Limited information exists about enrollment in Part D prescription coverage by Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. Part D coverage may increase access to medicines. This study evaluated patterns of Part D uptake and costs and assessed the effects of coverage on hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) use among people with colorectal cancer (CRC). We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data on fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries with at least 36 months of follow-up who were diagnosed with CRC at any point from January 2007 through December 2010, and a matched cohort of beneficiaries without cancer. Dual (Medicare/Medicaid) enrollees were excluded because they are automatically enrolled in Part D. Among beneficiaries with CRC (n = 12,774), 39 percent had complete Part D coverage, defined as coverage in the diagnosis year and 2 subsequent years; the rate was 38 percent in the matched comparison cohort (P = .119). Among those with complete Part D coverage, there was no significant difference in annual prescription drug costs between people with CRC ($3,157, 95% confidence interval [CI]: $3,098–$3,216) and without ($3,113, 95% CI: $3,054–$3,172). Among people with CRC, odds of ED use ranged from unchanged to marginally higher for those with no or partial Part D coverage, (adjusted odds ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00–1.18), compared with those with complete Part D coverage. Lack of continuous Part D coverage was associated with more ED use among Medicare FFS beneficiaries with CRC in 2007–2013. Among people with Part D coverage, prescription drug costs varied little between those with CRC and matched beneficiaries without cancer.

Acknowledgments

The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or RTI International.

Funding support for Lisa M. Lines, Sujha Subramanian, and Sonja Hoover was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Contract No. 200-2008-27958-0036, to RTI International). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-most expensive cancer to treat, at an estimated projected annual cost in the United States of $19 to $26 billion in 2020.¹ The high costs and substantial cost-sharing associated with cancer medicines may put Medicare beneficiaries treated for CRC at risk for delaying or discontinuing their therapies, possibly increasing other health care use, such as inpatient admissions or emergency department (ED) visits.^2,3

In January 2006, with US drug prices continuing to climb ever higher, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the optional Medicare prescription drug benefit (Part D) program to offer subsidized drug plans to all Medicare beneficiaries.⁴ Before Part D, Medicare beneficiaries with cancer faced substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) costs: according to data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, from 1996 to 2005, 57 percent of Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age with cancer had annual OOP costs exceeding 10 percent of their annual income.^5,6 More-recent research suggests that since Part D’s introduction, average OOP burden among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer has declined by 43%.⁷

Published data from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare program indicate that the proportion of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with CRC who were covered by the Part D program during the calendar year after diagnosis ranged from 55 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in 2013; about 57 percent to 70 percent of Medicare FFS beneficiaries without cancer were enrolled in Part D during the same period.⁸ Those who elect not to enroll in Part D initially can avoid paying a late enrollment penalty for subsequent Part D enrollment by maintaining “creditable coverage” for prescription drugs (meaning coverage from another source, such as a current or former employer or union, that is expected to pay at least as much as the standard Medicare prescription drug coverage, on average).⁹

To date, few researchers have studied the impact of Part D coverage on costs or outcomes among people with cancer.^2,10,11 Research not specific to people with cancer has found that Part D has reduced OOP costs⁴ and mortality;^12,13 decreased hospital admissions, overall resource use, and total Medicare costs;^13,14 and increased use of prescription medicines^4,14,15—all while keeping monthly premiums and program costs below projections¹⁶ and receiving high patient experience ratings.¹¹

The objective of this study was to evaluate patterns of Part D uptake and costs and to understand the effects of coverage on inpatient stays and ED use among a cohort of individuals diagnosed with CRC in the United States from 2007 through 2010 and matched beneficiaries without cancer. We evaluated the following research questions: (1) What proportion of beneficiaries with and without CRC had Part D coverage during this time period, and how did this change over time? (2) How did Part D expenditures compare between Medicare beneficiaries with and without CRC? (3) Among people with CRC, was Part D coverage associated with any differences in the occurrence or volume of inpatient admissions or ED use during the initial treatment phase?

Methods

We used the most-recent data available at the time of our study, which covers individuals diagnosed from January 2007 through December 2010 and followed through December 2013. We used cancer registry data from the SEER database linked with Medicare claims and enrollment data (SEER-Medicare). SEER-Medicare data have been used in more than 1,600 peer-reviewed studies since 1993.¹⁷ The data also include cancer stage, which is difficult to infer from claims data alone, and which is often a major driver of costs and clinical outcomes.¹⁸

Results

The cohort of Medicare FFS beneficiaries with CRC included 12,774 people, of whom 39 percent had complete Part D coverage (Table 1).

