BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D improved access to cardiovascular medications. Increased cardiovascular drug use and resulting health improvements could be derailed when beneficiaries enter the coverage gap and must pay 100% of drug costs. The coverage gap remains the subject of Congressional debate; evidence regarding its impact on cardiovascular drug use and health outcomes is needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed 122 255 Medicare beneficiaries with cardiovascular conditions with linked prescription and medical claims who reached the coverage gap spending threshold in 2006 or 2007. Beneficiaries entered the study on reaching the threshold and were followed until an event, the catastrophic coverage spending threshold, or year's end. We matched 3980 beneficiaries who reached the threshold and received no financial assistance (exposed) to 3980 with financial assistance during the gap period (unexposed), using propensity score and high-dimensional propensity score approaches. We compared rates of cardiovascular drug discontinuation, drug switching, and death or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) plus revascularization, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation. In propensity score-matched analyses, exposed beneficiaries were more likely to discontinue (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 1.79; risk difference,13.76; 95% confidence interval, 10.99 to 16.54 drugs/100 person-years) but no more or less likely to switch cardiovascular drugs. There were no significant differences in rates of death (propensity score-matched hazard ratio,1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.71) or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular conditions with no financial assistance during the coverage gap were at increased risk for cardiovascular drug discontinuation; however, the impact of this difference on health outcomes is not clear.
BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D improved access to cardiovascular medications. Increased cardiovascular drug use and resulting health improvements could be derailed when beneficiaries enter the coverage gap and must pay 100% of drug costs. The coverage gap remains the subject of Congressional debate; evidence regarding its impact on cardiovascular drug use and health outcomes is needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed 122 255 Medicare beneficiaries with cardiovascular conditions with linked prescription and medical claims who reached the coverage gap spending threshold in 2006 or 2007. Beneficiaries entered the study on reaching the threshold and were followed until an event, the catastrophic coverage spending threshold, or year's end. We matched 3980 beneficiaries who reached the threshold and received no financial assistance (exposed) to 3980 with financial assistance during the gap period (unexposed), using propensity score and high-dimensional propensity score approaches. We compared rates of cardiovascular drug discontinuation, drug switching, and death or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) plus revascularization, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation. In propensity score-matched analyses, exposed beneficiaries were more likely to discontinue (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 1.79; risk difference,13.76; 95% confidence interval, 10.99 to 16.54 drugs/100 person-years) but no more or less likely to switch cardiovascular drugs. There were no significant differences in rates of death (propensity score-matched hazard ratio,1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.71) or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular conditions with no financial assistance during the coverage gap were at increased risk for cardiovascular drug discontinuation; however, the impact of this difference on health outcomes is not clear.
Authors: John Hsu; Mary Price; Jie Huang; Richard Brand; Vicki Fung; Rita Hui; Bruce Fireman; Joseph P Newhouse; Joseph V Selby Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Tamblyn; R Laprise; J A Hanley; M Abrahamowicz; S Scott; N Mayo; J Hurley; R Grad; E Latimer; R Perreault; P McLeod; A Huang; P Larochelle; L Mallet Journal: JAMA Date: 2001 Jan 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John D Seeger; Alexander M Walker; Paige L Williams; Gordon M Saperia; Frank M Sacks Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michele Heisler; Kenneth M Langa; Elizabeth L Eby; A Mark Fendrick; Mohammed U Kabeto; John D Piette Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; William H Shrank; Haiden A Huskamp; Robert J Glynn; Joshua N Liberman; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Aaron S Kesselheim; Krista F Huybrechts; Niteesh K Choudhry; Lisa A Fulchino; Danielle L Isaman; Mary K Kowal; Troyen A Brennan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michael V Genuardi; Rachel P Ogilvie; Aisha Rasool Saand; Rebecca S DeSensi; Melissa I Saul; Jared W Magnani; Sanjay R Patel Journal: Chest Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Zubin J Eapen; Bradley G Hammill; Soko Setoguchi; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez; Lesley H Curtis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Lieven Annemans; Nicolas Danchin; Frans Van de Werf; Stuart Pocock; Muriel Licour; Jesús Medina; Héctor Bueno Journal: Open Heart Date: 2016-02-24