MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589158462 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.3.355

Prescription Drug Utilization and Reimbursement Increased Following State Medicaid Expansion in 2014

2017· article· en· W2589158462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nirosha Mahendraratnam, Stacie B. Dusetzina, Joel F. Farley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidReimbursementMedical prescriptionMedicinePrescription drugQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineMedicare Part DHealth careEmergency medicineNursingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded health care and medication insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion in select states. Expansion has the potential to increase the availability of health services to patients, including prescription medications. However, limited studies have examined how expansion affected prescription drug utilization and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: To compare prescription drug utilization (number of prescriptions filled) and reimbursement trends between states that did and did not expand Medicaid coverage in 2014, while accounting for known effects of expansion on Medicaid enrollment. METHODS: We conducted a comparative interrupted time series using retrospective Medicaid state drug utilization data from 2011 to 2014. After inclusion/exclusion criteria, 8 states that expanded Medicaid in 2014 and 10 states that did not expand Medicaid were studied. Primary outcomes were changes in quarterly prescription drug utilization and quarterly total prescription drug reimbursement before and after expansion. To account for increases in enrollment in expansion states, secondary outcomes were per-member-per-quarter (PMPQ) utilization and reimbursement before and after expansion. RESULTS: Expansion states experienced a 1.4 million prescriptions per quarter and $163 million per quarter increase in utilization and reimbursement above the change in rates observed in nonexpansion states after expansion (P < 0.001). Specifically, 1 year after ACA implementation, expansion states used 17.0% more prescriptions and spent 36.1% more in reimbursement than the quarter preceding expansion. Expansion and nonexpansion states experienced significant drops in PMPQ prescriptions immediately after expansion (P < 0.001), but PMPQ prescriptions and reimbursement trends increased by the end of the postexpansion period in expansion states (P < 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest that Medicaid expansion offers vulnerable patients who were previously uninsured increased access to health care resources, specifically prescription drugs. Although this hypothesis would benefit from further testing, it aligns with previous studies that have shown that Medicaid expansion has led to increased access to coverage and care. While enrollment contributes to the increase in prescription utilization and reimbursement, the drop in PMPQ utilization suggests that the patients entering the program are healthier than existing patients. This shows that risk pooling is working. However, the increase in PMPQ reimbursement suggests that new enrollment may not be the only factor driving reimbursement changes. Factors such as changes in product mix, risk pool composition, and drug pricing and their effects on total and per-member reimbursement should be evaluated in future studies. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Mahendraratnam is currently a Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research Pre-doctoral Fellow at Bristol-Myers Squibb and previously provided advisory services to public and private sector clients while employed at Avalere Health, an Inovalon Company, as well as completed an internship at Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. Farley and Dusetzina have no conflicts of interest to report. Preliminary results of this study were presented at the 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 21st Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, on May 21-25, 2016, and the 2016 AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting (ARM) in Boston, Massachusetts, on June 26-28, 2016. Study concept and design were contributed by Farley, Mahendraratnam, and Dusetzina. Mahendraratnam, Farley, and Dusetzina collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Mahendraratnam, Farley, and Dusetzina and revised by Farley, Dusetzina, and Mahendraratnam.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207