[ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 20-Feb-2013
[ | E-mail Share Share ]

Contact: Cristina Mestre
MestreCA@upmc.edu
412-586-9776
University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences

Pitt study examines cost-effectiveness of medicare drug plans in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

PITTSBURGH, Feb. 19, 2013 A new study published online today in the American Journal of Managed Care found that in Medicare Part D, generic drug coverage was cost-saving compared to no coverage in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, while also improving health outcomes. Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, the Pitt Graduate School of Public Health, and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC note that policymakers and insurers should consider generic-only coverage, rather than no gap coverage, to both conserve health care resources and improve health.

Medicare Part D offers prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries and since the program's inception in 2006, many enrollees have benefited from improved drug coverage and increased medication use. However, a major concern is the large coverage gap in the standard Part D design, where beneficiaries pay 100 percent of medication costs out-of-pocket. About one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries enter this coverage gap each year, and once there, they often reduce medication use, which may lead to increases in hospitalization and medical spending.

"This coverage gap is an even larger concern for Medicare beneficiaries with severe mental disorders such as bipolar and schizophrenia," said Kenneth J. Smith, M.D., M.S., associate professor of medicine and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and lead author of the study. "Our cost-effectiveness analysis of Part D plans is an unconventional yet instructive way to inform managed care decision-making."

Added concerns for mental health patients include:

The standard Part D benefit in 2007 included four phases: (1) an initial $265 deductible; (2) a period in which beneficiaries paid 25 percent of drug costs between $265 and $2,400; (3) a coverage gap in which they paid 100 percent of costs between $2,401 and $3,850, where they reached their total out-of-pocket spending catastrophic limit; and (4) a catastrophic coverage period where they paid 5 percent of costs.

Although the standard Part D benefit includes these four phases, some companies offering Part D drug plans modified the design and offered either "actuarially equivalent" or enhanced plans. In 2007, for example, 72 percent of stand-alone Part D plans had the standard coverage gap, 27 percent offered coverage for generic drugs used in the gap, and fewer than 1 percent offered coverage for both brand-name and generic drugs.

"Our objective was to examine differences in health outcomes and costs between coverage groups in patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia," added Smith. "We were most interested in differences between the no-gap and generic coverage groups because policies governing the plans' availability and affordability could affect health costs and outcomes for beneficiaries entering the coverage gap."

Of the more than 180,000 patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia that were evaluated, 14.6 percent had no gap coverage, and 7.1 percent had generic coverage. The remainder had low-income subsidies with more generous coverage, and therefore, were not strictly comparable to the other two groups. When comparing the no-gap coverage and generic gap coverage groups, patients with generic coverage had better health outcomes and reduced total medical costs as follows:

Costs were lower with generic coverage due to fewer hospitalizations when this coverage was in place. The authors conclude that generic coverage in the gap is cost-saving compared with no-gap coverage (the standard part D design) and improves health outcomes.

###

Collaborators on this study include Seo Hyon Baik, Ph.D., Charles F. Reynolds III, M.D., Bruce L. Rollman, M.D., M.P.H., and Yuting Zhang, Ph.D., all of the University of Pittsburgh.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grant RC1MH088510; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant R01HS018657; and the University of Pittsburgh Central Research Development Fund.

About the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

As one of the nation's leading academic centers for biomedical research, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine integrates advanced technology with basic science across a broad range of disciplines in a continuous quest to harness the power of new knowledge and improve the human condition. Driven mainly by the School of Medicine and its affiliates, Pitt has ranked among the top 10 recipients of funding from the National Institutes of Health since 1997. In rankings recently released by the National Science Foundation, Pitt ranked fifth among all American universities in total federal science and engineering research and development support.

Likewise, the School of Medicine is equally committed to advancing the quality and strength of its medical and graduate education programs, for which it is recognized as an innovative leader, and to training highly skilled, compassionate clinicians and creative scientists well-equipped to engage in world-class research. The School of Medicine is the academic partner of UPMC, which has collaborated with the University to raise the standard of medical excellence in Pittsburgh and to position health care as a driving force behind the region's economy. For more information about the School of Medicine, see www.medschool.pitt.edu.

http://www.upmc.com/media



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail Share Share ]

 


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.