Does Medicare Enrollment Raise Diabetes Medication Costs?

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 07/12/2024 - 12:36

 

TOPLINE:

Reaching age 65 years and enrolling in Medicare is associated with a $23 increase in quarterly out-of-pocket costs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications. Medication usage decreased by 5.3%, with a notable shift toward more expensive insulin use.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2012-2020 prescription drug claims data from the TriNetX Diamond Network.
  • A total of 129,997 individuals diagnosed with T2D were included, with claims observed both before and after age 65 years.
  • The primary outcome was patient out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs per quarter, adjusted to 2020 dollars.
  • Drugs measured included biguanides (metformin), sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2 inhibitors), and amylin analogs, among others.
  • Regression discontinuity design was used to examine the outcomes, adjusting for differential linear quarterly time trends, year fixed effects, and utilization composition and intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Reaching age 65 years was associated with an increase of $23.04 in mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs (95% confidence interval [CI], $19.86-$26.22).
  • The 95th percentile of out-of-pocket spending increased by $56.36 (95% CI, $51.48-$61.23) after utilization adjustment.
  • T2D medication usage decreased by 5.3% at age 65 years, from 3.40 claims per quarter to 3.22 claims per quarter.
  • Higher out-of-pockets were associated with insulin use, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1s, and SGLT2 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results have important implications for the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, many of which aim to reduce these costs. Reduced patient cost burden will improve adherence and the management of type 2 diabetes, likely leading to reductions in T2D complications,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Douglas Barthold, PhD, Jing Li, MA, PhD, and Anirban Basu, MS, PhD, at the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the possibility that not all claims of an individual were observed, as TriNetX claims data may not capture individuals who leave the healthcare system or have inaccurate or changing diagnoses. Additionally, the data lack individual-level insurance characteristics. The assumption that individuals transition to Medicare at age 65 years may not be true for all participants. The study also lacks clinical information regarding the severity of T2D, which could influence medication usage and out-of-pocket costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the University of Washington’s Population Health Initiative, Student Technology Fee program, and Provost’s office. Dr. Barthold and Dr. Li received grants from the NIA. Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from Salutis Consulting LLC outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

TOPLINE:

Reaching age 65 years and enrolling in Medicare is associated with a $23 increase in quarterly out-of-pocket costs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications. Medication usage decreased by 5.3%, with a notable shift toward more expensive insulin use.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2012-2020 prescription drug claims data from the TriNetX Diamond Network.
  • A total of 129,997 individuals diagnosed with T2D were included, with claims observed both before and after age 65 years.
  • The primary outcome was patient out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs per quarter, adjusted to 2020 dollars.
  • Drugs measured included biguanides (metformin), sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2 inhibitors), and amylin analogs, among others.
  • Regression discontinuity design was used to examine the outcomes, adjusting for differential linear quarterly time trends, year fixed effects, and utilization composition and intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Reaching age 65 years was associated with an increase of $23.04 in mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs (95% confidence interval [CI], $19.86-$26.22).
  • The 95th percentile of out-of-pocket spending increased by $56.36 (95% CI, $51.48-$61.23) after utilization adjustment.
  • T2D medication usage decreased by 5.3% at age 65 years, from 3.40 claims per quarter to 3.22 claims per quarter.
  • Higher out-of-pockets were associated with insulin use, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1s, and SGLT2 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results have important implications for the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, many of which aim to reduce these costs. Reduced patient cost burden will improve adherence and the management of type 2 diabetes, likely leading to reductions in T2D complications,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Douglas Barthold, PhD, Jing Li, MA, PhD, and Anirban Basu, MS, PhD, at the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the possibility that not all claims of an individual were observed, as TriNetX claims data may not capture individuals who leave the healthcare system or have inaccurate or changing diagnoses. Additionally, the data lack individual-level insurance characteristics. The assumption that individuals transition to Medicare at age 65 years may not be true for all participants. The study also lacks clinical information regarding the severity of T2D, which could influence medication usage and out-of-pocket costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the University of Washington’s Population Health Initiative, Student Technology Fee program, and Provost’s office. Dr. Barthold and Dr. Li received grants from the NIA. Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from Salutis Consulting LLC outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

TOPLINE:

Reaching age 65 years and enrolling in Medicare is associated with a $23 increase in quarterly out-of-pocket costs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications. Medication usage decreased by 5.3%, with a notable shift toward more expensive insulin use.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2012-2020 prescription drug claims data from the TriNetX Diamond Network.
  • A total of 129,997 individuals diagnosed with T2D were included, with claims observed both before and after age 65 years.
  • The primary outcome was patient out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs per quarter, adjusted to 2020 dollars.
  • Drugs measured included biguanides (metformin), sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2 inhibitors), and amylin analogs, among others.
  • Regression discontinuity design was used to examine the outcomes, adjusting for differential linear quarterly time trends, year fixed effects, and utilization composition and intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Reaching age 65 years was associated with an increase of $23.04 in mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs (95% confidence interval [CI], $19.86-$26.22).
  • The 95th percentile of out-of-pocket spending increased by $56.36 (95% CI, $51.48-$61.23) after utilization adjustment.
  • T2D medication usage decreased by 5.3% at age 65 years, from 3.40 claims per quarter to 3.22 claims per quarter.
  • Higher out-of-pockets were associated with insulin use, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1s, and SGLT2 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results have important implications for the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, many of which aim to reduce these costs. Reduced patient cost burden will improve adherence and the management of type 2 diabetes, likely leading to reductions in T2D complications,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Douglas Barthold, PhD, Jing Li, MA, PhD, and Anirban Basu, MS, PhD, at the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations include the possibility that not all claims of an individual were observed, as TriNetX claims data may not capture individuals who leave the healthcare system or have inaccurate or changing diagnoses. Additionally, the data lack individual-level insurance characteristics. The assumption that individuals transition to Medicare at age 65 years may not be true for all participants. The study also lacks clinical information regarding the severity of T2D, which could influence medication usage and out-of-pocket costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the University of Washington’s Population Health Initiative, Student Technology Fee program, and Provost’s office. Dr. Barthold and Dr. Li received grants from the NIA. Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from Salutis Consulting LLC outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Can Insulin Sensitivity Preserve Muscle During Weight Loss?

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 06/06/2024 - 11:43

 

TOPLINE:

A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
  • The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
  • Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
  • Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
  • Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
  • Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
  • The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

TOPLINE:

A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
  • The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
  • Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
  • Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
  • Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
  • Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
  • The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

TOPLINE:

A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
  • The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
  • Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
  • Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
  • Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
  • Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
  • The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article