Yan Tang1, Walid F Gellad, Aiju Men, Julie M Donohue. 1. *Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh †VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System ‡Division of General Medicine and Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing, University of Pittsburgh §RAND Health, Pittsburgh PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how Medicare Part D plan features influence choice of generic versus brand drugs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between Part D plan features and generic medication use. METHODS: Data from a 2009 random sample of 1.6 million fee-for-service, Part D enrollees aged 65 years and above, who were not dually eligible or receiving low-income subsidies, were used to examine the association between plan features (generic cost-sharing, difference in brand and generic copay, prior authorization, step therapy) and choice of generic antidepressants, antidiabetics, and statins. Logistic regression models accounting for plan-level clustering were adjusted for sociodemographic and health status. RESULTS: Generic cost-sharing ranged from $0 to $9 for antidepressants and statins, and from $0 to $8 for antidiabetics (across 5th-95th percentiles). Brand-generic cost-sharing differences were smallest for statins (5th-95th percentiles: $16-$37) and largest for antidepressants ($16-$64) across plans. Beneficiaries with higher generic cost-sharing had lower generic use [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-0.98 for antidepressants; OR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.96-0.98 for antidiabetics; OR=0.94, 95% CI, 0.92-0.95 for statins]. Larger brand-generic cost-sharing differences and prior authorization were significantly associated with greater generic use in all categories. Plans could increase generic use by 5-12 percentage points by reducing generic cost-sharing from the 75th ($7) to 25th percentiles ($4-$5), increasing brand-generic cost-sharing differences from the 25th ($25-$26) to 75th ($32-$33) percentiles, and using prior authorization and step therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-sharing features and utilization management tools were significantly associated with generic use in 3 commonly used medication categories.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how Medicare Part D plan features influence choice of generic versus brand drugs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between Part D plan features and generic medication use. METHODS: Data from a 2009 random sample of 1.6 million fee-for-service, Part D enrollees aged 65 years and above, who were not dually eligible or receiving low-income subsidies, were used to examine the association between plan features (generic cost-sharing, difference in brand and generic copay, prior authorization, step therapy) and choice of generic antidepressants, antidiabetics, and statins. Logistic regression models accounting for plan-level clustering were adjusted for sociodemographic and health status. RESULTS: Generic cost-sharing ranged from $0 to $9 for antidepressants and statins, and from $0 to $8 for antidiabetics (across 5th-95th percentiles). Brand-generic cost-sharing differences were smallest for statins (5th-95th percentiles: $16-$37) and largest for antidepressants ($16-$64) across plans. Beneficiaries with higher generic cost-sharing had lower generic use [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-0.98 for antidepressants; OR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.96-0.98 for antidiabetics; OR=0.94, 95% CI, 0.92-0.95 for statins]. Larger brand-generic cost-sharing differences and prior authorization were significantly associated with greater generic use in all categories. Plans could increase generic use by 5-12 percentage points by reducing generic cost-sharing from the 75th ($7) to 25th percentiles ($4-$5), increasing brand-generic cost-sharing differences from the 25th ($25-$26) to 75th ($32-$33) percentiles, and using prior authorization and step therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-sharing features and utilization management tools were significantly associated with generic use in 3 commonly used medication categories.
Authors: William H Shrank; Joshua N Liberman; Michael A Fischer; Charmaine Girdish; Troyen A Brennan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Julie M Donohue; Yuting Zhang; Judith R Lave; Walid F Gellad; Aiju Men; Subashan Perera; Joseph T Hanlon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; Aman Bhandari; Uzaib Y Saya; Sebastian Schneeweiss; William H Shrank Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: William H Shrank; Emily R Cox; Michael A Fischer; Jyotsna Mehta; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: William H Shrank; Margaret Stedman; Susan L Ettner; Dee DeLapp; June Dirstine; M Alan Brookhart; Michael A Fischer; Jerry Avorn; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer N Howard; Ilene Harris; Gavriella Frank; Zippora Kiptanui; Jingjing Qian; Richard Hansen Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2017-08-04
Authors: Julie M Donohue; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Aiju Men; Ernst R Berndt; Haiden A Huskamp Journal: J Ment Health Policy Econ Date: 2016-06
Authors: Qian Liu; Abigail R Smith; Jeong M Park; Murewa Oguntimein; Sarah Dutcher; Ghalib Bello; Margaret Helmuth; Marc Turenne; Rajesh Balkrishnan; Melissa Fava; Charlotte A Beil; Adam Saulles; Sangeeta Goel; Pratima Sharma; Alan Leichtman; Jarcy Zee Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Farrah Nekui; Alison A Galbraith; Becky A Briesacher; Fang Zhang; Stephen B Soumerai; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jerry H Gurwitz; Jeanne M Madden Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 3.178