Estimated Annual Spending on Aducanumab in the US Medicare Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mafi JN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8903103 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Estimated Annual Spending on Aducanumab in the US Medicare Program.
Mafi John N JN Leng Mei M Arbanas Julia Cave JC Tseng Chi-Hong CH Damberg Cheryl L CL Sarkisian Catherine C Landon Bruce E BE
JAMA health forum 20220114 1
This cross-sectional study examines upper bound and lower bound annualized Medicare costs for administering aducanumab to beneficiaries with the approved indications of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9489619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs.MethodsUsing fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014.ResultsMSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments.ConclusionsAfter 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).
| S-EPMC6269647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is the largest and most important alternative payment model that has been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Its budgetary impact to CMS is not well understood.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the MSSP and net savings to CMS for performance years 2013 to 2021.Design, setting, and participantsThe economic evaluation used publicly reported data on the MSSP from April 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021, and estimates extracted from 2 prior studies.Main outcomes and measuresNet savings to CMS, calculated as the difference between incentive payments to MSSP accountable care organizations and gross spending reductions. Incentive payments were calculated using the publicly reported data. The association of the MSSP with gross medical spending in traditional Medicare was extracted from 2 prior studies. Spillovers of the MSSP to Medicare Advantage (MA) were estimated by evaluating how gross spending reductions from the MSSP impacted benchmark payments to MA plans. Savings from traditional Medicare and MA were then combined.ResultsThe MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare of between $584 million and $1.423 billion over the study period. Savings from MSSP-related reductions to MA benchmarks totaled between $4.480 billion and $4.923 billion. Across traditional Medicare and MA, the MSSP was associated with savings of between $3.057 billion and $4.339 billion. This represents approximately 0.075% of combined spending for traditional Medicare and MA over the study period.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that the MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare, net savings to MA, and overall net savings to CMS. The total budget impact of the MSSP to CMS was small and continues to be uncertain due to challenges in estimating the effects of the MSSP on gross spending, particularly in recent years.
| S-EPMC10724775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk.ObjectiveTo examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program.Main outcomes and measuresPer-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending.ResultsThe sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.
| S-EPMC9399862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) program provides millions of beneficiaries with drug plan premium and cost-sharing assistance. The extent to which LIS recipients experience subsidy losses with annual redetermination cycles and the resulting associations with prescription drug affordability and use are unknown.ObjectiveTo examine how frequently annual LIS benefits are lost among Medicare Part D beneficiaries and how this is associated with prescription drug use and out-of-pocket costs.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2007 to 2018, annual changes in LIS recipients among those automatically deemed eligible (eg, due to dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid) and nondeemed beneficiaries who must apply for LIS benefits were analyzed using Medicare enrollment and Part D event data. Subsidy losses were classified in 4 groups: temporary losses (<1 year); extended losses (≥1 year); subsidy reductions (change to partial LIS); and disenrollment from Medicare Part D after subsidy loss. Temporary losses could more likely represent subsidy losses among eligible beneficiaries. Multinomial logit models were used to examine associations between beneficiary characteristics and subsidy loss; linear regression models were used to compare changes in prescription drug cost and use in the months after subsidy losses vs before. Analyses were conducted between November 2022 and November 2023.ExposureSubsidy loss at the beginning of each year among subsidy recipients in December of the prior year.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were out-of-pocket costs and prescription drug fills overall and for 4 classes: antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs.ResultsIn 2008, 731 070 full LIS beneficiaries (17%) were not deemed automatically eligible (39% were aged <65 years; 59% were female). Nearly all beneficiaries deemed automatically eligible (≥99%) retained the subsidy annually from 2007 to 2018, compared with 78% to 84% of nondeemed beneficiaries. Among nondeemed beneficiaries, disabled individuals younger than 65 years and racial and ethnic minority groups were more likely to have temporary subsidy losses vs none. Temporary losses were associated with an average 700% increase in out-of-pocket drug costs (+$52.72/mo [95% CI, 52.52-52.92]) and 15% reductions in prescription fills (-0.58 fills/mo [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.57]) overall. Similar changes were found for antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic prescription drug classes. Beneficiaries who retained their subsidy had few changes.Conclusions and relevanceThe conclusions of this cohort study suggest that efforts to help eligible beneficiaries retain Medicare Part D subsidies could improve drug affordability, treatment adherence, and reduce disparities in medication access.
