Search

Background: Antipsychotics are commonly used in dementia patients but have potential risks that often outweigh clinical benefits. Limited studies have assessed the healthcare utilization and medical costs associated with antipsychotic use, especially those focused on cumulative days of use. Objectives: To examine clinical and economic burdens associated with different cumulative days of antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia in the United States. Methods: This study used Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (2015–2017). Older (≥65 years) Medicare beneficiaries with dementia, without concurrent schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Huntingon's disease, or Tourette's syndrome were included. Antipsychotic use was measured using Medicare Part D prescription events. Healthcare utilization was measured as inpatient services, outpatient services, and emergency room (ER) visits. Total medical costs were classified as Medicare and out-of-pocket costs. The logistic regression, negative binomial regression, and generalized linear model with a log link and gamma distribution were used to examine factors, healthcare utilization, and medical costs. Survey sampling weights were applied to generate national estimates. Results: Among older adults with dementia, 13.18% used antipsychotics. Factors associated with antipsychotic use were being Hispanic (OR: 2.90; 95% CI: 1.45, 5.78), widowed (OR: 3.52; 95% CI: 1.46, 8.48), and single (OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.53, 6.87). Compared to non-users, antipsychotic use was associated with higher inpatient visits (IRR: 2.11; 95% CI 1.53, 2.90), ER visits (IRR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.13), total costs (β: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.71), Medicare costs (β: 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.72), and out-of-pocket costs (β: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.97). With the increase in cumulative days of antipsychotic use, the magnitude of clinical and economic burdens was decreased. Conclusion: The significant clinical and economic burdens associated with antipsychotic use, especially with short-term use, provide real-world evidence to inform clinical practice on deprescribing antipsychotics among community-dwelling geriatric dementia patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing number of myocarditis/pericarditis incidences has been reported after coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccination in adolescents and young adults. This study was designed to investigate the incidence rate of—and risk for—myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination in the United States according to age and vaccine type. This study used the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) from 11 December 2020 to 13 August 2021. A population-based data mining approach was performed based on the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Adverse events of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were rare, with an incidence rate of 5.98 (95% CI = 5.73–6.24) cases per million doses administered. The incidence rate was higher in adolescents and after the administration of the second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. Overall, two mRNA vaccines were significantly associated with increased risks for myocarditis/pericarditis (mRNA-1273 (Moderna): ROR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.21–3.83; BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech): ROR = 5.37, 95% CI = 4.10–7.04) compared to all other vaccines from VAERS. The viral vector vaccine of Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) was not associated with signals of myocarditis/pericarditis (ROR = 1.39; 95% CI = 0.99–1.97). This study found increased risks for myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. For patients at high risk for myocarditis/pericarditis or with myocardial injuries, the viral vector vaccine may be an alternative for consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to examine factors, healthcare utilization, and medical costs associated with potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines in persons living with HIV (PLWH). We used big data from Medicare claims in 2017. Potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines was defined as having any benzodiazepine claims in individuals 65+ years or having benzodiazepine claims for more than four weeks in individuals 18-64 years. Logistic regressions, zero-inflated negative binomial regressions, and generalized linear models were used. This study included 1,211 PLWH and 235 (19.41%) had potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines. PLWH who were 65+ years (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.96), non-Hispanic blacks (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.41), or Hispanics (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.88) were less likely to use benzodiazepines inappropriately. PLWH who had potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines had more inpatient (IRR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.94), outpatient (IRR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.02, 1.28), and emergency room (IRR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.68) visits. Potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines was associated with higher total (β: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.25), Medicare (β: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.28), and out-of-pocket (β: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.36) costs. This study provides real-world evidence to support deprescribing benzodiazepines in PLWH.

