Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20002765›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2010

Impact of Medicare Part D on Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible beneficiaries' prescription utilization and expenditures.

Anirban Basu, Wesley Yin, G Caleb Alexander

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Estimating price elasticities of demand for pain relief drugs: evidence from Medicare Part D.International journal of health economics and management · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact of Medicare Part D on Racial and Ethnic Minorities.Diversity and equality in health and care · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Just because it's low cost doesn't mean it's accessible.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anirban BasuSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, IL, USA. abasu@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
Wesley Yin
G Caleb Alexander

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the effect of Part D on 65-78-year-old noninstitutionalized dual eligibles' prescription utilization and expenditures. DATA SOURCE: Random sample of unique pharmacy customers of a national retail pharmacy chain who filled at least one prescription during both 2005 and 2006. For each subject, we obtained claims data for every prescription filled between January 1, 2005, and April 31, 2007. STUDY

designGeneralized estimating equations were used to examine the experience of a "treatment" group (dual eligibles between 65 and 78 years on January 1, 2005) with that of a "control" group (near-elderly patients with Medicaid coverage between 60 and 63 years on January 1, 2005) during the first 18 months after Part D implementation. PRINCIPAL

findingsExpenditures for the treatment and control groups tracked each other closely in the pre-Part D period. Immediately following the implementation of Part D, expenditures for both groups decreased and then leveled off. There were no significant changes in trends in the dual eligibles' out-of-pocket expenditures, total monthly expenditures, pill-days, or total number of prescriptions due to Part D.

conclusionsWe find no evidence that Part D adversely affected pharmaceutical utilization or out-of-pocket expenditures of dual eligibles during the transition period, nor during the 16 months subsequent to Part D implementation.

Indexed as

Eligibility DeterminationMedicare Part DPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedDrug PrescriptionsDrug Utilization ReviewFees, PharmaceuticalFemaleFinancing, PersonalHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMedicaidMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20002765
PMCPMC2813441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.