BACKGROUND: Little information exists regarding the impact of Medicare Part D on generic drug use. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in the use of generic prescriptions attributable to Part D among a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Difference-in-difference analysis of pharmacy claims of Part D enrollees and non-enrollees aged 67-79 years from 2005 to 2006. The final sample represented approximately 2.4 million unique subjects. Analyses were conducted separately for major therapeutic classes, limited to subjects filling at least one prescription within the class during 2005 and 2006, and adjusted for subject characteristics, prescription characteristics, socio-demographic characteristics measured through zipcode-linked Census data, baseline differences between Part D and non-Part D enrollees, and secular trends in generic use. RESULTS: Generic drugs accounted for 58% of total prescriptions. Among the entire group of beneficiaries, there was a trend of increased generic drug use in 13 out of 15 drug classes examined. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, the growth rate of generic drug use was lower among Part D enrollees than among non-enrollees; enrollees were slightly less likely to fill prescriptions for generic drugs vs. brand-name drugs in 2006 compared to 2005 (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Despite secular trends of increased utilization of generic drugs among both Part D enrollees and non-enrollees, the net impact of Part D among these beneficiaries was a modest decrease in the use of generic drugs. This finding, which is consistent with economic theory but contrary to several recent reports, highlights the complexity of assessing the impact of Part D on overall consumer welfare.
BACKGROUND: Little information exists regarding the impact of Medicare Part D on generic drug use. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in the use of generic prescriptions attributable to Part D among a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Difference-in-difference analysis of pharmacy claims of Part D enrollees and non-enrollees aged 67-79 years from 2005 to 2006. The final sample represented approximately 2.4 million unique subjects. Analyses were conducted separately for major therapeutic classes, limited to subjects filling at least one prescription within the class during 2005 and 2006, and adjusted for subject characteristics, prescription characteristics, socio-demographic characteristics measured through zipcode-linked Census data, baseline differences between Part D and non-Part D enrollees, and secular trends in generic use. RESULTS: Generic drugs accounted for 58% of total prescriptions. Among the entire group of beneficiaries, there was a trend of increased generic drug use in 13 out of 15 drug classes examined. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, the growth rate of generic drug use was lower among Part D enrollees than among non-enrollees; enrollees were slightly less likely to fill prescriptions for generic drugs vs. brand-name drugs in 2006 compared to 2005 (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Despite secular trends of increased utilization of generic drugs among both Part D enrollees and non-enrollees, the net impact of Part D among these beneficiaries was a modest decrease in the use of generic drugs. This finding, which is consistent with economic theory but contrary to several recent reports, highlights the complexity of assessing the impact of Part D on overall consumer welfare.
Authors: W Himmel; A Simmenroth-Nayda; W Niebling; T Ledig; R D Jansen; M M Kochen; C H Gleiter; E Hummers-Pradier Journal: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.366
Authors: Dana P Goldman; Geoffrey F Joyce; Jose J Escarce; Jennifer E Pace; Matthew D Solomon; Marianne Laouri; Pamela B Landsman; Steven M Teutsch Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wesley Yin; Anirban Basu; James X Zhang; Atonu Rabbani; David O Meltzer; G Caleb Alexander Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: O Kenrik Duru; Susan L Ettner; Norman Turk; Carol M Mangione; Arleen F Brown; Jeffery Fu; Leslie Simien; Chien-Wen Tseng Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Frank Xiaoqing Liu; G Caleb Alexander; Stephanie Y Crawford; A Simon Pickard; Donald Hedeker; Surrey M Walton Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jennifer N Howard; Ilene Harris; Gavriella Frank; Zippora Kiptanui; Jingjing Qian; Richard Hansen Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2017-08-04
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; Elaine Kilabuk; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Troyen Brennan; William H Shrank Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Bruce Stuart; Amy Davidoff; Mujde Erten; Stephen S Gottlieb; Mingliang Dai; Thomas Shaffer; Ilene H Zuckerman; Linda Simoni-Wastila; Lynda Bryant-Comstock; Rahul Shenolikar Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Carolyn T Thorpe; Holly C Lassila; Christine K O'Neil; Joshua M Thorpe; Joseph T Hanlon; Robert L Maher Journal: Am J Geriatr Pharmacother Date: 2012-02
Authors: Leslie Hazel-Fernandez; Anthony M Louder; Shonda A Foster; Claudia L Uribe; Russel T Burge Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 2.362