Table 1

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics by Part D enrollment among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with and without colorectal cancer.

The matched comparison cohort included 12,774 Medicare FFS beneficiaries without cancer, of whom 38 percent had complete Part D coverage (P for difference between cohorts = .119). Within both cohorts, individuals with Part D coverage differed significantly from those without complete coverage on sex, race, rurality, US Census region, and comorbidity category. Among beneficiaries with CRC, those with complete Part D coverage had a significantly different age distribution (with more enrollees in the 65–74 age category) and were less likely to be married. Among both cohorts, those with complete Part D coverage were more likely to be in the youngest age group (65–74 years), female, and white; to live in a rural location; and to live in the Midwest.

In Figure 1, we show trends in Part D uptake by cohort and time (relative to index).

Figure 1

Patterns of Part D enrollment among Medicare FFS beneficiaries with and without colorectal cancer.

Comparing the CRC and matched cohorts, individuals with CRC were significantly more likely to be covered by Part D in the year after being indexed or diagnosed (P = .003), but no other times showed significant differences between cohorts. Both cohorts showed significantly increased rates of Part D uptake over time (CRC: P = .004; no cancer: P = .002).

Total 12-month Medicare Part D prescription drug costs are provided in Table 2.

Table 2

Observed prescription drug costs and healthcare utilization by Part D enrollment among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with and without colorectal cancer.

Among those with complete Part D coverage, costs did not significantly differ between people with and without CRC; both groups had costs of around $3,100, as opposed to around $100 in the no/partial Part D groups. The CRC cohort had substantially higher ED and hospitalization rates per 1,000 beneficiaries than the no-cancer cohort. The hospitalization rate was nearly 10 times higher, whereas the ED rate was about 5 times higher among those with CRC. Neither cohort showed any significant difference in hospitalization or ED visit rates between those with and without Part D coverage.

Within the CRC cohort, lack of Part D coverage was associated with no increase to slightly higher odds of an ED visit in the 12-month postindex period (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.18). The mean number of ED visits was 0.11 higher (P = .001) among those without Part D coverage (Table 3).

Table 3

Adjusted effects of no/partial Part D among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with and without colorectal cancer.

Within the no-cancer cohort, Part D enrollment showed no significant effect on ED use. After controlling for potential confounding factors, we found no significant effects of Part D enrollment on inpatient use within either cohort. In sensitivity analyses that excluded those with partial coverage, results were nearly identical (not shown).

Discussion

Continuous Part D enrollment during the diagnosis year and 2 subsequent years, termed “complete Part D coverage” in this study, was associated with a reduction in ED visits among nondual Medicare FFS beneficiaries with CRC over 65 years of age during the 12 months postindex, after adjusting for potential confounding effects. Among people with complete Part D coverage, no significant differences were observed between beneficiaries with CRC and those without cancer in Part D costs. Although Part D uptake significantly increased in the year postindex, no significant differences were observed between cohorts in overall uptake of the program. Of note, our estimates of Part D uptake differ from those published by the SEER-Medicare program⁸ because we excluded dual enrollees from our sample, as they are automatically enrolled in Part D.²⁵

Both CRC and non-CRC cohorts showed statistically significant increases in Part D uptake over time, consistent with trends in the larger Medicare population. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the program had average annual increases of 6.5 percent from 2006 through 2013.²⁶ Our study found that Part D enrollment increased by 9 percent over time in this sample of people with CRC and by 10 percent in the matched cohort. The differences we observe could be because we have only nondual FFS beneficiaries in our data.

The association of Part D with slightly reduced odds of an ED visit only among people with CRC is puzzling, partly because the Part D program does not directly cover cancer treatments for this population. Although oral chemotherapy for CRC was available during the study period in the form of capecitabine (Xeloda), it was covered under Part B, and not Part D, because it is an alternative form of the infusion therapy 5-Fluorouracil.²⁷ The rules for oral antinausea drugs are much the same.²⁸

Because of these coverage policies, the observed effects of Part D among people with CRC could be related to better management of medication-sensitive conditions, such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction. As shown in Table 1, those with complete Part D coverage were significantly more likely to have at least one major comorbidity. Theoretically and empirically, improved access to medicines leads to improved adherence, which helps improve blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels, potentially preventing or delaying ED visits.^10,29–31 Inpatient use in one period decreases overall ED use the next, suggesting that the intensive care provided during hospital stays may be effective at addressing clinical issues that could subsequently manifest in emergencies.³² Therefore, it is also possible that the effects among Part D enrollees in the CRC cohort are related to receiving more health care services in general.

