Tag Archives: Medicare

Diagnosed opioid use disorder by payer

Over 25 million American adults report suffering from chronic pain on a daily basis, and a range of adverse health outcomes accompanies their pain. Beginning in the early 2000s, opioid analgesics were increasingly seen as a solution to the problem of under-treatment that had been a concern in the 1990s. From 1991 to 2011, the number of opioid prescriptions filled at U.S. retail pharmacies nearly tripled, increasing from 76 million to 219 million per year, though those numbers have started to decrease since the peak in 2011.

Despite the recent decrease in prescriptions of opioids, the human toll of the opioid crisis has continued to intensify. Illegally acquired heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have become the leading cause of overdose deaths. Opioid overdose deaths are now the single largest factor slowing the growth in U.S. life expectancy, and if current trends continue, opioid overdose deaths could outnumber suicides by 2019.

In this article, Milliman’s Stoddard Davenport and Katie Matthews help explain the scale of the opioid epidemic within the insurance industry.

Based on a sample of over 42 million people with commercial insurance, nearly 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries, and a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Medicaid beneficiaries in 49 states, we estimate that over 1.5 million insured Americans were diagnosed with an opioid use disorder in 2015 (the most recent year available). Figures 3 and 4 summarize these findings by payer. These results (and others presented throughout this report) have been age- and area-adjusted to be representative of the U.S. insured population as of 2015 using U.S. Census Bureau data.12

Figure 3: Diagnosed opioid use disorder by payer, 2015 (or most recent year)

Commercial
(2015)
622,000
Medicare
(2015)
239,000
Medicaid
(2013)
642,000

We found that about 41.4% of those with diagnosed opioid use disorder were commercially insured, 15.9% were Medicare beneficiaries, and 42.7% were Medicaid beneficiaries. Overall, the diagnosed prevalence rate of opioid use disorder was 3.28 per 1,000 for the commercially insured, 5.39 per 1,000 for those with Medicare, and 8.90 per 1,000 for those with Medicaid. Across all insurance payers, we found that the prevalence of opioid use disorder was 4.91 per 1,000.

Figure 4: National estimates of opioid use disorder diagnosis by payer, 2015 (or most recent year)

Payer Diagnosed prevalence per 1,000 Total diagnosed nationally No. (%)
Commercial (2015) 3.28 622,000 (41.4)
Medicare (2015) 5.39 239,000 (15.9)
Medicaid (2013) 8.90 642,000 (42.7)
Total 4.91 1,503,000 (100.0)

The authors also highlight the rate of opioid use disorder by age and sex.

Rates of opioid use disorder varied widely by age and sex, with men generally experiencing higher rates of opioid use disorder through age 65, and women experiencing higher rates from 66 and older. Rates were quite low through childhood, followed by a marked increase in the late teen years, peaking in the mid-20s at a rate of 5.47 per 1,000 for women (at age 24) and 10.00 per 1,000 for men (at age 25). Rates showed a sharp drop-off in the late 20s, followed by a rise to another peak in the mid-30s of about 3.76 per 1,000 for women (at age 35) and 6.37 per 1,000 for men (at age 36). From the late 30s through age 64, the gap between men and women closed and both experienced prevalence rates hovering between 3.50 to 4.00 per 1,000 through retirement age. Opioid use disorder rates for Medicare beneficiaries were generally higher for women than for men, and tapered off with advancing age. Comparable data for Medicaid were not available.

Medicare Shared Savings Program 2016 Track 3 financial results

Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, healthcare providers that participate in a Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) as Track 3 accountable care organizations may qualify for the advanced Alternative Payment Model 5% bonus. Track 3 was first offered in 2016. This paper by Milliman consultants discusses first-year MSSP Track 3 performance and possible drivers of success.

Questions and answers: Are you managing retiree health needs cost-effectively?

Because retirees are often the highest users of healthcare, simple changes in plan design or delivery can go a long way in reducing costs for employers. For example, we had a client that was looking to deliver benefits to its Medicare retirees more efficiently. By moving the entire population to a Medicare Advantage plan, our client not only reduced its retiree medical costs by 10% in the first year due to a reduced premium, but it also was able to provide a richer benefit design.

In reviewing your own retiree medical benefit design strategy, here are a few questions you should ask.

Is my plan coordinating with Medicare in the most efficient way?
If you have an active medical plan that also covers Medicare-eligible retirees, carefully review the coordination of benefits method. When Medicare is primary, the plan commonly coordinates under one of these approaches: carve-out, maintenance of benefits, or coordination of benefits. Because costs to the plan and retiree vary under each of these approaches it is a good idea to examine each one; there may be a way to save money for the plan or the retiree.

Am I taking full advantage of prescription drug subsidies?
Given the high use of prescription drugs in the retiree population, this area may be your best opportunity to reduce costs. Are you taking full advantage of the prescription drug subsidies from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)? Consider delivering Medicare prescription drug coverage through an employer group waiver plan or with retiree drug subsidy coverage.

Am I leveraging the experts in administration?
Some companies have moved Medicare-eligible retirees to a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MAPDP), which offers additional benefits beyond Part A and Part B coverage. The federal government pays private insurance companies to offer these plans. Because MAPDPs are fully insured, the insurer would take over the entire administration of the Medicare plan and is well-versed in managing this population, resulting in possible savings and increased efficiencies in plan administration.

