ArticleBMC health services research2014
Patterns of prescription drug expenditures and medication adherence among medicare part D beneficiaries with and without the low-income supplement.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medicare Part D's Effects on Drug Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Systematic Review.Health services research · 2017Pooled it
- Loss of Subsidized Drug Coverage and Mortality among Medicare Beneficiaries.The New England journal of medicine · 2025Article
- Bromocriptine and Colesevelam Hydrochloride: Novel Therapies for Type II Diabetes Mellitus.Cureus · 2023Review
- Consequences of forgoing prescription drug subsidies among low-income Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes.Health services research · 2022Article
- The Relationship Between Take-up of Prescription Drug Subsidies and Medicaid Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Factors associated with medication nonadherence among Medicare low-income subsidy beneficiaries with diabetes, hypertension, and/or heart failure.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Identifying adherent patients to newly initiated statins using previous adherence to chronic medications.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Decomposing the effect of drug benefit program on antihypertensive medication adherence among the elderly in urban China.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Shopping on the Public and Private Health Insurance Marketplaces: Consumer Decision Aids and Plan Presentation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- The Effect of Opioid Use and Mental Illness on Chronic Disease Medication Adherence in Superutilizers.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Observational
- Adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors among Medicare Part D beneficiaries with chronic myeloid leukemia.Cancer · 2018Article
- Assessing disruptions in adherence to antidepressant treatments after breast cancer diagnosis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2017Article
- Poor medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: recognizing the scope of the problem and its key contributors.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association between the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS), gap coverage, and outcomes such as medical expenditures, prescription fills, and medication adherence is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the LIS and these measures for patients within a large, national Part D plan in the United States.
methodsIn this cross-sectional, retrospective analysis, we compared total and plan expenditures, out-of-pocket costs, and medication fills and adherence for three categories of Medicare beneficiaries: non-LIS beneficiaries without gap coverage (non-LIS/non-GC), non-LIS beneficiaries with gap coverage (non-LIS/GC), and LIS beneficiaries (LIS).
resultsLIS beneficiaries, relative to non-LIS/non-GC and non-LIS/GC beneficiaries, had higher total expenditures ($1,887 vs. $1,360 vs. $1,341); lower out-of-pocket costs ($148 vs. $546 vs. $570); more expenditures exceeding the gap threshold (27.6% vs. 18.4% vs. 16.9%); and slightly higher adherence to blood pressure (65.6% vs. 64.2% vs. 62.4%); diabetes (62.5% vs. 57.7 vs. 57.4%); and lipid-lowering (59.6% vs. 57.0 vs. 55.6%) medications.
conclusionLIS beneficiaries had higher total expenditures, lower out-of-pocket costs, and modestly better adherence to diabetes medications than non-LIS/non-GC and non-LIS/GC beneficiaries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.