• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Prescription drug benefit doesn't save money for Medicare

Prescription drug benefit doesn't save money for Medicare

Postby smix » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:36 am

Prescription drug benefit doesn't save money for Medicare

URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 192111.htm
Category: healthNews
Published: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:21:11 EDT

Description: For years, the Medicare pre­scrip­tion drug ben­efit Part D has been cred­ited with pos­i­tively impacting national trends in health out­comes and med­ical ser­vices. But a recent study led by North­eastern asso­ciate pro­fessor Becky Briesacher chal­lenges that assump­tion and sug­gests that the U.S. Con­gres­sional Budget Office's adopted a new costing method based on assumed cost-savings may be "premature." Since its imple­men­ta­tion in 2006, Part D has sub­stan­tially increased access to pre­scrip­tion drugs for the nearly 50 mil­lion Medicare sub­scribers. That increased access, though, has not led to a clear decrease in emer­gency room visits, hos­pital stays, inpa­tient costs, or mor­tality, according to the research by Briesacher and her team, which included col­leagues from Har­vard Med­ical School. "We are con­cluding that Medicare Part D did not save the (Medicare) pro­gram any money overall," said Briesacher, a health ser­vices researcher in the School of Phar­macy with nationally-recognized exper­tise in drug policy and med­ica­tion use in older adults. "You have to be real­istic about the fact that giving people access to med­ica­tion is impor­tant, but it's not going to sub­stan­tially save money in other parts of the health care system or keep a sig­nif­i­cant number of people out of the hospital." The team pre­sented its results in a paper pub­lished in Annals of Internal Med­i­cine. About one year after Medicare Part D was launched, early studies were con­ducted among Medicare ben­e­fi­cia­ries who either had no pre­scrip­tion drug cov­erage or poor cov­erage prior to Part D. Those early studies found these spe­cific sub­groups saw sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant decreases in non­drug med­ical spending and hospitalizations. But, as Briesacher explains, these selected sub­groups do not rep­re­sent the expe­ri­ences of Medicare sub­scribers at large, many of whom already had some type of drug cov­erage prior to Part D. Briesacher and her team widened the scope of the analysis and looked at 11 years worth of data from the Medicare Cur­rent Ben­e­fi­ciary survey, which is an annual face-to-face panel survey of about 12,000 Medicare subscribers. They found no sig­nif­i­cant change to sub­scribers reporting they were in poor to fair health five years after Part D was imple­mented. In 2006 that figure was 26.6 per­cent, while in 2010 it was 24.6 per­cent, which is sta­tis­ti­cally insignif­i­cant and which Briesacher con­tributes to pre-existing his­tor­ical trends. Also, the emer­gency depart­ment trips and inpa­tient ser­vices stayed the same at about 13 per­cent for the entire study period. The pre­vi­ously accepted early studies of Part D led the Con­gres­sional Budget Office, tasked with deter­mining the cost of leg­is­la­tion, to adopt an algo­rithm that works off the belief that increases in pre­scrip­tion fills across the Medicare pop­u­la­tion results in overall cost-offsets. According to the paper, the CBO method­ology esti­mates Medicare spending on med­ical ser­vices is now rou­tinely reduced by 0.2 per­cent for each 1 per­cent increase in drug pre­scrip­tions filled. The budget impact of the flawed method­ology is not trivial, according to the study. The researchers point to pro­vi­sions in the Afford­able Care Act to decrease Part D cost-sharing that are based on the Con­gres­sional Budget Office's pre­dic­tion that Medicare's non­drug spending will be reduced by $35 bil­lion through cost sav­ings in med­ical ser­vices, pri­marily decreases in hospitalization. "We'd like the Con­gres­sional Budget Office to re-examine the policy," Briesacher said. "It's about prop­erly scoring the leg­is­la­tion so it doesn't assume these cost-offsets that we can't find."
User avatar
Posts: 1870572
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to Health Insurance

Mobile Device
  • 1
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement