
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:title>Access to Medicare Part D plans : a comparison of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas</dc:title>
  <dc:title>Rural policy brief</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Nataliansyah, Mochamad, author.</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Salako, Abiodun, author.</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Ullrich, Fred, author.</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Mueller, Keith, author.</dc:creator>
  <dc:subject>Medicare Part D -- statistics &amp; numerical data</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Rural Population</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Urban Population</dc:subject>
  <dc:description>Purpose. This policy brief updates previous publications by the University of Minnesota Rural Health Research Center1 (from 2011 data to 2017 data) and extends the RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis reporting of rural activity in the Medicare Part D program. Earlier RUPRI reports focused on enrollment differences between urban (metropolitan) and rural (nonmetropolitan) counties. This policy brief focuses on the types of plans offered by county classification--metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore (no urban cluster of at least 10,000 persons). Comparisons are made across county type and between Part D plan types (i.e. stand-alone plans and those offered as part of Medicare Advantage [MA] plans) as there are important differences in the manner in which these plans are offered and in premiums and benefits. Key Findings. (1) In 2017, the average number of MA plans per county that included prescription drug benefits (MA-PD plans) was lower in noncore counties than in either micropolitan or metropolitan counties (6.4, 8.1, and 12.7, respectively), consistent with the patterns seen in the 2011 study. (2) Choices of plans with $0 deductibles were slightly more limited for beneficiaries in noncore counties possibly because of the lower number of available MA-PD plans. (3) Beneficiaries in noncore counties had access to multiple stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), and in most noncore counties (80.7 percent) at least 2 MA-PD plans were available. (4) In 2017, 10.6 percent of noncore counties had no MA-PD plans available, and 8.7 percent had only one plan offered.</dc:description>
  <dc:publisher>Iowa City, IA : Rural Policy Research Institute, May 2020</dc:publisher>
  <dc:contributor>RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis, issuing body.</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Rural Health Research &amp; Policy Centers, issuing body.</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Rural Policy Research Institute (U.S.), issuing body.</dc:contributor>
  <dc:type>Technical Report</dc:type>
  <dc:format>Text</dc:format>
  <dc:format>1 online resource (1 PDF file (9 pages)).</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>nlm:nlmuid-101771095-pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>101771095</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101771095</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>English</dc:language>
  <dc:coverage>United States</dc:coverage>
  <dc:rights>The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domain. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>