Association between protease inhibitors (PI) and Type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) patients is largely debated. This study examined the odds of developing T2DM among HIV/AIDS Medicare beneficiaries treated with PI and possible racial disparities in the odds. We performed a nested casecontrol study of Medicare database 2013-2017. We included HIV/AIDS positive beneficiaries who were enrolled continuously in Medicare Part A/B with no previous history of T2DM. PI-users were matched to non-PI users and non-anti-retroviral therapies (ART) users using a1:1 greedy propensity score (PS) matching . Multivariablee logistic regressions were performed to assess the odds of developing T2DM. The analysis included 2,353 HIV/AIDS beneficiaries. Matched samples were generated for PI vs. non-PI groups ( n  = 484) and PI vs. non-ART groups ( n  = 490). Compared to the non-PI group, the odds of developing T2DM were higher in PI-users (AOR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.17-2.64), in Caucasian PI-users (AOR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.02-3.22) and in African-American PI-users (AOR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.03-3.36). Compared to the non-ART group, the odds of developing T2DM were higher in PI-users (AOR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.25-2.81), in Caucasian PI-users (AOR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.14-3.39) and in African-American PI-users (AOR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03-4.09). The use of PI is associated with higher odds of T2DM; odds were higher among African-Americans than Caucasians.

Clinical management of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is progressing to include chronic/metabolic complications, which may impose a significant economic burden on beneficiaries and Medicare. We assessed the national economic impact of comorbid Type-II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) on HIV/AIDS patients and potential raical disparities. This study was a cross-sectional study of Medicare database 2013-2017. Analytical sample included HIV/AIDS positive beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Part A/B. Total medical costs, prescription costs, inpatient costs, outpatient costs, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and Medicare costs were assessed from Medicare claims. Generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution were used to examine the impact of T2DM on different costs. A total of 2,509 eligible HIV/AIDS positive beneficiaries were identified of which 19.9% ( n =498) had T2DM. After adjusting for covariates, T2DM beneficiaries had higher inpatient costs: 63.34% (95% CI: 42.73%-86.94%), outpatient costs: 50.26% (95% CI: 30.70%-72.75%), Medicare costs: 27.95% (95% CI: 13.81%-43.84%), OOP costs: 59.15% (95% CI: 40.02%-80.92%), and total medical costs: 27.83% (95% CI: 14.27%-43.00%) than non-T2DM beneficiaries. Incremental costs were higher among African Americans than Caucasians. Comorbid T2DM mposes a significant economic burden on HIV/AIDS patients and Medicare, which is higheramong African Americans.

Aim: Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (RD) might have different effects on dental care usage and economic burden. To determine the effects of AD and RD on specific types of dental care usage (preventive and treatment visits) and dental care costs from different payers (total and out-of-pocket costs)., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey in 2016. This study identified 4268 community dwelling older adults with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) from a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Dental care usage and costs are based on self-reported data. Preventive dental events included preventive and diagnosis events. Treatment dental events included restorative, oral surgery and other events., Results: This study identified 4268 (weighted N=30 423 885) older adults, including 94.48% without ADRD, 1.90% with AD and 3.63% with RD. Compared with older adults without ADRD, those with AD had similar dental care usage, but those with RD were 38% less likely to have treatment visit (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.94) and had a 40% reduced number of total treatment visits (incidence rate ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.98). RD was not associated with dental care costs, but AD was associated with higher total costs (β: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.14 to 2.01) and higher out-of-pocket costs (β: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.32)., Conclusions: Patients with ADRD were more likely to have adverse dental care outcomes. Specifically, RD was associated with lower treatment dental care usage and AD was associated with higher total and out-of-pocket dental care costs. Effective patient-centred strategies should be used to improve dental care outcomes in patients with distinct subtypes of ADRD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are characterized by higher deductibles and lower monthly premiums compared with a typical health plan. HDHPs may reduce, or delay, needed care, which will ultimately lead to poorer access to care for chronically affected participants. OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate the HDHP enrollment trend and (2) determine the effects of HDHPs on financial access problems for individuals with self-reported cognitive impairment. METHODS: Data between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Individuals with cognitive impairment were identified if they were limited by memory difficulties. Problems regarding financial access to health care were assessed based on 6 survey questions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multivariable logistic regressions were implemented to evaluate the effects of HDHPs. RESULTS: This study identified 1,148 individuals with cognitive impairment, representing 3.9 million individuals in the United States from 2010 to 2018. A nearly 2-fold increase in HDHP enrollment with cognitive impairment was observed from 2010 (20.9%) to 2018 (41.9%). This increase is similar to that reported for noncognitively impaired individuals. After controlling for possible confounding variables, cognitively impaired individuals with HDPHs were more likely to have overall financial access difficulties compared with those without HDHPs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.88-1.56, P = 0.271), but this likelihood was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs are intended to support effective care options and reduce health care costs. However, our research found that among individuals with cognitive impairment, those with HDHPs experienced some financial access problems, such as affording medical care, follow-up care, and specialists, than those without HDHPs, indicating that HDHPs might have unintended consequences for health care usage. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose.