Other research on the effects of Part D on outcomes among people with cancer is limited. One study used Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data for 2002 through 2010 and employed a difference-in-differences design to explore the effects of Part D enrollment on OOP costs, medicine use, hospitalizations, ED visits, and outpatient visits among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer (n = 4,729). The authors found that Part D was associated with a 43 percent decline in OOP costs and fewer outpatient visits.³³ Studies among women with breast cancer have found that Part D was associated with reduced mortality, improved adherence to medicine, and reduced racial/ethnic disparities.^34,35 More broadly, researchers have failed to find any associations between Part D enrollment and self-reported health status, limitations in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, ED visits and hospital admissions (prevalence, counts, and spending), or death among Medicare enrollees, according to nationally representative data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (n = 56,293) combined with Medicare claims.³⁶ One study that did examine the effect of Part D on ED visits among a general Medicare population found that, using a difference-in-differences approach, Part D enrollment reduced non-urgent ED visits but not urgent ED visits.³⁷ The authors’ findings support our conclusion in this study: Part D may have led to better health management and reduced unnecessary ED usage.

The current study excluded Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees; they are not included in SEER-Medicare, although they represent a large and growing group of seniors. Part D studies using only Medicare FFS claims could be susceptible to confounding because of an increase in MA enrollment during the study period. We addressed this by including an index year indicator in the models, which adjusts for differences in MA enrollment over time. We have no reason to suspect that including MA enrollees would have changed our findings; however, this is an area deserving further exploration.

Although we have characterized groups in terms of complete vs. partial/no Part D enrollment, most of those in the partial/no Part D group probably had some kind of insurance coverage for prescription drugs, whether through a former employer or union, some other program, or self-funded; still, an estimated 12 percent of Medicare beneficiaries had no drug coverage during the study period.²⁶ Unfortunately, our data did not provide any information about alternative coverage or lack thereof.

Our outcome measures were limited to ED visits and hospitalizations during the 12-month period after diagnosis. Despite these limitations, our study’s relatively large sample of more than 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, along with a matched-cohort design using the reliable and well-validated SEER-Medicare database, allows us to get a clearer picture of costs, enrollment patterns, and health outcomes among people with CRC and similar people without cancer. Future research is needed to understand a broader set of potential outcomes, including OOP costs, ideally with better information on prescription drug coverage among those not covered by Part D.

References

1.

Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103(2):117–28. 10.1093/jnci/djq495 [PMC free article: PMC3107566] [PubMed: 21228314] [CrossRef]

2.

Hsu J, Fung V, Price M, Huang J, Brand R, Hui R et al. Medicare beneficiaries’ knowledge of Part D prescription drug program benefits and responses to drug costs. JAMA 2008;299(16):1929–36. 10.1001/jama.299.16.1929 [PubMed: 18430912] [CrossRef]

3.

Tamblyn R, Laprise R, Hanley JA, Abrahamowicz M, Scott S, Mayo N et al. Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. JAMA 2001;285(4):421–9. 10.1001/jama.285.4.421 [PubMed: 11242426] [CrossRef]

4.

Lichtenberg FR, Sun SX. The impact of Medicare Part D On prescription drug use by the elderly. Health Aff 2007;26(6):1735–44. [PubMed: 17978393]

5.

Lines LM. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures for cancer patients in the United States: A population-based analysis. Amherst (MA): School of Public Health, University of Massachusetts; 2008.

6.

Lines LM. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures for cancer patients in the United States: findings from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. 9th Annual Health Services and Outcomes Research Conference; 2008 Dec 3; Houston, TX.

7.

Kircher SM, Johansen ME, Nimeiri HS, Richardson CR, Davis MM. Impact of Medicare Part D on out-of-pocket drug costs and medical use for patients with cancer. Cancer 2014;120(21):3378–84. 10.1002/cncr.28898 [PubMed: 24962682] [CrossRef]

8.

National Cancer Institute. Number of Part D Enrollees. 2016 [cited 2016 Dec 6]. Available from: https:​//healthcaredelivery​.cancer.gov/seermedicare​/aboutdata/enrollees.html.

