Evaluation of Trends in Oncology Drug Spending in Medicare, 2016 to 2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kyle MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9280395 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of Trends in Oncology Drug Spending in Medicare, 2016 to 2020.
Kyle Michael Anne MA Dusetzina Stacie B SB Keating Nancy L NL
JAMA network open 20220701 7
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10354675 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10082405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo analyze the sources of per-beneficiary Medicare spending growth between 2007 and 2014, including the role of demographic characteristics, attributes of Medicare coverage, and chronic conditions.Data sourcesIndividual-level Medicare spending and enrollment data.Study designUsing an Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition model, we analyzed whether changes in price-standardized, per-beneficiary Medicare Part A and B spending reflected changes in the composition of the Medicare population or changes in relative spending levels per person.Data extraction methodsWe identified a 5 percent sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and above from years 2007 to 2014.ResultsMean payment-adjusted Medicare per-beneficiary spending decreased by $180 between the 2007-2010 and 2011-2014 time periods. This decline was almost entirely attributable to lower spending levels for beneficiaries. Notably, declines in marginal spending levels for beneficiaries with chronic conditions were associated with a $175 reduction in per-beneficiary spending. The decline was partially offset by the increasing prevalence of certain chronic diseases. Still, we are unable to attribute a large share of the decline in spending levels to observable beneficiary characteristics or chronic conditions.ConclusionsDeclines in spending levels for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions suggest that changing patterns of care use may be moderating spending growth.
| S-EPMC6153172 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7919157 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9857062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.
| S-EPMC9579917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSources of regional variation in spending for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are poorly understood, and such variation may reflect differences in health status, use of effective treatments, or selection of branded drugs over lower-cost generics.MethodsWe analyzed 2008 Medicare data for 4.7 million beneficiaries for prescription-drug use and expenditures overall and in three drug categories: angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Differences in per capita expenditures across hospital-referral regions (HRRs) were decomposed into annual prescription volume and cost per prescription. The ratio of prescriptions filled as branded drugs to all prescriptions filled was calculated. We adjusted all measures for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-status differences.ResultsMean adjusted per capita pharmaceutical spending ranged from $2,413 in the lowest to $3,008 in the highest quintile of HRRs. Most (75.9%) of that difference was attributable to the cost per prescription ($53 vs. $63). Regional differences in cost per prescription explained 87.5% of expenditure variation for ACE inhibitors and ARBs and 56.3% for statins but only 36.1% for SSRIs and SNRIs. The ratio of branded-drug to total prescriptions, which correlated highly with cost per prescription, ranged across HRRs from 0.24 to 0.45 overall and from 0.24 to 0.55 for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 0.29 to 0.60 for statins, and 0.15 to 0.51 for SSRIs and SNRIs.ConclusionsRegional variation in Medicare Part D spending results largely from differences in the cost of drugs selected rather than prescription volume. A reduction in branded-drug use in some regions through modification of Part D plan benefits might lower costs without reducing quality of care. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).
| S-EPMC3285245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anticancer drugs are essential in the treatment of serious diseases, but their applications are limited by drug lags. This study investigated the characteristics of anticancer drugs approved in Japan over the past 20 years and compared the drug lag trends between Japan and the US. We assessed the changes in drug lag between Japan and the US and the factors affecting the drug lags using publicly available data for anticancer drugs approved in Japan from January 2001 to December 2020. A total of 299 anticancer drugs were approved in Japan in the last 20 years. The approval lag median between the US and Japan was 498 days (16.6 months), peaking in 2002, and decreasing annually thereafter. The minimum approval lag was 173.5 days (5.7 months) in 2018. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that "global simultaneous strategy," "catch-up strategy," and "immunotherapy" are major factors shortening the drug lag. In the past decade, 226 anticancer drugs were approved in Japan. The drug lag for anticancer drugs between Japan and the US peaked in 2002, after which it declined sharply to less than a year. However, the lag was shortest in 2018.
| S-EPMC10719463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence and prevalence of liver disease are increasing and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. In Canada, more than 3 million people live with liver diseases, accounting for approximately 2% of all hospitalizations. However, it remains unclear how much liver hospitalizations cost the Canadian health care system. Thus, this study estimates the cost of liver-related hospitalization across Canada.MethodsWe conducted a population-based, retrospective study using acute inpatient admission data for liver-related hospitalizations obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. We calculated the total and the average nominal spending for liver hospitalizations nationally from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2020, based on fiscal year (FY). In addition, we stratified the average liver hospitalization spending based on age and sex group.ResultsCanada spent $947 million on liver-related hospitalizations in FY2019, a 145% growth in spending from FY2004. The average liver disease-related hospitalization was estimated to be $17,506 in FY2019. Within the sub-group analysis, the age group <30 showed the highest average cost per hospitalization at $21,776; however, there was no significant difference in cost between males and females. Across the different provinces in FY2019, Alberta experienced the highest average spending per hospitalization at $23,150, whereas Ontario had the lowest spending at $15,712.ConclusionsLiver-related hospitalizations are associated with high spending that is increasing nationally with variations across provinces and territories. Our results are of great use for economic evaluations of novel interventions in the future.
| S-EPMC10751001 | 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