OBJECTIVE: To assess the broad impacts of Medicare Part D and the extent to which prior concerns have been realized. METHODS: We used administrative data to summarize beneficiary enrollment and plan participation in Part D, and compared pharmaceutical use and out-of-pocket spending before and after the introduction of Part D. We characterized the benefit designs of the 10 largest Part D plans in 2006 and compared them with the benefit designs of 7 non-Part D plans often cited as examples of low-cost or comprehensive drug benefits. RESULTS: By 2008, nearly 90% of seniors had drug coverage at least as generous as the standard Part D benefit. Excluding premiums, annual out-of-pocket spending in the 10 largest Part D plans was comparable to that of other private and public drug benefits, with the most prominent differences attributable to out-of-pocket spending on drugs not covered in the plan. Poorer beneficiaries have gained the most from Part D in terms of increased access to medications and reduced out-of-pocket spending. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage under Part D is comparable to that under non-Part D plans with respect to key features that are likely to be important to Medicare beneficiaries--access to medications and out-of-pocket costs. Nonetheless, concerns remain over drug pricing and gaps in coverage. The government should continue to monitor the competitiveness of the Part D market to ensure it meets the diverse needs of Medicare beneficiaries.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the broad impacts of Medicare Part D and the extent to which prior concerns have been realized. METHODS: We used administrative data to summarize beneficiary enrollment and plan participation in Part D, and compared pharmaceutical use and out-of-pocket spending before and after the introduction of Part D. We characterized the benefit designs of the 10 largest Part D plans in 2006 and compared them with the benefit designs of 7 non-Part D plans often cited as examples of low-cost or comprehensive drug benefits. RESULTS: By 2008, nearly 90% of seniors had drug coverage at least as generous as the standard Part D benefit. Excluding premiums, annual out-of-pocket spending in the 10 largest Part D plans was comparable to that of other private and public drug benefits, with the most prominent differences attributable to out-of-pocket spending on drugs not covered in the plan. Poorer beneficiaries have gained the most from Part D in terms of increased access to medications and reduced out-of-pocket spending. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage under Part D is comparable to that under non-Part D plans with respect to key features that are likely to be important to Medicare beneficiaries--access to medications and out-of-pocket costs. Nonetheless, concerns remain over drug pricing and gaps in coverage. The government should continue to monitor the competitiveness of the Part D market to ensure it meets the diverse needs of Medicare beneficiaries.
Authors: Joachim Winter; Rowilma Balza; Frank Caro; Florian Heiss; Byung-hill Jun; Rosa Matzkin; Daniel McFadden Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John Hsu; Vicki Fung; Mary Price; Jie Huang; Richard Brand; Rita Hui; Bruce Fireman; Joseph P Newhouse Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeanne M Madden; Amy J Graves; Fang Zhang; Alyce S Adams; Becky A Briesacher; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jerry H Gurwitz; Marsha Pierre-Jacques; Dana Gelb Safran; Gerald S Adler; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-04-23 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: Haiden A Huskamp; David G Stevenson; A James O'Malley; Stacie B Dusetzina; Susan L Mitchell; Barbara J Zarowitz; Michael E Chernew; Joseph P Newhouse Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.983
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 M Polinski; Elaine Kilabuk; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Troyen Brennan; William H Shrank Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.153