9.

Medicare.gov. 3 ways to avoid the late enrollment penalty. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www​.medicare​.gov/drug-coverage-part-d​/costs-for-medicare-drug-coverage​/part-d-late-enrollment-penalty​/3-ways-to-avoid-the-part-d-late-enrollment-penalty.

10.

Blanchard J, Madden JM, Ross-Degnan D, Gresenz CR, Soumerai SB. The relationship between emergency department use and cost-related medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries. Ann Emerg Med 2013;62(5):475–85. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.04.013 [PMC free article: PMC3812390] [PubMed: 23726522] [CrossRef]

11.

Today M. Senior satisfaction survey. 2016 [cited 2016 Dec 7]. Available from: http:​//medicaretoday​.org/resources/senior-satisfaction-survey/.

12.

Semilla AP, Chen F, Dall TM. Reductions in mortality among Medicare beneficiaries following the implementation of Medicare Part D. Am J Manag Care 2015;21(9 Suppl):s165–171. [PubMed: 26295437]

13.

Kaestner R, Long C, Alexander GC. Effects of prescription drug insurance on hospitalization and mortality: evidence from Medicare Part D. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2014. 10.3386/w19948 [CrossRef]

14.

Kaestner R, Khan N. Medicare Part D and its effect on the use of prescription drugs and use of other health care services of the elderly. J Policy Anal Manage 2012;31(2):253–79. 10.1002/pam.21625 [CrossRef]

15.

Liu FX, Alexander GC, Crawford SY, Pickard AS, Hedeker D, Walton SM. The impact of Medicare Part D on out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, medication utilization, health resource utilization, and preference-based health utility. Health Serv Res 2011;46(4):1104–23. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01273.x [PMC free article: PMC3165180] [PubMed: 21609328] [CrossRef]

16.

Hoadley J. Medicare Part D spending trends: understanding key drivers and the role of competition. 2012 [cited 2018 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www​.kff.org/health-costs​/issue-brief​/medicare-part-d-spending-trends-understanding-key/.

17.

National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare publications by journal & year. 2017; [cited 2017 Oct 6]. Available from: https:​//healthcaredelivery​.cancer.gov/seermedicare​/overview/pubs_jour_year.php.

18.

Chawla N, Yabroff KR, Mariotto A, McNeel TS, Schrag D, Warren JL. Limited validity of diagnosis codes in Medicare claims for identifying cancer metastases and inferring stage. Ann Epidemiol 2014;24(9):666–72. e662. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.06.099 [PMC free article: PMC4135357] [PubMed: 25066409] [CrossRef]

19.

Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53(12):1258–67. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00256-0 [PubMed: 11146273] [CrossRef]

20.

National Cancer Institute. NCI Comorbidity Index Overview. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. Available from: https:​//healthcaredelivery​.cancer.gov/seermedicare​//considerations/comorbidity​.html.

21.

Hanchate AD, Clough-Gorr KM, Ash AS, Thwin SS, Silliman RA. Longitudinal patterns in survival, comorbidity, healthcare utilization and quality of care among older women following breast cancer diagnosis. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25(10):1045–50. 10.1007/s11606-010-1407-9 [PMC free article: PMC2955471] [PubMed: 20532657] [CrossRef]

22.

Snyder CF, Frick KD, Kantsiper ME, Peairs KS, Herbert RJ, Blackford AL et al. Prevention, screening, and surveillance care for breast cancer survivors compared with controls: changes from 1998 to 2002. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(7):1054–61. 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.0950 [PMC free article: PMC5950494] [PubMed: 19164212] [CrossRef]

23.

Lang K, Lines LM, Lee DW, Korn JR, Vanness DJ, Earle C et al. Differences in colorectal cancer treatment costs by treatment phase, cancer site, and stage at diagnosis: evidence from linked SEER-medicare data. Value Health 2008;11(3):A65–6. 10.1016/S1098-3015(10)70217-5 [CrossRef]

24.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross domestic product: implicit price deflator. 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 2]. Available from: https://fred​.stlouisfed​.org/series/GDPDEF.

25.

Lines LM, Menzin J, Lang K, Korn JR, Neumann PJ. Predictors of enrollment in Medicare Part D: are beneficiaries rational? Value Health 2009;12(3):A15. 10.1016/S1098-3015(10)73134-X [CrossRef]

26.