Does a pre-Medicare plan make sense?
If the size of your pre-Medicare retiree population is large enough, the most cost-effective solution could be to offer a pre-Medicare retiree-only plan. Retiree populations are different and a pre-Medicare retiree-only plan can be designed with those needs in mind, in a way that efficiently maximizes benefits. For example, retirees are generally on fixed incomes, so a plan designed with set deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket maximums is more desirable.

Am I using all the utilization management tools available?
Utilization management programs can be helpful in reducing the cost of covering pre-Medicare retirees. For example, chronic diseases are likely more prevalent in your pre-Medicare retirees than your actives. Helping retirees manage these conditions can benefit not just your covered population but also your bottom line.

Do any of the plan changes that I am making have unintended consequences for my retiree population?
Seemingly small changes can have significant financial impacts for your organization when you look closely at how it affects your retirees—even though retirees likely make up a smaller portion of your total population. For example, for plans that receive the retiree drug subsidy, changes that increase cost sharing or contributions for prescription drugs for retirees may cause the plan to lose eligibility for the subsidy. Instead of cost-shifting, it may make more sense to focus on managing plan costs. You will have the added advantage of possibly lowering retiree medical accounting liabilities—e.g., Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Subtopic 715-60 liability—by potentially reducing projected plan costs, long-term trend, and delaying the impact of the 40% excise tax on high-cost health plans.

When it comes to retiree medical coverage, it is important to ask the right questions. Given the increasing cost of healthcare and retirees’ high utilization, you may be able to make changes that positively affect your retirees and lower the cost of covering them.

Important considerations for Medicare premium support program

Policymakers sometimes point to Medicare premium support programs as a possible cost-reduction solution for the federal health insurance program. In this article, Milliman’s Catherine Murphy-Barron and Pamela Pelizzari discuss some of the key financial and insurance issues involved in premium support proposals for Medicare Part A and Part B. The authors also explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

A premium support model has the potential to fundamentally change the way Medicare benefits are provided to eligible individuals. Such a model would substantially influence both beneficiary and federal spending far into the future.

Financially, the possible implications of some premium support models have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to demonstrate the level of savings or costs to the federal government and affected beneficiaries. Under the options examined, the CBO found that net federal spending for Medicare would decrease in 2024 relative to current law by $84 billion (a 9% decrease) in the second-lowest-bid option (where the federal contribution is set at the second-lowest bid), and by $41 billion (a 4% decrease) in the average-bid option (where the federal contribution is set at the average bid). However, it is worth noting that the CBO projected an increase in spending by beneficiaries on their own premiums and care in the second-lowest-bid option.8

From a beneficiary perspective, the design of any premium support model would be under pressure to demonstrate that beneficiaries would have access to comprehensive coverage for an affordable price. Without sufficient information on the similarities and differences among various plans, beneficiaries may be at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to identify plans that best meet their needs. Financially, beneficiaries are at risk of incurring an increasing percentage of the cost of these plans if the federal contribution is less than the cost of the plans. In the second-lowest bid option that was scored by the CBO, beneficiaries’ spending was projected to increase by 18% (including both premiums and other out-of-pocket costs) in 2024 relative to the amount projected under current law, which represents a substantial increase in out-of-pocket costs for the same level of care.9

Vetting PBM contract provisions may lower pharmacy plan costs

Prescription drug plan sponsors must consistently evaluate and update their pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) contracts to control costs. In their article “Medicare Part D PBM contracting strategy,” Milliman actuaries Michael Polakowski, Nicholas Johnson, and Todd Wanta highlight numerous contract provisions that plan sponsors should examine and renegotiate to reduce pharmacy expenses.

Here’s an excerpt:

As contracting has become more complex, the following contract provisions are becoming more common as plan sponsors look to reduce their pharmacy expenses.

Price protection. In the current environment of high-cost trends for brand-name drugs, price protection can offer more inflation protection than discount guarantees. Any price increases above a predefined threshold are paid back to the PBM by the manufacturer and considered rebates by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Plan sponsors should carefully consider how price protection can affect Medicare bids and end-of-year settlements.
Membership. More favorable dispensing fees, discounts, and/or rebates may be achieved for plan sponsors with higher membership counts. Improved contracting levels are specified directly in the PBM contract.
Discount/rebate guarantees. Discount and rebate guarantees may be presented in many different forms, e.g., rebates per brand-name script or on a per member per month (PMPM) basis, or discounts off AWP or the maximum allowable cost (MAC) list. Rebate guarantees may exclude certain drugs. At a minimum, plan sponsors should ensure the targets are clearly understood and auditable. Plan sponsors should be wary of proprietary definitions when industry definitions are available for reference. Plan sponsors should also ensure that reimbursement mechanisms are in place if targets are not achieved.
Rebate maximization. Because of the structure of the Part D benefit, rebates can be a more effective way to reduce Medicare bids than discounts. Over the last few years (and with the increasing cost of specialty drugs), plan sponsors have increasingly negotiated with PBMs to maximize rebates rather than discounts. The financial incentives for this approach are discussed by Milliman consultants Adam Barnhart and Jason Gomberg in a recent article for the AIDS Institute, “Financial Incentives in Medicare Part D.”1
Multi-year agreements. Some PBMs have been willing to provide discount or rebate improvements over time if plan sponsors commit to multi-year contracts. Plan sponsors should be sure to verify that the improvements are contractually guaranteed and meet or beat market-wide improvements. Even multi-year discounts should have market check provisions to allow plan sponsors the ability to receive better terms when the market changes.