IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0250967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost sharing for breast cancer hormone therapy: How do dual eligible patients’ copayment impact adherence

Author

Listed:
  • Siyu Ma
  • Donald S Shepard
  • Grant A Ritter
  • Robert E Martell
  • Cindy Parks Thomas

Abstract

Objective: To examine the different levels of copayment assistance and treatment adherence among Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries with breast cancer in the U.S. Research design: Propensity Score methodology was adopted to minimize potential selection bias from the nonrandom allocation of the treatment group (i.e., full Medicaid beneficiaries) and control group (i.e., Medicare Savings Programs [MSPs] beneficiaries). Longitudinal hierarchical model and Cox proportional-hazard model were adopted to examine patients’ adherence over their full five-year course of adjuvant hormone therapy. Results: Our study cohort consisted of 1,133 dual eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer in years 2007 –mid 2009. About 80.5% of them received MSPs benefits, while the rest received full Medicaid benefits. On average for a standardized 30-day hormone therapy medication, full Medicaid beneficiaries spent $0.5-$2.0 and MSP beneficiaries spent $1.4-$4.8 in copayment. After adjusting for other factors, this copayment reduction wasn’t associated with a significantly better adherence. However, when the catastrophic coverage threshold was reached (copayments reduced to zero), significant improvement in adherence was found in both groups. Conclusions: Our study found that small amount of cost-sharing reduction did not affect Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible patients’ medication treatment adherence, however, the elimination of cost-sharing (even a minimal amount) was associated with improved adherence. Future legislative and advocacy efforts should be paid on eliminating cost sharing for dual eligibles, and possibly even a broader group of financially vulnerable patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Siyu Ma & Donald S Shepard & Grant A Ritter & Robert E Martell & Cindy Parks Thomas, 2021. "Cost sharing for breast cancer hormone therapy: How do dual eligible patients’ copayment impact adherence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250967
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250967
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250967&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0250967?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    2. Roberts, M.C. & Wheeler, S.B. & Reeder-Hayes, K., 2015. "Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in endocrine therapy adherence in breast cancer: A systematic review," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105, pages 4-15.
    3. Herman, D. & Afulani, P. & Coleman-Jensen, A. & Harrison, G.G., 2015. "Food insecurity and cost-related medication underuse among nonelderly adults in a nationally representative sample," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(10), pages 48-59.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    2. Ellison, Richard B. & Ellison, Adrian B. & Greaves, Stephen P. & Sampaio, Breno, 2017. "Electronic ticketing systems as a mechanism for travel behaviour change? Evidence from Sydney’s Opal card," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 80-93.
    3. Hye Yoon Chung & Youjin Hahn, 2021. "Work Transitions, Gender, and Subjective Well-Being," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 2085-2109, October.
    4. González-Uribe, Juanita & Reyes, Santiago, 2021. "Identifying and boosting “Gazelles”: Evidence from business accelerators," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 260-287.
    5. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    6. Alexander Hijzen & Sébastien Jean & Thierry Mayer, 2011. "The effects at home of initiating production abroad: evidence from matched French firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 147(3), pages 457-483, September.
    7. Gunther Bensch & Jörg Peters, 2013. "Alleviating Deforestation Pressures? Impacts of Improved Stove Dissemination on Charcoal Consumption in Urban Senegal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 676-698.
    8. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    10. Agnes Quisumbing & Neha Kumar, 2011. "Does social capital build women's assets? The long-term impacts of group-based and individual dissemination of agricultural technology in Bangladesh," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 220-242.
    11. Meng, Xuechen & Lin, Shanlang & Zhu, Xiaochuan, 2018. "The resource redistribution effect of high-speed rail stations on the economic growth of neighbouring regions: Evidence from China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 178-191.
    12. Jan Fałkowski & Maciej Jakubowski & Paweł Strawiński, 2014. "Returns from income strategies in rural Poland," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 22(1), pages 139-178, January.
    13. Cameron Truong, 2013. "The January effect, does options trading matter?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(1), pages 31-48, April.
    14. Ichimura, Hidehiko & Todd, Petra E., 2007. "Implementing Nonparametric and Semiparametric Estimators," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 74, Elsevier.
    15. Hirota, Haruaki & Iwata, Kazuyuki & Tanaka, Kenta, 2022. "Is public official training effective at reducing costs? Evidence from survey data on Japanese municipal mergers," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 145-158.
    16. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    17. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs, 2014. "Capitalization of the Single Payment Scheme into Land Value: Generalized Propensity Score Evidence from the European Union," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 260-289.
    18. Emanuela Galasso & Martin Ravallion, 2004. "Social Protection in a Crisis: Argentina's Plan Jefes y Jefas," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(3), pages 367-399.
    19. Peter Grajzl & Stjepan Srhoj & Jaka Cepec & Barbara Mörec, 2024. "A by-product of big government: the attenuating role of public procurement for the effectiveness of grants-based entrepreneurship policy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 895-916, March.
    20. Gabrielle Wills, 2016. "Principal leadership changes in South Africa: Investigating their consequences for school performance," Working Papers 01/2016, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.