Hoadley J, Summer L, Hargrave E, Cubanski J, Neuman T. Medicare Part D in its ninth year: the 2014 marketplace and key trends, 2006–2014. 2014 [cited 2017 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www​.kff.org/report-section​/medicare-part-d-in-its-ninth-year-section-1-part-d-enrollment-and-plan-availability/.

27.

D’Amato SL. New oral chemotherapeutic agents: Part B vs. Part D Implications. n.d. [cited 2017 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www​.amcp.org/WorkArea​/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=12097.

28.

American Cancer Society. Medicare Part D: things people with cancer may want to know. n.d. Available from: http://www​.cancer.org​/treatment/finding-and-paying-for-treatment​/understanding-health-insurance​/government-funded-programs​/medicare-medicaid/part-d.html.

29.

Jha AK, Aubert RE, Yao J, Teagarden JR, Epstein RS. Greater adherence to diabetes drugs is linked to less hospital use and could save nearly $5 billion annually. Health Aff 2012;31(8):1836–46. [PubMed: 22869663]

30.

Brown MT, Bussell JK. Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc 2011;86(4):304–14. 10.4065/mcp.2010.0575 [PMC free article: PMC3068890] [PubMed: 21389250] [CrossRef]

31.

Reynolds K, An J, Wu J, Harrison TN, Wei R, Stuart B et al. Treatment discontinuation of oral hypoglycemic agents and healthcare utilization among patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2016;30(8):1443–51. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.07.021 [PubMed: 27506310] [CrossRef]

32.

Lines LM, Rosen AB, Ash AS. Enhancing administrative data to predict emergency department utilization: The role of neighborhood sociodemographics. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2017;28(4):1487–508. 10.1353/hpu.2017.0129 [PMC free article: PMC5710796] [PubMed: 29176110] [CrossRef]

33.

Kircher SM, Johansen ME, Nimeiri HS, Richardson CR, Davis MM. Impact of Medicare Part D on out-of-pocket drug costs and medical use for patients with cancer. Cancer 2014;120(21):3378–84. 10.1002/cncr.28898 [PubMed: 24962682] [CrossRef]

34.

Nattinger AB, Wozniak EM, McGinley EL, Li J, Laud P, Pezzin LE. Socioeconomic disparities in mortality among women with incident breast cancer before and after implementation of Medicare Part D. Med Care 2017;55(5):463–9. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000685 [PMC free article: PMC5391268] [PubMed: 28030476] [CrossRef]

35.

Biggers A, Shi Y, Charlson J, Smith EC, Smallwood AJ, Nattinger AB et al. Medicare D subsidies and racial disparities in persistence and adherence with hormonal therapy. J Clin Oncol 2016;34(36):4398–404. 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.3350 [PMC free article: PMC5455308] [PubMed: 27998232] [CrossRef]

36.

Briesacher BA, Madden JM, Zhang F, Fouayzi H, Ross-Degnan D, Gurwitz JH et al. Did Medicare Part D affect national trends in health outcomes or hospitalizations? A time-series analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(12):825–33. 10.7326/M14-0726 [PMC free article: PMC4841503] [PubMed: 26075753] [CrossRef]

37.

Ayyagari P, Shane DM, Wehby GL. The impact of Medicare Part D on emergency department visits. Health Econ 2017;26(4):536–44. 10.1002/hec.3326 [PubMed: 26865471] [CrossRef]

Lisa M. Lines, PhD, MPH, is a senior health services researcher at RTI International and an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Florence K. L. Tangka, PhD, MS, is a health economist in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control’s Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sonja Hoover, MPP, is a research public health analyst at RTI International.

Sujha Subramanian, PhD, is Senior Fellow in Health Policy at RTI International.

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research organization dedicated to improving the human condition. The RTI Press mission is to disseminate information about RTI research, analytic tools, and technical expertise to a national and international audience. RTI Press publications are peer-reviewed by at least two independent substantive experts and one or more Press editors.

RTI Press Associate Editor

Franziska Rokoske

Suggested Citation

Lines, L. M., Tangka, F. K. L., Hoover, S., and Subramanian, S. (2020). People with Colorectal Cancer in SEER-Medicare: Part D Uptake, Costs, and Outcomes . RTI Press Publication No. RR-0037-2005. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2020.rr.0037.2005

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving the human condition. We combine scientific rigor and technical expertise in social and laboratory sciences, engineering, and international development to deliver solutions to the critical needs of clients worldwide.