Objective: Benzodiazepines were excluded from Medicare Part D coverage since its introduction in 2006. Part D expanded coverage for benzodiazepines in 2013. The objective was to examine the impact of Medicare Part D coverage expansion on the utilisation and financial burden of benzodiazepines in older adults., Design: Interrupted time series with a control group., Setting: Nationally representative sample., Participants: 53 150 468 users of benzodiazepines and 21 749 749 users of non-benzodiazepines (an alternative therapy) from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey between the pre-expansion (2006-2012) and post-expansion (2013-2017) periods., Intervention: Medicare Part D coverage expansion on benzodiazepines., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Annual rate of benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines, average number of benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines and average cost of benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines., Results: After Medicare Part D coverage expansion, the level of the annual rate of benzodiazepines increased by 8.20% (95% CI: 6.07% to 10.32%) and the trend decreased by 1.03% each year (95% CI: -1.77% to -0.29%). The trend of the annual rate of non-benzodiazepines decreased by 0.72% each year (95% CI: -1.11% to -0.33%). For the average number of benzodiazepines, the level increased by 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52 to 0.82) and the trend decreased by 0.10 each year (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.05). For the average number of non-benzodiazepines, the level decreased by 0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01) and the trend decreased by 0.04 each year (95% CI: -0.08 to -0.01). No significant level and trend changes were identified for the average cost of benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines., Conclusions: After Medicare Part D coverage expansion, there was a sudden increase in the utilisation of benzodiazepines and a decreasing trend in the long-term. The increase in the utilisation of benzodiazepines did not add a financial burden to older adults. As an alternative therapy, the utilisation of non-benzodiazepines decreased following the coverage expansion., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Previous literature reported racial/ethnic disparities in the measure assessment of diabetes medication adherence in the Medicare Part D Star Ratings program., Objective: This study examined the likelihood of inclusion in measure calculation across racial/ethnic groups for adherence metrics in Part D Star Ratings among individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and/or hyperlipidemia., Methods: This was a retrospective cross sectional analysis of a 10% random sample of 2017 Medicare claims linked to Area Health Resources Files. Inclusion in measure calculation was determined based on inclusion/exclusion criteria in adherence metrics for adherence medications for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in Part D Star Ratings developed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to adjust for patient/community characteristics., Results: The study sample size was 2 707 216. Compared to Non-Hispanic White (White) beneficiaries, minorities were more likely to be excluded from measure calculation among individuals with 1 condition. For example, among individuals with hypertension, compared to White individuals, the adjusted odds ratios for exclusion for Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and other individuals were 1.46 (95% confidence interval, or CI = 1.42-1.50), 1.38 (95% CI = 1.33-1.43), 1.28 (95% CI = 1.21-1.35), and 1.08 (95% CI = 1.02-1.15), respectively. Among individuals with more than 1 chronic condition, minorities were more likely to be included in fewer calculations for medication adherence measures. For example, among individuals with all 3 conditions, the adjusted relative risk ratios for Black, compared to White, beneficiaries for being included in 0, 1, and 2 measures, versus all 3 measures, were 2.14 (95% CI = 1.99-2.30), 1.49 (95% CI = 1.41-1.56), 1.20 (95% CI = 1.18-1.23), respectively., Conclusions: Compared to White beneficiaries, racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to be excluded from the calculation for adherence measures among individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and/or hyperlipidemia. Future studies should examine whether such disparities exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes and devise solutions for these disparities., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented factors influencing medication nonadherence among the Medicare population, but few studies have examined medication nonadherence among the Medicare low-income subsidy (LIS) population. Furthermore, little is known about the factors associated with nonadherence among this population, especially those with prevalent chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with the likelihood of medication nonadherence among Medicare LIS recipients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or heart failure. