Medicare Doughnut Hole Swallows Meds

Medicare recipients in the so-called doughnut hole, where they foot the complete bill for their drugs, are twice as likely to skip meds entirely than are those who get other assistance. Katherine Harmon reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some 50 million Americans 65 and older currently get help from Medicare. But the program doesn't cover all of a patient's medications. After a patient’s annual drug cost hits $2,800, the patient pays the rest of the tab up to another $4,500. Between three and four million people hit this so-called "doughnut hole" each year, usually in mid-August, and don't qualify for low-income assistance.

Advocates for this coverage gap say it encourages people to choose cheaper drugs, but Medicare recipients who hit the doughnut hole and weren't receiving extra help were twice as likely to forgo at least one prescribed drug as those who got additional subsidies. And they were actually less likely to switch to cheaper options, such as generics. So finds a new study in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine. [Jennifer Polinski et al., "Changes in Drug Utilization during a Gap in Insurance Coverage: An Examination of the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap"]

The 2010 health reform law reduces the amount Medicare beneficiaries shell out. But with budget debates about scaling back on entitlement programs, drug coverage might take another hit. And those cuts could mean the difference between following doctor's orders and skipping necessary meds.

—Katherine Harmon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe