities reduction.

The relationship between emergency department use and cost-related medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between self-reported cost-related nonadherence to prescription medications and emergency department (ED) utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. We hypothesized that persons who report cost-related medication nonadherence would have subsequent higher ED use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries in 2006 and 2007. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between ED use and cost-related medication nonadherence. Our principal dependent variable was any ED visit within a 364-day period after an interview assessing cost-related medication nonadherence. Our principal independent variables both denoted cost-related medication nonadherence: mild cost-related medication nonadherence, defined as a reduction in dose or a delay in filling medications because of cost; and severe cost-related medication nonadherence, defined as not filling a medication at all because of cost. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 7,177 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey respondents. Approximately 7.5% of respondents reported mild cost-related medication nonadherence only (n=541) and another 8.2% reported severe cost-related medication nonadherence (n=581). Disabled Medicare beneficiaries with severe cost-related medication nonadherence were more likely to have at least 1 ED visit (1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.26) compared with both disabled Medicare beneficiaries without cost-related medication nonadherence and elderly Medicare beneficiaries in all cost-related medication nonadherence categories. CONCLUSION: Our results show an association between severe cost-related medication nonadherence and ED use. Disabled beneficiaries younger than 65 years who report severe cost-related medication nonadherence were more likely to have at least 1 ED visit, even when adjusting for other factors that affect utilization.

Use of antipsychotic medications in pediatric populations: what do the data say?

Recent reports of antipsychotic medication use in pediatric populations describe large increases in rates of use. Much interest in the increasing use has focused on potentially inappropriate prescribing for non-Food and Drug Administration-approved uses and use amongst youth with no mental health diagnosis. Different studies of antipsychotic use have used different time periods, geographic and insurance populations of youth, and aggregations of diagnoses. We review recent estimates of use and comment on the similarities and dissimilarities in rates of use. We also report new data obtained on 11 health maintenance organizations that are members of the Mental Health Research Network in order to update and extend the knowledge base on use by diagnostic indication. Results indicate that most use in pediatric populations is for disruptive behaviors and not psychotic disorders. Differences in estimates are likely a function of differences in methodology; however, there is remarkable consistency in estimates of use by diagnosis.

Medicare part D and changes in prescription drug use and cost burden: national estimates for the Medicare population, 2000 to 2007.

CONTEXT: The full effect of Medicare Part D, after the initial policy transition period and across the United States Medicare population, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To estimate nationally representative changes in prescription drug use and out-of-pocket drug costs 2 years after implementation of Part D. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined study outcomes over 8 years (2000 to 2007) and estimated changes after Part D, accounting for earlier trends. Our analyses used the community-dwelling sample of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (unweighted unique n=38,798). Actual post-Part D outcomes were compared with projected values using 2000 to 2005 data. Subgroup analyses and standardization weights were used to address population-level shifts over time in health status and demographic characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual prescription drug fills and out-of-pocket drug costs. RESULTS: We observed significant average per person increases of 1.8 prescription fills [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-2.5] in 2006 and 3.4 prescription fills (95% CI, 2.7-4.1) in 2007 above pre-Part D increases of 0.9 prescription fills per year. Average out-of-pocket drug costs decreased significantly by $143 (95% CI, -182.5--103.1) in 2006 and $148 (95% CI, -181.2--114.1) in 2007 above average pre-Part D increases of $12 per year. Prescription fills did not change for beneficiaries with fair to poor health until 2007 when large increases occurred (increases of 3.7 to 11.0 fills above pre-Part D trends). Significant reductions in OOP drug costs occurred in 2006 and persisted into 2007 across all groups except for sick and poor beneficiaries without Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: After the transition year of 2006, the impact of Part D seemed larger and more consistent across the Medicare population. Of note, sick and poor beneficiaries experienced significant improvements in prescription drug use in 2007.

Affordability of Medical Care Among Medicare Enrollees.