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 2012-2013 Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims (most recent available for this research) linked to the Area Health Resources Files. Beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with continuous Medicare coverage and receiving any LIS were included. Individuals were categorized into full LIS or partial LIS groups. Nonadherence was determined by the proportion of days covered less than 80% for specified oral type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure medications, as defined by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine and compare individual-level and community-level characteristics associated with nonadherence among the entire study sample, the full LIS group, and the partial LIS group. RESULTS: The study sample included 505,771 Medicare beneficiaries, with 448,509 (88.7%) receiving full LIS and 57,262 (11.3%) receiving partial LIS. The proportion of individuals nonadherent was higher among the full LIS population (33.2%) than that of the partial LIS population (30.8%). Among the entire population, younger age was associated with nonadherence (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.98-0.99). Men were more likely to be nonadherent than women (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.11-1.14). Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, racial/ethnic minorities had higher nonadherence. Compared with beneficiaries who were non-Hispanic White, the ORs for those who were Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other were 1.41 (95% CI = 1.38-1.43), 1.58 (95% CI = 1.55-1.61), 1.08 (95% CI = 1.05-1.11), and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.56-1.70), respectively. There were higher nonadherence rates among patients living in communities with lower socioeconomic characteristics, such as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA vs non-MSA; OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07). A higher risk adjustment summary score, indicating worse health status, was associated with an increased likelihood of medication nonadherence (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.20-1.22). These patterns were similar among the full and partial LIS groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individual- and community-level characteristics were associated with the likelihood of medication nonadherence among Medicare LIS recipients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or heart failure. These characteristics included younger age, male sex, racial/ethnic minorities, living in lower socioeconomic communities, and a higher risk adjustment summary score. This study provided insight into medication nonadherence within the Medicare LIS population and identified the need to consider these factors when developing future policies to improve medication adherence. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which was involved in the preparation and revision of the manuscript. Dougherty is employed by PhRMA. Todor was a PQA-CVS Health Foundation Scholar who was funded to work on this study. Hines is employed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Wang reports grants from AbbVie, Curo, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer, during the time of this study, and fees from the PhRMA Foundation for work on its Heath Outcomes Research Advisor Committee. The other authors have nothing to disclose. This study was presented as a poster at the online 2020 PQA Annual Meeting, May 7, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Before 2007, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were the highest-expenditure drug in the Medicare system. In 2007, CMS issued a reimbursement policy change for ESAs used by cancer patients. However, empirical evidence is currently lacking to evaluate medical costs after the policy change, especially by sex and racial/ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of the Medicare reimbursement policy change and associated racial/ethnic and sex disparities on medical costs for cancer patients who were new users of ESAs. METHODS: This study was an exploratory retrospective treatment effectiveness study, which used SEER-Medicare linked data. A difference-in-difference design was used that incorporated a control group of patients with chronic kidney disease. A generalized linear model, with a log link and a gamma distribution, was used to examine medical costs. RESULTS: The Medicare reimbursement policy change was statistically significantly associated with an 11% (95% CI = 2%-20%) reduction in anemia-related costs, including a 10% (95% CI = 1%-19%) reduction in Medicare payment and an 18% (95% CI = 10%-26%) reduction in patient cost sharing. For total medical costs, the policy change was statistically significantly associated with a 12% (95% CI = 6%-18%) reduction, including an 11% (95% CI = 5%-18%) reduction in Medicare payment and a 14% (95% CI = 7%-20%) reduction in patient cost sharing. Medical costs were reduced in patients who were male and those who were White but remained the same for patients who were female and those who were Black, Hispanic, and other races or ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Anemia-related and total medical costs associated with ESAs used by cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia were reduced after the Medicare reimbursement policy change. However, the policy change was only effective for patients who were male and those who were White. The policy change had no effect on patients who were female and those of racial/ethnic minorities. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the SPARC Research Grant. The funder had no role in any part of this study. This study used the linked SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of the data are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors have nothing to disclose.