{"title":"Evidence of Inefficiencies in Practice Patterns: Regional Variation in Medicare Medical and Drug Spending","authors":"Melinda Buntin, T. Hayford","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2015-0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several studies have explored the causes and magnitude of geographic variation in Medicare spending and service use, but most of these studies have not taken into account that pharmaceuticals may substitute for medical service use. We address this issue using Medicare medical and pharmaceutical administrative claims data to explore the correlation between medical and pharmaceutical spending and utilization; we also examine medical and pharmaceutical use for subsets of the Medicare population with certain chronic conditions often treated with drugs. Beneficiary-level regressions with controls for health status and demographics were used to construct standardized medical spending and pharmaceutical spending and utilization measures for each region and patient cohort. Areas with higher medical spending tend to have higher pharmaceutical spending in general. However, areas with higher medical spending also tend to have lower pharmaceutical spending for conditions for which prescription drugs may substitute for additional medical care. Both of these patterns are consistent with less efficient medical practices in higher-spending areas. Likewise, more expensive drugs and more broad-spectrum antibiotics, which are often considered discretionary and overused, are more likely to be prescribed in higher-spending areas. Our results suggest that care may be provided more efficiently in some regions than in others. However, additional research is needed to investigate relationships between spending and health care outcomes, and what types of policies may create incentives for higher-spending regions to reduce spending without a loss in quality.","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"299 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2015-0034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract Several studies have explored the causes and magnitude of geographic variation in Medicare spending and service use, but most of these studies have not taken into account that pharmaceuticals may substitute for medical service use. We address this issue using Medicare medical and pharmaceutical administrative claims data to explore the correlation between medical and pharmaceutical spending and utilization; we also examine medical and pharmaceutical use for subsets of the Medicare population with certain chronic conditions often treated with drugs. Beneficiary-level regressions with controls for health status and demographics were used to construct standardized medical spending and pharmaceutical spending and utilization measures for each region and patient cohort. Areas with higher medical spending tend to have higher pharmaceutical spending in general. However, areas with higher medical spending also tend to have lower pharmaceutical spending for conditions for which prescription drugs may substitute for additional medical care. Both of these patterns are consistent with less efficient medical practices in higher-spending areas. Likewise, more expensive drugs and more broad-spectrum antibiotics, which are often considered discretionary and overused, are more likely to be prescribed in higher-spending areas. Our results suggest that care may be provided more efficiently in some regions than in others. However, additional research is needed to investigate relationships between spending and health care outcomes, and what types of policies may create incentives for higher-spending regions to reduce spending without a loss in quality.
期刊介绍:
Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.