scholarly journals Association between insurance cost-sharing subsidy and postoperative opioid prescription refills among Medicare patients

Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 168 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kirsch ◽  
John R. Montgomery ◽  
Hsou Mei Hu ◽  
Michael Englesbe ◽  
Brian Hallstrom ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Gordon G. Liu ◽  
Yankun Sun ◽  
Sam A. Vortherms

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e89168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bikaramjit S. Mann ◽  
Lianne Barnieh ◽  
Karen Tang ◽  
David J. T. Campbell ◽  
Fiona Clement ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
Erlene K. Seymour ◽  
Lucius Daniel ◽  
Eva Pointer ◽  
Stephen T. Smith ◽  
Charles A. Schiffer

Introduction: Oral novel therapeutics place a high financial burden on patients. A specialty pharmacy at Karmanos Cancer Institute (KCI) was established which streamlines prior authorization, determines patient cost-sharing, then automatically applies for additional financial assistance (through co-pay cards or foundation grant funding as needed) prior to setting final patient cost-sharing and drug delivery. We evaluated patterns of cost and need for additional funding since this program was established. Methods: We used the KCI Specialty Pharmacy dataset for a retrospective review of patients who received prescriptions for hematologic malignancies between March 2018 - May 2019. Oral therapeutics >$10,000/month average wholesale price were considered high cost. We evaluated patients by drug prescribed and insurance type (Medicare, Medicaid, Private) and gathered information on insurer cost, final patient cost-sharing, cost covered by foundation grant assistance (if needed), and cost covered by manufacturer co-pay cards (if needed). We also calculated time in days from prescription written date to date of prior authorization, as well as prescription written date to date of delivery to the patient for all new first-time prescriptions. Results: 214 prescriptions among 100 patients were available for analysis. 2 of these patients switched insurance types. Drugs that were evaluated included imatinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, ruloxitinib, venetoclax, acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, ixazomib, midostaurin, gilteritinib, everolimus (for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma), vorinostat, and enasidenib. The majority of patients had Medicare +/- supplemental insurance (52%), followed by private insurance (33%), and Medicaid (17%). Among all patients, 35% required additional financial assistance (for 75 claims). Most of these were through foundation grant funding (26% of all patients, 59 claims) and the remaining through manufacturer co-pay cards (9% of all patients, 16 claims). Medicaid patients did not require additional financial aid and have low cost-sharing given cost-sharing subsidies provided by Medicaid. Most of the patients requiring financial assistance were Medicare patients receiving foundation grant funding (Table). There were 10% of patients who did not receive additional assistance, but had high cost-sharing exceeding $100/prescription (range $295-$3514). Claims costs for all prescriptions totaled just over $2,000,000. The majority of the cost was paid by insurers with more than half covered by Medicare, ~$52,950 paid by foundation grant assistance, ~$8,486 paid by manufacturer co-pay cards, and $23,818 by patient cost-sharing. There were 105 first-time prescriptions to evaluate. When comparing the times required for prior authorization and delivery of drugs to patients, median times were similar by insurance type (Table), and most prescriptions received prior authorization approval within 1 day and were delivered within 7 days. Conclusions: Financial assistance was needed for 35% of all patients on novel therapeutics, mostly through foundation grant assistance. Medicare covered half of total 2 million dollar cost. Medicare patients bear the most burden, with 40% requiring foundation grant assistance, and 19% acquiring high co-pays. The KCI Specialty Pharmacy attained a total of ~$61,433 in financial assistance, and provided an efficient process for fast authorization and drug delivery which did not vary by insurance type or need for grants. Disclosures Smith: Genentech Advisory Council: Other: Pharmacy Consultant.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kao-Ping Chua ◽  
Joyce M Lee ◽  
Joshua E Tucker ◽  
Dominique Seo ◽  
Rena M Conti

BACKGROUND: To improve insulin affordability, Congress is considering capping insulin cost-sharing to $35 per 30-day supply for Medicare patients. The potential benefits and cost of this cap are unclear. Additionally, it is unknown whether the benefits of this cap would vary between Medicare patients with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports prescriptions dispensed from 92% of U.S. pharmacies, and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, a national claims database from Medicare Advantage patients. The IQVIA analysis included patients who only had dispensed insulin prescriptions paid by Medicare in 2019. We estimated the proportion of Medicare patients who would benefit from an insulin cost-sharing cap of $35 per 30-day supply. Among these patients, we calculated the mean annual decrease in insulin out-of-pocket spending. We summed this decrease across patients to estimate the cap's cost to the federal government. The Optum analysis included Medicare Advantage patients with diabetes and at least 1 dispensed insulin prescription in 2019. We used linear regression to compare the proportion of patients who would benefit from a $35 cap and annual savings among these patients by diabetes type, adjusting for demographic characteristics and payer type. RESULTS: The IQVIA analysis included 2,227,229 patients who only had dispensed insulin prescriptions paid by Medicare in 2019. Mean (SD) age was 69.2 (11.4) years. The $35 cap would benefit 887,051 (39.0%) of patients, lowering annual insulin out-of-pocket spending by $338, from $687 to $349. Across all patients in the sample, aggregate savings (i.e., the cap's cost to the federal government) would be $299,402,402, or a mean of $134.4 per patient. Among the 60,300 Medicare Advantage patients in the Optum Analysis, mean age was 72.6 (9.3) years; 2,686 (4.5%) had type 1 diabetes and 57,614 (95.6%) had type 2 diabetes. The $35 cap would benefit a higher proportion of patients with type 1 diabetes (64.0%) compared with patients with type 2 diabetes (59.4%). Among patients with type 1 diabetes who would benefit from the cap, annual savings would be greater ($284) compared with their counterparts with type 2 diabetes ($231; p<.001 in adjusted analyses for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: A $35 insulin cost-sharing cap would benefit a sizable proportion of Medicare patients using insulin and may particularly lower out-of-pocket spending for patients with type 1 diabetes. The estimated cost of this cap to the federal government would be $134.4 per Medicare patient using insulin.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document