1 / 15

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Progress Report: Findings from the Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Cent

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Progress Report: Findings from the Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center 2006 National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs. Stuart Guterman Director, Program on Medicare’s Future The Commonwealth Fund

sana
Download Presentation

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Progress Report: Findings from the Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Cent

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Progress Report: Findings from the Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center 2006 National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs Stuart Guterman Director, Program on Medicare’s Future The Commonwealth Fund Alliance for Health Reform Briefing: Medicare Part D: What Now, What Next? Washington, DC November 5, 2007

  2. Survey of Medicare Beneficiaries, 2006 • Mail survey with telephone follow-up conducted between October 5 and December 20, 2006 • Participants were administered one of 3 versions of the survey in English or Spanish in accordance with CMS-designated enrollment status: • Dual Eligibles • Medicare Advantage enrollees • All others • Analysis examined drug coverage, use, out-of-pocket costs, adherence, and experiences in a Part D plan • To provide an in-depth look at how seniors fared after implementation of the Medicare drug benefit • Study used an augmented longitudinal design including respondents to our 2003 national survey of seniors and a random, nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized seniors provided by CMS in June 2006 • Sample included more than 16,000 non-institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older (response rate of 56%)

  3. Key Questions Addressed • What share of seniors were enrolled in Part D plans in 2006; What were their characteristics and the characteristics of those who remained without coverage? • How did out-of-pocket prescription drug spending and cost-related non-adherence compare for Part D enrollees and seniors with other sources of coverage? • How did the characteristics and experiences of seniors in Part D plans differ across stand-alone drug plans and Medicare Advantage drug plans? • To what extent did the Part D low-income subsidy affect out-of-pocket spending and cost-related non-adherence? • What were the experiences of dual eligibles after enrolling in Part D plans?

  4. Prescription Drug Coverage of Non-Institutionalized Seniors

  5. Distribution of Seniors’ Drug Coverage in 2006Among Those Who Did Not Have Drug Coverage in 2005 Drug coverage in 2005: Source of Drug Coverage in 2006: No Rx Coverage VA Employer Other Yes No Part D NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. VA is Department of Veterans Affairs. Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  6. Distribution of Seniors by Primary Source of Drug Coverage, 2006 Employer Part D VA None Other Coverage NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. VA is Department of Veterans Affairs. Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  7. Lack of Any Drug Coverage Among Seniors with Selected Characteristics, 2006 Total Urban/Rural Location * Rural Urban Race/Ethnicity White African American * Non-White Hispanic % Poverty * ≤100% 101-150% * 151-200% >200% Chronic Conditions None 1 or 2 * * 3 or more NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. Weighted percentages. In 2006, federal poverty level: $9,800/individual and $13,200/couple. Reference groups for statistical significance include: white, >200% poverty, and no chronic conditions (*p < 0.05). Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  8. Prescription Drug Use, Out-of-Pocket Spending, and Non-Adherence

  9. Multivariate Results Showing Association Between Sources of Drug Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Spending, and Non-Adherence, 2006 (Odds Ratios) Notes: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. Findings based on three separate models each of which controlled for demographics, health measures, self-reported diseases, number of duals, and source of coverage. Among seniors taking one or more prescription medications. VA is Department of Veterans Affairs. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Dugs, 2006.

  10. The Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS)

  11. Chart 14 Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) Analysis • Analysis examines the characteristics and experiences of those receiving the LIS in 2006 • Unable to look at participation in the LIS program because a large share of respondents did not know whether they were receiving the LIS • We classified respondents as potentially eligible for LIS if their self-reported income was less than or equal to 150% of poverty; Not able to use self-reported asset data • 25% non-response rate for question about assets • Analysis may over-identify those characterized as potentially eligible for, but not receiving LIS • Dual eligibles were analyzed separately from other LIS recipients to examine their unique characteristics and experiences

  12. Out-of-Pocket Spending on Prescriptions and Non-Adherence Among Low-Income Seniors in Part D Plans, With and Without the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), 2006 (Among Seniors Taking 1 or More Rx) With LIS (excluding Dual Eligibles) Without LIS NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. “Did not fill/delayed filling” refers to not filling or delayed filling or refilling a prescription because of cost in the past twelve months. Weighted percentages. Excludes seniors for whom LIS status is unknown (n=686). Significance testing: with LIS versus without LIS (*p < 0.05). Low-income is defined as at or below 150% of poverty. In 2006, federal poverty level: $9,800/individual and $13,200/couple. Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  13. Drug Coverage Among Seniors with Incomes At or Below 150% of Poverty Who Were Not Receiving the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), 2006 No Rx Coverage Nearly half of all seniors at or below 150% of poverty without the low-income subsidy are in a Part D plan Other Part D Employer/ VA NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. VA is Department of Veterans Affairs. Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  14. Share of Seniors With Incomes At or Below 150% of Poverty Who Said That They Were Not Aware of the Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), Among Those Not Receiving The LIS, 2006 % Poverty ≤100% 101% - 134% 135% - 150% Race/Ethnicity White African American Non-White Hispanic NOTES: Sample excludes institutionalized seniors. Weighted percentages. Reference Groups: 135-150% of poverty, white, and Part D Rx Coverage (*p<0.05). In 2006, federal poverty level: $9,800/individual and $13,200/couple. Numbers are rounded. SOURCE: Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs, 2006.

  15. Conclusions • Medicare drug benefit reached most seniors who lacked drug coverage in 2005. • Seniors in Part D plans fared better than those who lacked drug coverage in terms of out-of-pocket costs and rates of cost-related non-adherence. • However, Part D plans provided less financial protection against high out-of-pocket spending than either employer plans or the VA. • Survey highlights the beneficial effects of the low-income subsidy for those receiving them and underscores the importance of sustained efforts to increase participation in the LIS program.

More Related