Additional research is urgently needed to inform evidence-based policy regarding Marketplace risk adjustment and SEP eligibility rules and to improve outreach to people who are eligible for SEP enrollment.Recent press reports and other evidence suggest that Medicare Part D plans may be encouraging the use of brand-name drugs instead of generics. However, the scope of such practices is unclear. We examined Medicare Part D formulary coverage and tier placement of matched pairs of brand-name drugs and generics to quantify how often preferred formulary placement of brand-name drugs is occurring within and across Part D plans and to assess the cost implications for Medicare and its beneficiaries. We found that in 2019, 84 percent of 4,176,772 Part D plan-product combinations had generic-only coverage (that is, the brand-name counterparts were not covered). Another 15 percent covered both the brand-name and generic versions of a product. For the small number of products whose brand-name versions were covered preferentially to their generic equivalents, beneficiary and Medicare prices were generally low for both products. Overall, we found that most Part D plan formularies are designed to encourage the use of generics rather than their brand-name counterparts. Policy makers should continue to monitor Part D formulary coverage patterns to ensure consistent and generous coverage for generic drugs, given their important role in reducing prescription drug spending.Timely access to outpatient care was a primary driver behind the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) increased purchase of community-based care under the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, known as the Choice Act. To compare veterans' experiences in VA-delivered and community-based outpatient care after implementation of the act, we assessed veterans' scores on four dimensions of experience-access, communication, coordination, and provider rating-for outpatient specialty, primary, and mental health care received during 2016-17. Patient experiences were better for VA than for community care in all respects except access. For specialty care, access scores were better in the community; for primary and mental health care, access scores were similar in the two settings. Although all specialty care scores and the primary care coordination score improved over time, the gaps between settings did not shrink. As purchased care further expands under the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, which replaced the Choice Act in 2019, monitoring of meaningful differences between settings should continue, with the results used to inform both VA purchasing decisions and patients' care choices.Cost-related nonadherence to prescription medicines is a common problem with important implications for population health. Relative to men, women may be more vulnerable to cost-related nonadherence because of higher health needs and lower financial resources. Using data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey, we compared cost-related nonadherence among younger (ages 18-64) and older (ages 65 and older) women and men in eleven high-income countries. Among younger adults, the unadjusted female-male disparity was larger in the US compared with other countries One in four younger women reported cost-related nonadherence compared with one in seven younger men. This large disparity persisted after adjustment for age, income, and chronic conditions. We also found smaller but significant female-male differences among younger women in Australia and Canada. We did not find significant female-male differences among older adults in adjusted analyses in any country. DT-061 activator Higher rates of cost-related nonadherence among younger women, and US women in particular, may produce important sex-related disparities in health outcomes that should be further explored.Provider consolidation into vertically integrated health systems increased from 2016 to 2018. More than half of US physicians and 72 percent of hospitals were affiliated with one of 637 health systems in 2018. For-profit and church-operated systems had the largest increases in system size, driven in part by a large number of system mergers and acquisitions.During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing ratios reached untenable levels.Clinical care in the United States has been transformed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support these changes, regulators and payers have temporarily modified long-standing policies, recognizing the need for a trade-off between the costs and benefits of oversight during times of crisis. Specifically, there has been a heightened receptivity to the importance of preserving physicians' and other health care professionals' time, cognitive bandwidth, and emotional reserve for the direct care of patients, instead of squandering these resources on low-value tasks and frustrating technology. Instead of reflexively reverting to past practices and policies, there is now an opportunity to take advantage of the lessons of COVID-19 for the further transformation of health care to achieve Quadruple Aim outcomes (better care for individuals, better health for the population, better experience for clinicians, and lower costs). We outline some of the policy and practice changes that we believe should endure after the crisis has passed, and we recommend using similar logic during noncrisis times to make additional changes to further reduce administrative burden, and thus improve patient care.Hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) face increasing pressure to improve care coordination and reduce unnecessary readmissions. One strategy to accomplish this is to share physicians and advanced practice clinicians, so that the same providers see patients in both settings. Using 2008-16 Medicare claims, we found that as SNFs moved increasingly toward using SNF specialists, there was a steady decline in the number of facilities sharing medical providers and in the proportion of SNF primary care delivered by provider practices with both hospital and SNF clinicians (hospital-SNF practices). In SNF fixed effects analyses, we found that SNFs that increased primary care visits by hospital-SNF practices had slightly fewer readmissions, shorter lengths-of-stay, and increased successful community discharges. These findings suggest that SNFs that share medical providers with hospitals may see some benefit from that linkage, although the magnitude of the benefit may be small.