Alyce S Adams1, Jeanne M Madden, Fang Zhang, Stephen B Soumerai, Dan Gilden, Jennifer Griggs, Connie M Trinacty, Christine Bishop, Dennis Ross-Degnan. 1. *Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA †Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA ‡Jen Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA §Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI ∥Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Honolulu, HI ¶The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of lipid-lowering agents is suboptimal among dual enrollees, particularly blacks. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the removal of restrictive drug caps under Medicare Part D reduced racial differences among dual enrollees with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN: An interrupted time series with comparison series design (ITS) cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 8895 black and white diabetes patients aged 18 years and older drawn from a nationally representative sample of fee-for-service dual enrollees (January 2004-December 2007) in states with and without drug caps before Part D. MEASURES: We examined the monthly (1) proportion of patients with any use of lipid-lowering therapies; and (2) intensity of use. Stratification measures included age (less than 65, 65 y and older), race (white vs. black), and sex. RESULTS: At baseline, lipid-lowering drug use was higher in no drug cap states (drug cap: 54.0% vs. nondrug cap: 66.8%) and among whites versus blacks (drug cap: 58.5% vs. 44.9%, no drug cap: 68.4% vs. 61.9%). In strict drug cap states only, Part D was associated with an increase in the proportion with any use [nonelderly: +0.07 absolute percentage points (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09), P<0.001; elderly: +0.08 (0.06-0.10), P<0.001] regardless of race. However, we found no evidence of a change in the white-black gap in the proportion of users despite the removal of a significant financial barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part D was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering drugs, but racial gaps persisted. Understanding non-coverage-related barriers is critical in maximizing the potential benefits of coverage expansions for disparities reduction.
BACKGROUND: The use of lipid-lowering agents is suboptimal among dual enrollees, particularly blacks. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the removal of restrictive drug caps under Medicare Part D reduced racial differences among dual enrollees with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN: An interrupted time series with comparison series design (ITS) cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 8895 black and white diabetespatients aged 18 years and older drawn from a nationally representative sample of fee-for-service dual enrollees (January 2004-December 2007) in states with and without drug caps before Part D. MEASURES: We examined the monthly (1) proportion of patients with any use of lipid-lowering therapies; and (2) intensity of use. Stratification measures included age (less than 65, 65 y and older), race (white vs. black), and sex. RESULTS: At baseline, lipid-lowering drug use was higher in no drug cap states (drug cap: 54.0% vs. nondrug cap: 66.8%) and among whites versus blacks (drug cap: 58.5% vs. 44.9%, no drug cap: 68.4% vs. 61.9%). In strict drug cap states only, Part D was associated with an increase in the proportion with any use [nonelderly: +0.07 absolute percentage points (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09), P<0.001; elderly: +0.08 (0.06-0.10), P<0.001] regardless of race. However, we found no evidence of a change in the white-black gap in the proportion of users despite the removal of a significant financial barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part D was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering drugs, but racial gaps persisted. Understanding non-coverage-related barriers is critical in maximizing the potential benefits of coverage expansions for disparities reduction.
Authors: Sam Harper; John Lynch; Stephen C Meersman; Nancy Breen; William W Davis; Marsha E Reichman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karen L Margolis; Kay Dunn; Lara M Simpson; Charles E Ford; Jeff D Williamson; David J Gordon; Paula T Einhorn; Jeffrey L Probstfield Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Amelia M Haviland; Marc N Elliott; Robert Weech-Maldonado; Katrin Hambarsoomian; Nate Orr; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst Journal: Health Care Financ Rev Date: 2004
Authors: Jeanne M Madden; Alyce S Adams; Robert F LeCates; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Fang Zhang; Haiden A Huskamp; Daniel M Gilden; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Alyce S Adams; Stephen B Soumerai; Fang Zhang; Daniel Gilden; Marguerite Burns; Haiden A Huskamp; Connie Trinacty; Margarita Alegria; Robert F LeCates; Jennifer J Griggs; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jeanne M Madden Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Alyce S Adams; Jeanne M Madden; Fang Zhang; Christine Y Lu; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Angelina Lee; Stephen B Soumerai; Dan Gilden; Neetu Chawla; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Matthew P Banegas; Marc A Emerson; Alyce S Adams; Ninah S Achacoso; Neetu Chawla; Stacey Alexeeff; Laurel A Habel Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Natalie S Hohmann; Tessa J Hastings; Ruth N Jeminiwa; Jingjing Qian; Richard A Hansen; Surachat Ngorsuraches; Kimberly B Garza Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2021-02-05
Authors: Carla Castillo-Laborde; Macarena Hirmas-Adauy; Isabel Matute; Anita Jasmen; Oscar Urrejola; Xaviera Molina; Camila Awad; Catalina Frey-Moreno; Sofia Pumarino-Lira; Fernando Descalzi-Rojas; Tomás José Ruiz; Barbara Plass Journal: Public Health Rev Date: 2022-09-02