| S-EPMC10837747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many studies have examined factors associated with individuals of high or low healthcare spending in a given year. However, few have studied how healthcare spending changes over multiple years and which factors are associated with the changes. In this study, we examined the dynamic patterns of healthcare spending over a three-year period, among a nationally representative cohort of Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. and identified factors associated with these patterns. We extracted data for 30,729 participants from the national Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), for the period 2003-2019. Using multistate Markov (MSM) models, we estimated the probabilities of year-to-year transitions in healthcare spending categorized as three states (low (L), medium (M) and high (H)), or to the terminal state, death. The participants, 13,554 (44.1%), 13,715 (44.6%) and 3,460 (11.3%) were in the low, medium and high spending states at baseline, respectively. The majority of participants remained in the same spending category from one year to the next (L-to-L: 76.8%; M-to-M: 71.7%; H-to-H: 56.6 %). Transitions from the low to high spending state were significantly associated with older age (75-84, ≥85 years), residing in a long-term care facility, greater assistance with activities of daily living, enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare, not receiving a flu shot, and presence of specific medical conditions, including cancer, dementia, and heart disease. Using data from a large population-based longitudinal survey, we have demonstrated that MSM modelling is a flexible framework and useful tool for examining changes in healthcare spending over time.
| S-EPMC10025088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of eLongTermCare (eLTC), a telehealth program implemented by an integrated health system in 45 nursing homes across the Midwest, on the use of acute hospital services and total expenditures for Medicare residents.Data sourcesMinimum Data Set, Medicare fee-for-service claims, and enrollment data from 2013 to 2018.Study designWe used a longitudinal difference-in-differences design to estimate the changes in outcomes for treatment beneficiaries before and after participating in the eLTC program, relative to changes for the matched comparison beneficiaries over the same period. We measured outcomes over a 24-month follow-up period, including total Medicare spending, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and the likelihood of readmission.Data collection/extraction methodsUsing administrative data, we identified treatment beneficiaries who stayed at participating nursing facilities during the program period and matched comparison beneficiaries with similar baseline characteristics from non-participating facilities in the same geographic locations.Principal findingsFor long-term care residents, the eLTC program led to an estimated reduction of 73 ED visits per 1000 beneficiaries (p < 0.01, 8.6% effect) over the two-year follow-up period. The estimated effects for this group were concentrated among beneficiaries who entered the nursing home after program startup, with sizable reductions in hospitalizations, ED visits, and spending. For skilled care residents, the program was associated with an estimated reduction of 85 ED visits per 1000 beneficiaries (p = 0.03, 9.7% effect), but had no discernible effect on their hospitalizations or total Medicare spending.ConclusionsTelehealth can be a valuable tool for nursing homes to enhance care coordination and provide timely access to care, leading to lower spending for nursing home residents. Future research needs to explore payment methods that encourage telehealth expansion in nursing homes.
| S-EPMC9441287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs) have been shown to reduce prostate cancer treatment among men unlikely to benefit because of competing risks (ie, potential overtreatment). This study assessed whether the level of engagement in ACOs by urologists affected rates of treatment, overtreatment, and spending.MethodsA 20% sample of national Medicare data was used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. The extent of urologist engagement in an ACO, as measured by the proportion of patients in an ACO managed by an ACO-participating urologist, served as the exposure. The use of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% risk of 10-year noncancer mortality), and average payments in the year after diagnosis for each ACO were modeled.ResultsAmong 2822 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the median rates of treatment and potential overtreatment by an ACO were 71.3% (range, 23.6%-79.5%) and 53.6% (range, 12.4%-76.9%), respectively. Average Medicare payments among ACOs in the year after diagnosis ranged from $16,523.52 to $34,766.33. Stronger urologist-ACO engagement was not associated with treatment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2; P = .4) or spending (9.7% decrease in spending; P = .08). However, urologist engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of potential overtreatment (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.86; P = .03).ConclusionsACOs vary widely in treatment, potential overtreatment, and spending for prostate cancer. ACOs with stronger urologist engagement are less likely to treat men with a high risk of noncancer mortality, and this suggests that organizations that better engage specialists may be able to improve the value of specialty care. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC6108926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the impact of the 340B drug discount program on the site of cancer drug administration and cancer care spending in Medicare. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:2010-2013 Medicare claims data for a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with cancer. STUDY DESIGN:We identified the 340B effect using variation in the availability of 340B hospitals across markets. We considered beneficiaries from markets that newly gained a 340B hospital during the study period (new 340B markets) as the treatment group. Beneficiaries in markets with no 340B hospital were the control group. We used a difference-in-differences approach with market fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION:Secondary data analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The probability of a patient receiving cancer drug administration in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) versus physician offices increased 7.8 percentage points more in new 340B markets than in markets with no 340B hospital. Per-patient spending on other cancer care increased $1,162 more in new 340B markets than in markets with no 340B hospital. CONCLUSIONS:The 340B program shifted the site of cancer drug administration to HOPDs and increased spending on other cancer care. As the program expands, continuing assessment of its impact on service utilization and spending would be needed.
| S-EPMC6153182 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4779397 | biostudies-literature