Importance: Cost-sharing requirements can discourage patients from seeking care and impose financial hardship. The Medicare program serves many older and disabled individuals with multimorbidity and limited resources, but little has been known about the affordability of care in this population. Objective: To examine the affordability of medical care among Medicare enrollees, in terms of the prevalence of delaying medical care because of costs and having problems paying medical bills, and risk factors for these outcomes. Design Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional analyses conducted from November 1, 2019, to October 15, 2021, used logistic regression to compare the probability of outcomes by demographic and health characteristics. Data were obtained from the 2017 nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (response rate, 61.7%), with respondents representing 53 million community-dwelling Medicare enrollees. Main Outcomes and Measures: New questions about medical care affordability were included in the 2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey: difficulty paying medical bills, ongoing medical debt, and contact by collection agencies. A companion survey question asked whether individuals had delayed seeking medical care because of worries about costs. Results: Respondents included 10 974 adults aged 65 years or older and 2197 aged 18 to 64 years; 54.2% of all respondents were women. The weighted proportions of Medicare enrollees with annual incomes below $25 000K were 30.7% in the older population and 67.4% in the younger group. Self-reported prevalence of delaying care because of cost was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%) among enrollees aged 65 years or older, 25.2% (95% CI, 21.8%-28.6%) among enrollees younger than 65 years, and 10.9% (95% CI, 9.9%-11.9%) overall. Similarly, 7.4% (95% CI, 6.6%-8.2%) of older enrollees had problems paying medical bills, compared with 29.8% (95% CI, 25.6%-34.1%) among those younger than 65 years and 10.8% (95% CI, 9.8%-11.9%) overall. Regarding specific payment problems, 7.9% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.9%) of enrollees overall experienced ongoing medical debt, contact by a collection agency, or both. In adjusted analyses, older adults with incomes $15 000 to $25 000 per year had odds of delaying care more than twice as high as those with incomes greater than $50 000 (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.82-3.39), and their odds of problems paying medical bills were more than 3 times as high (odds ratio, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.81-5.21). Older adults with 4 to 10 chronic conditions were more than twice as likely to have problems paying medical bills as those with 0 or 1 condition. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that unaffordability of medical care is common among Medicare enrollees, especially those with lower incomes, or worse health, or who qualify for Medicare based on disability. Policy reforms, such as caps on patient spending, are needed to reduce Medical cost burdens on the most vulnerable enrollees.

Impact of High-Deductible Health Plans on Medication Use Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, although medications may be subject to traditional copayment arrangements. This study examined effects of HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use and quality of care among individuals with bipolar disorder. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2014) for a national sample of 3,532 members with bipolar disorder, ages 12-64, continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤$500) and then for 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were matched to 18,923 contemporaneous individuals in low-deductible plans (control group). Outcome measures were out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, psychotropics for other disorders, and all other medications and appropriate laboratory monitoring for psychotropics. RESULTS: Relative to the control group, annual out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased 20.8% among HDHP members (95% confidence interval [CI]=14.9%-26.7%), and the absolute increase was $36 (95% CI=$25.9-$45.2). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (27.1%; 95% CI=17.4%-36.7%) and anticonvulsants (19.2%; 95% CI=11.9%-26.6%) but remained stable for lithium (-3.7%; 95% CI=-12.2% to 4.8%). No statistically significant changes were detected in use of bipolar disorder medications, other psychotropics, or all other medications or in appropriate laboratory monitoring for bipolar disorder medications. CONCLUSIONS: HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced a moderate increase in out-of-pocket spending for medications but preserved bipolar disorder medication use. Findings may reflect individuals' perceptions of the importance of these medications for their functioning and well-being.

Experiences of health care costs among people with employer-sponsored insurance and bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing disproportionately affects people with chronic illnesses needing more care. Our qualitative study examined lived experiences navigating insurance benefits and treatment for bipolar disorder, which requires ongoing access to behavioral specialists and psychotropic medications. METHODS: Forty semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals with bipolar disorder and employer-sponsored health insurance, or their family caregivers, explored health care needs, coverage details, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and perspectives on value. An iterative analytic approach identified salient themes. RESULTS: Most individuals in our sample faced an annual insurance deductible, from $350-$10,000. OOP costs for specialist visits ranged from $0-$450 and for monthly psychotropic medications from $0-$1650. Acute episodes and care for comorbidities, including medication side effects, added to cost burdens. Medication nonadherence due to OOP costs was rare; respondents frequently pointed to the necessity of medications: "whatever it takes to get those"; "it's a life or death situation." Respondents also prioritized visits to psychiatrist prescribers, though visits were maximally spaced because of cost. Psychotherapy was often deemed unaffordable and forgone, despite perceived need. Interviewees cited limited networks and high out-of-network costs as barriers to specialists. Cost-sharing sometimes led to debt, skimping on nonbehavioral care or other necessities, exacerbated or prolonged mood symptoms, and stress at home. LIMITATIONS: Volunteer respondents may not fully represent the target population. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with bipolar disorder in US employer-sponsored plans experience undertreatment, hardship, and adverse health consequences due to high cost-sharing. More nuanced insurance benefit designs should accommodate the needs of individuals with complex conditions.

Integrating Stakeholder Engagement With Claims-Based Research on Health Insurance Design and Bipolar Disorder.

Researchers increasingly recognize that stakeholder involvement enhances research relevance and validity. However, reports of patient engagement in research that relies on administrative records data are rare. The authors' collaborative project combined quantitative and qualitative studies of costs and access to care among U.S. adults with employer-sponsored insurance. The authors analyzed insurance claims to estimate the impacts on enrollee costs and utilization after patients with bipolar disorder were switched from traditional coverage to high-deductible health plans. In parallel, in-depth interviews explored people's experiences accessing treatment for bipolar disorder. Academic investigators on the research team partnered with the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA), a national advocacy organization for people with mood disorders. Detailed personal stories from DBSA-recruited volunteers informed and complemented the claims analyses. Several DBSA audience forums and a stakeholder advisor panel contributed regular feedback on study issues. These multiple engagement modes drew inputs of varying intensity from diverse community segments. Efforts to include new voices must acknowledge individuals' distinct interests and barriers to research participation. Strong engagement leadership roles ensure productive communication between researchers and stakeholders. The involvement of people with direct experience of care is especially necessary in research that uses secondary data. Longitudinal, adaptable partnerships enable colearning and higher-quality research that captures the manifold dimensions of patient experiences.

Measuring medicine prices in Peru: validation of key aspects of WHO/HAI survey methodology.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the possibility of bias due to the limited target list and geographic sampling of the World Health Organization (WHO)/Health Action International (HAI) Medicine Prices and Availability survey used in more than 70 rapid sample surveys since 2001. METHODS: A survey was conducted in Peru in 2005 using an expanded sample of medicine outlets, including remote areas. Comprehensive data were gathered on medicines in three therapeutic classes to assess the adequacy of WHO/HAI's target medicines list and the focus on only two product versions. WHO/HAI median retail prices were compared with average wholesale prices from global pharmaceutical sales data supplier IMS Health. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in overall availability or prices of target list medicines by retail location. The comprehensive survey of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, anti-diabetic, and anti-ulcer products revealed that some treatments not on the target list were costlier for patients and more likely to be unavailable, particularly in remote areas. WHO/HAI retail prices and IMS wholesale prices were strongly correlated for higher priced products, and weakly correlated for lower priced products (which had higher estimated retailer markups). CONCLUSIONS: The WHO/HAI survey approach strikes an appropriate balance between modest research costs and optimal information for policy. Focusing on commonly used medicines yields sufficient and valid results. Surveyors elsewhere should consider the limits of the survey data as well as any local circumstances, such as scarcity, that may call for extra field efforts.

Cost-related medication nonadherence among beneficiaries with depression following Medicare Part D.

CONTEXT: Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN) was problematic for Medicare beneficiaries with depressive symptoms before Medicare Part D. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in CRN and forgoing basic needs to pay for drugs among Medicare beneficiaries with and without depressive symptoms following Part D implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: The authors compared changes in outcomes between 2005 and 2006 before and after Part D with changes between 2004 and 2005 using logistic regression to control for demographic characteristics, health status, and historical trends. PARTICIPANTS: The community-dwelling sample of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (N = 24,234). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reports of CRN (skipping or reducing doses and not obtaining prescriptions) and spending less on basic needs to afford medicines. RESULTS: The unadjusted annual prevalence of CRN among beneficiaries with depressive symptoms was 27% (2004), 27% (2005), and 24% (2006), compared with 13%, 12%, and 9% among beneficiaries without depressive symptoms. The annual prevalence of spending less on basic needs was 22% (2004), 23% (2005), and 19% (2006), compared with 8%, 9%, and 5% among beneficiaries without depressive symptoms. Controlling for historical changes and demographic characteristics, CRN did not decline among beneficiaries with depressive symptoms compared with beneficiaries without depressive symptoms (ratio of Part D changes 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.32). Respondents with depressive symptoms seemed less likely to spend less on basic needs compared with individuals without depressive symptoms (0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.01); however, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a Medicare Part D goal to improve medication adherence among mentally ill beneficiaries, the disparity in economic access to medications between beneficiaries with and without depressive symptoms did not improve after the start of Part D.

Cost-related medication nonadherence and spending on basic needs following implementation of Medicare Part D.

CONTEXT: Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN) has been a persistent problem for individuals who are elderly and disabled in the United States. The impact of Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) on CRN is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in CRN and forgoing basic needs to pay for drugs following Part D implementation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a population-level study design, changes in study outcomes between 2005 and 2006 before and after Medicare Part D implementation were compared with historical changes between 2004 and 2005. The community-dwelling sample of the nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (unweighted unique n = 24,234; response rate, 72.3%) was used, and logistic regression analyses were controlled for demographic characteristics, health status, and historical trends. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reports of CRN (skipping or reducing doses, not obtaining prescriptions) and spending less on basic needs to afford medicines. RESULTS: The unadjusted, weighted prevalence of CRN was 15.2% in 2004, 14.1% in 2005, and 11.5% after Part D implementation in 2006. The prevalence of spending less on basic needs was 10.6% in 2004, 11.1% in 2005, and 7.6% in 2006. Adjusted analyses comparing 2006 with 2005 and controlling for historical changes (2005 vs 2004) demonstrated significant decreases in the odds of CRN (ratio of odds ratios [ORs], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.98; P = .03) and spending less on basic needs (ratio of ORs, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P < .001). No significant changes in CRN were observed among beneficiaries with fair to poor health (ratio of ORs, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = .97), despite high baseline CRN prevalence for this group (22.2% in 2005) and significant decreases among beneficiaries with good to excellent health (ratio of ORs, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95; P = .02). However, significant reductions in spending less on basic needs were observed in both groups (fair to poor health: ratio of ORs, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75; P < .001; and good to excellent health: ratio of ORs, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this survey population, there was evidence for a small but significant overall decrease in CRN and forgoing basic needs following Part D implementation. However, no net decrease in CRN after Part D was observed among the sickest beneficiaries, who continued to experience higher rates of CRN.

Effects of a law against early postpartum discharge on newborn follow-up, adverse events, and HMO expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Concern about harm to newborns from early postpartum discharges led to laws establishing minimum hospital stays in the mid-1990s. We evaluated the effects of an early-discharge protocol (a hospital stay of one postpartum night plus a home visit) in a health maintenance organization (HMO) and a subsequent state law guaranteeing a 48-hour hospital stay. METHODS: Using interrupted-time-series analysis and data on 20,366 mother-infant pairs with normal vaginal deliveries, we measured changes in length of stay, newborn examinations on the third or fourth day of life, and office visits, emergency department visits, and hospital readmissions for newborns. We also examined expenditures for hospitalizations and home-based care. RESULTS: The early-discharge program increased the rate of stays of less than two nights from 29.0 percent to 65.6 percent (P<0.001). The rate declined to 13.7 percent after the state mandate (P<0.001). The rate of newborn examinations on the third or fourth day of life increased from 24.5 percent to 64.4 percent with the program (P<0.001), then dropped to 53.0 percent after the mandate (P<0.001)--changes that primarily reflected changes in the rate of home visits. The rate of nonurgent visits to a health center increased from 33.4 percent to 44.7 percent (P<0.001) after the reduced-stay program was implemented. There were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits (quarterly mean, 1.1 percent) or rehospitalizations (quarterly mean, 1.5 percent). Results were similar for a vulnerable subgroup with lower incomes, younger maternal age, a lower level of education, or some combination of these characteristics. Average HMO expenditures on hospital and home-based services decreased by $90 per delivery with the early-discharge program and increased by $100 after the mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither policy appears to have affected the health outcomes of newborns. After the mandate, newborns were less likely to be examined as recommended on day 3 or 4. Because of changes in hospital prices, the two policies had minimal effects on HMO expenditures for hospital and home-based services.