Jinoos Yazdany1, Chris Tonner1, Gabriela Schmajuk2. 1. University of California, San Francisco. 2. San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biologic therapies have assumed an important role in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We sought to investigate use, spending, and patient cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries using biologic drugs for RA, comparing patients exposed to minimal cost-sharing because of a Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) to those facing substantial out-of-pocket costs (OOP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, nationwide study using 2009 Medicare claims for a 5% random sample of beneficiaries with RA who had at least 1 RA drug dispensed. We analyzed biologic drug utilization and costs across the Part B (medical benefit) and Part D (pharmacy benefit) programs by LIS status using multinomial regression. We also projected OOP costs as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates closure of the Part D coverage gap by 2020. RESULTS: Among 6,932 beneficiaries, 1,812 (26.1%) received a biologic drug. LIS beneficiaries were significantly more likely to obtain Part D home-administered biologics (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.50-3.56), while non-LIS beneficiaries were less likely to receive Part D biologic agents (RRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.69). OOP costs in Part D were lower, as expected, for LIS beneficiaries ($72 versus $3,751 per year for non-LIS). Non-LIS beneficiaries had lower costs for Part B facility-administered biologic agents (range $0-$2,584) than for Part D home-administered biologic agents. ACA reforms will narrow OOP differences between Part D and B for non-LIS beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: In contrast to LIS beneficiaries who receive mostly Part D home-administered biologic DMARDs, nonsubsidized beneficiaries have significant cost-based incentives to obtain facility-administered biologic DMARDs through Part B. The ACA will result in only slightly lower costs for Part D biologic drugs for these beneficiaries.
OBJECTIVE: Biologic therapies have assumed an important role in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We sought to investigate use, spending, and patient cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries using biologic drugs for RA, comparing patients exposed to minimal cost-sharing because of a Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) to those facing substantial out-of-pocket costs (OOP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, nationwide study using 2009 Medicare claims for a 5% random sample of beneficiaries with RA who had at least 1 RA drug dispensed. We analyzed biologic drug utilization and costs across the Part B (medical benefit) and Part D (pharmacy benefit) programs by LIS status using multinomial regression. We also projected OOP costs as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates closure of the Part D coverage gap by 2020. RESULTS: Among 6,932 beneficiaries, 1,812 (26.1%) received a biologic drug. LIS beneficiaries were significantly more likely to obtain Part D home-administered biologics (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.50-3.56), while non-LIS beneficiaries were less likely to receive Part D biologic agents (RRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.69). OOP costs in Part D were lower, as expected, for LIS beneficiaries ($72 versus $3,751 per year for non-LIS). Non-LIS beneficiaries had lower costs for Part B facility-administered biologic agents (range $0-$2,584) than for Part D home-administered biologic agents. ACA reforms will narrow OOP differences between Part D and B for non-LIS beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: In contrast to LIS beneficiaries who receive mostly Part D home-administered biologic DMARDs, nonsubsidized beneficiaries have significant cost-based incentives to obtain facility-administered biologic DMARDs through Part B. The ACA will result in only slightly lower costs for Part D biologic drugs for these beneficiaries.
Authors: Federico Augustovski; Andrea Beratarrechea; Vilma Irazola; Fernando Rubinstein; Pablo Tesolin; Juan Gonzalez; Verónica Lencina; Marina Scolnik; Christian Waimann; David Navarta; Gustavo Citera; Enrique R Soriano Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Charles G Helmick; David T Felson; Reva C Lawrence; Sherine Gabriel; Rosemarie Hirsch; C Kent Kwoh; Matthew H Liang; Hilal Maradit Kremers; Maureen D Mayes; Peter A Merkel; Stanley R Pillemer; John D Reveille; John H Stone Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-01
Authors: Jie Zhang; Fenglong Xie; Elizabeth Delzell; Lang Chen; Meredith L Kilgore; Huifeng Yun; Kenneth G Saag; James D Lewis; Jeffrey R Curtis Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Mark Tatangelo; George Tomlinson; J Michael Paterson; Vandana Ahluwalia; Alex Kopp; Tara Gomes; Nick Bansback; Claire Bombardier Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-12-02
Authors: Sophia L Johnson; Christie M Bartels; Mari Palta; Carolyn T Thorpe; Jennifer M Weiss; Maureen A Smith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Natasha Chida; Christopher Brown; Jyoti Mathad; Kelly Carpenter; George Nelson; Marcos C Schechter; Natalie Giles; Paulina A Rebolledo; Susan Ray; Valeria Fabre; Diana Silva Cantillo; Sarah Longworth; Valerianna Amorosa; Christian Petrauskis; Catherine Boulanger; Natalie Cain; Amita Gupta; Jane McKenzie-White; Robert Bollinger; Michael T Melia Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.835