Mail‐Order and Retail Pharmacy Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

Medicare Part D is the primary source of prescription drug coverage for Americans with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Cognitive and functional limitations may hinder beneficiaries' pharmacy access. Mail-order pharmacies can offer convenience [1], although their use among beneficiaries with ADRD and implications on drug utilization and spending remain unknown. This study examined utilization and spending patterns among ADRD Medicare Part D beneficiaries using mail-order and retail pharmacies. Pharmaceutical claims data were obtained for beneficiaries with ADRD using 2021 Medicare Prescription Drug Events (PDE) files from a 20% national random sample of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare (see Supporting Information) [2]. We identified beneficiaries with ADRD using Medicare-defined diagnosis codes from Medicare's 2020 Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) Chronic Conditions segment [3] and 2021 MBSF Base segment [4]. We restricted the sample to beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Medicare, living at home, and alive through 2021. We excluded beneficiaries without any Part D prescription fills and those with claims from pharmacy types other than retail or mail-order pharmacies in 2021. Beneficiary characteristics were compared between primarily mail-order users (> 50% of prescriptions dispensed in mail-order) and primarily retail pharmacy users (≥ 50% of prescriptions from retail pharmacies). Drugs were defined as the combination of active ingredient, dosage form, and strength [5]. Acute-use drugs were excluded. For each beneficiary-drug pair, the proportion of days covered (PDC), the beneficiary out-of-pocket cost, plan spending, and total spending (plan plus beneficiary plus any third-party payments) were calculated per 30-day supply. Comparisons were implemented at the beneficiary-drug level between beneficiary-drug pairs with 100% of the claims in mail-order versus beneficiary-drug pairs with 100% in retail pharmacies. Because low-income subsidies can lower beneficiary out-of-pocket costs, spending metrics were also examined separately for beneficiaries not receiving subsidies. Statistical significance was set at two-tailed p < 0.05. Two-tailed independent-samples T tests and Chi-square tests were used for the comparisons; all analyses used STATA Version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). The study was approved by the Internal Review Board and followed STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies. The sample totaled 121,754 Medicare Part D beneficiaries with ADRD, with 13,393 (11%) primarily mail-order and 108,361 (89%) primarily retail pharmacy users (Table 1). Mail-order users were slightly older (mean (SD) age: 81.5 (7.8) vs. 80.3 (9.6) years, p < 0.001); less often female (56% vs. 62%, p < 0.001); and more frequently white (87% vs. 70%, p < 0.001). Fewer MO users received low-income subsidies (7% vs. 36%, p < 0.001) and fewer were dually eligible for Medicaid (6% vs. 34%, p < 0.001). As measured by PDC, drug possession was greater among mail-order beneficiary-drug pairs (mean (SD) PDC: 1.0 (0.1) vs. 0.9 (0.2), p < 0.001). Overall, mail-order beneficiary-drug pairs had lower plan cost per 30-day supply (mean (SD): $17.6 ($56.0) vs. $19.1 ($72.2), p < 0.001); lower total cost (mean (SD): $34.8 ($102) vs. $37.8 ($116), p < 0.001); and lower beneficiary out-of-pocket cost as a percentage of total cost (mean (SD): 31.6% (37.5%) vs. 39.4% (39.3%), p < 0.001), as compared to retail pharmacy pairs (Figure 1). Among beneficiaries not receiving low-income subsidies, mail-order beneficiary-drug pairs had lower out-of-pocket costs (mean (SD): $6.3 ($17.5) vs. $9.6 ($22.9), p < 0.001), and lower beneficiary out-of-pocket cost as a percentage of total cost (mean (SD): 33.1% (38.0%) vs. 58.2% (37.5%), p < 0.001) than retail pharmacy pairs. The study findings suggest that mail-order pharmacies may offer benefits for Medicare Part D beneficiaries with ADRD through higher medication possession rates and reduced out-of-pocket costs, particularly for those not receiving low-income subsidy. However, mail-order pharmacies were significantly less likely than retail pharmacies to serve low-income beneficiaries. The Medicare Part D program should require that plans offer mail-order pharmacy information for all beneficiaries, especially low-income subsidy recipients and those dually eligible for Medicaid. Study limitations include not controlling for confounders such as the degree of cognitive impairment, caregiver support, pharmacy preferences, health status, and medication regimen complexity. PDC may not actually reflect medication intake, and while the differences in drug possession were statistically significant, their clinical significance remains uncertain. The study findings may not be generalizable to all Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD, including newly diagnosed cases and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Future research should explore how patient and caregiver preferences, medication characteristics, and pharmacy type interact to affect drug utilization and clinical and financial outcomes. To inform policy interventions, studies should assess specific strategies that could help Part D plans increase medication access and utilization in the Medicare population with ADRD. Mariana P. Socal: conceptualization, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. Jenny Markell: methodology, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – reviewing and editing. Pineal I. Bareamichael: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – reviewing and editing. Ge Bai: conceptualization, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing, supervision. Jeromie Ballreich: conceptualization, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing, supervision. The authors are grateful for feedback received from faculty from the Hopkins Economics of Alzheimer's Disease & Services (HEADS) Center at the planning phases of this project, especially Prof. Cynthia Boyd, M.D. MPH. The data examined in this study was obtained from Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data (“PDE”) files; Medicare Chronic Conditions files; and Medicare beneficiary enrollment information (“A/B/C/D”) files. The data is property of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and can be obtained at: https://resdac.org/. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the article; and decision to submit the article for publication. Mariana P. Socal and Jeromie Ballreich had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. Text S1: Data sources and identification of the study sample. Text S2: Definition of comparison groups for the beneficiary-level and claims-level analysis. Figure S1: Sample selection flow diagram: beneficiary level. Figure S2: Sample selection flow diagram: claims level. Text S3: Definition of outcome variables. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.