Suppr超能文献

医疗保险部分 D 中 COPD 吸入器覆盖范围的变化。

Variability of COPD inhaler coverage in Medicare Part D.

机构信息

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 200 N Wolfe St, Ste 2088, Baltimore, MD 21287. Email:

出版信息

Am J Manag Care. 2021 May;27(5):187-193. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88632.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Stand-alone prescription drug plans (S-PDPs) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans are incentivized to cover outpatient medications differently. This could affect the coverage of inhalers that prevent costly exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with impacts for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. This study compared the coverage of guideline-recommended COPD inhalers between S-PDPs and MA-PD plans.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of the formularies for all 689 S-PDPs and 2578 MA-PD plans offered in 2017.

METHODS

We assessed each prescription drug plan's coverage of inhalers in 6 therapeutic categories recommended by the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) report and compared the use of prior authorization, step therapy, and coinsurance between S-PDPs and MA-PD plans.

RESULTS

In 2017, all S-PDPs and MA-PD plans covered at least 1 inhaler from each GOLD therapeutic category, except for long-acting β agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination inhalers. S-PDPs were more likely to require coinsurance for inhalers across all therapeutic categories, whereas MA-PD plans required prior authorization more frequently for 3 of the 6 therapeutic categories. S-PDPs required coinsurance more frequently than MA-PD plans for inhalers that treat mild (20.8% vs 11.4%; P < .001), moderate (40.0 vs 13.2%; P < .001), and severe (45.4% vs 11.0%; P < .001) disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare Part D S-PDPs are more likely than MA-PD plans to require coinsurance for outpatient COPD inhalers, especially for severe disease. This likely reflects their different financial incentives and is an important consideration for providers and policy makers aiming to improve outpatient COPD management.

摘要

目的

独立处方药计划(S-PDP)和医疗保险优势处方药(MA-PD)计划在覆盖门诊药物方面有不同的激励机制。这可能会影响预防慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者病情恶化所需的吸入器的覆盖范围,从而对医疗保险计划及其受益人产生影响。本研究比较了 S-PDP 和 MA-PD 计划之间指南推荐的 COPD 吸入器的覆盖范围。

研究设计

对 2017 年所有 689 个 S-PDP 和 2578 个 MA-PD 计划的处方进行横断面分析。

方法

我们评估了每个处方药计划在 2017 年全球慢性阻塞性肺病倡议(GOLD)报告推荐的 6 个治疗类别中吸入器的覆盖范围,并比较了 S-PDP 和 MA-PD 计划之间的事先授权、分步治疗和共付额的使用情况。

结果

2017 年,所有 S-PDP 和 MA-PD 计划都覆盖了 GOLD 治疗类别中的至少一种吸入器,除了长效β激动剂/长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂联合吸入器。S-PDP 计划更有可能对所有治疗类别中的吸入器要求共付额,而 MA-PD 计划更频繁地要求对 6 个治疗类别中的 3 个进行事先授权。S-PDP 计划对治疗轻度(20.8%比 11.4%;P < 0.001)、中度(40.0 比 13.2%;P < 0.001)和重度(45.4%比 11.0%;P < 0.001)疾病的吸入器要求共付额的频率高于 MA-PD 计划。

结论

医疗保险 D 部分的 S-PDP 计划比 MA-PD 计划更有可能对门诊 COPD 吸入器要求共付额,尤其是对严重疾病。这很可能反映了它们不同的财务激励机制,对于旨在改善门诊 COPD 管理的提供者和政策制定者来说,这是一个重要的考虑因素。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验