Search

Objective: Describe patient and hospital characteristics associated with Arterial Catheter (AC) or Central Venous Catheter (CVC) use among pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). Design: Hierarchical mixed effects analyses were used to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with AC or CVC placement. The ICU adjusted median odds ratios (ICU-AMOR) for the admission ICU, marginal R2, and conditional intraclass correlation coefficient were reported. Setting: 166 PICUs in the Virtual PICU Systems (VPS, LLC) Database. Patients: 682,791 patients with unscheduled admissions to the PICU. Intervention: None. Measures and Main Results: ACs were placed in (median, [interquartile range]) 8.2% [4.9%-11.3%] of admissions, and CVCs were placed in 14.9% [10.4%-19.3%] of admissions across cohort ICUs. Measured patient characteristics explained about 25% of the variability in AC and CVC placement. Higher Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) illness severity scores were associated with increased odds of placement (Odds Ratio (95th% Confidence Interval)) AC: 1.88 (1.87-1.89) and CVC: 1.82 (1.81-1.83) per 1 unit increase in PIM2 score. Primary diagnoses of cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematology/oncology, infectious, renal/genitourinary, rheumatology, and transplant were associated with increased odds of AC or CVC placement compared to a primary respiratory diagnosis. Presence of in-house attendings 24/7 was associated with increased odds of AC placement 1.32 (1.11-1.57). Admission ICU explained 4.9% and 3.5% of the variability in AC or CVC placement, respectively. The ICU-AMOR showed a patient would have a median increase in odds of 55% and 43% for AC or CVC placement, respectively, if the same patient moved from an ICU with lower odds of placement to an ICU with higher odds of placement. Conclusions: Variation in AC or CVC use exists among PICUs. The admission ICU was more strongly associated with AC than with CVC placement. Further study is needed to understand unexplained variation in AC and CVC use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Despite compelling evidence of the benefits of treatment and well-accepted guidelines for treatment, hypertension is controlled in less than one-half of United States citizens. Methods/design This randomized controlled trial tests whether explicit financial incentives promote the translation of guideline-recommended care for hypertension into clinical practice and improve blood pressure (BP) control in the primary care setting. Using constrained randomization, we assigned 12 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient clinics to four study arms: physician-level incentive; group-level incentive; combination of physician and group incentives; and no incentives (control). All participants at the hospital (cluster) were assigned to the same study arm. We enrolled 83 full-time primary care physicians and 42 non-physician personnel. The intervention consisted of an educational session about guideline-recommended care for hypertension, five audit and feedback reports, and five disbursements of incentive payments. Incentive payments rewarded participants for chart-documented use of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications, BP control, and appropriate responses to uncontrolled BP during a prior four-month performance period over the 20-month intervention. To identify potential unintended consequences of the incentives, the study team interviewed study participants, as well as non-participant primary care personnel and leadership at study sites. Chart reviews included data collection on quality measures not related to hypertension. To evaluate the persistence of the effect of the incentives, the study design includes a washout period. Discussion We briefly describe the rationale for the interventions being studied, as well as the major design choices. Rigorous research designs such as the one described here are necessary to determine whether performance-based payment arrangements such as financial incentives result in meaningful quality improvements. Trial Registration http://www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00302718

Although the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion reduced uninsurance, less is known about its impact on mortality, especially in the context of the opioid epidemic. We conducted a difference-in-differences study comparing trends in mortality between expansion and nonexpansion states from 2011 to 2016 using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mortality data. We analyzed all-cause deaths, health care amenable deaths, drug overdose deaths, and deaths from causes other than drug overdose among adults aged 20 to 64 years. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 2.7% reduction (p =.020) in health care amenable mortality, and a 1.9% reduction (p =.042) in mortality not due to drug overdose. However, the expansion was not associated with any change in all-cause mortality (0.2% reduction, p =.84). In addition, drug overdose deaths rose more sharply in expansion versus nonexpansion states. The absence of all-cause mortality reduction until drug overdose deaths were excluded indicate that the opioid epidemic had a mitigating impact on any potential lives saved by Medicaid expansion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance High out-of-pocket drug costs can cause patients to skip treatment and worsen outcomes, and high insurer drug payments could increase premiums. Drug wholesale list prices have doubled in recent years. However, because of manufacturer discounts and rebates, the extent to which increases in wholesale list prices are associated with amounts paid by patients and insurers is poorly characterized. Objective To determine whether increases in wholesale list prices are associated with increases in amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional retrospective study analyzing pharmacy claims for patients younger than 65 years in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database and pricing data from SSR Health, LLC, between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Pharmacy claims analyzed represent claims of employees and dependents participating in employer health benefit programs belonging to large employers. Rebate data were estimated from sales data from publicly traded companies. Analysis focused on the top 5 patent-protected specialty and 9 traditional brand-name medications with the highest total drug expenditures by commercial insurers nationwide in 2014. Data were analyzed from July 2017 to July 2020. Exposures Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures Changes in inflation-adjusted amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Results In this analysis of 14.4 million pharmacy claims made by 1.8 million patients from 2010-2016, median drug wholesale list price increased by 129% (interquartile range [IQR], 78%-133%), while median insurance payments increased by 64% (IQR, 28%-120%) and out-of-pocket costs increased by 53% (IQR, 42%-82%). The mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by discounts increased from 17% in 2010 to 21% in 2016, and the mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by rebates increased from 22% in 2010 to 24% in 2016. For specialty medications, median patient out-of-pocket costs increased by 85% (IQR, 73%-88%) from 2010 to 2016 after adjustment for inflation and 42% (IQR, 25%-53%) for nonspecialty medications. During that same period, insurer payments increased by 116% for specialty medications (IQR, 100%-127%) and 28% for nonspecialty medications (IQR, 5%-34%). Conclusions and Relevance This study's findings suggest that drug list prices more than doubled over a 7-year study period. Despite rising manufacturer discounts and rebates, these price increases were associated with large increases in patient out-of-pocket costs and insurer payments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To develop a method for calculating rates of testing for breast cancer recurrence in patients who have already undergone initial treatment for breast cancer, we calculated rates in a cohort of Medicare breast cancer patients and an age‐matched noncancer cohort. We first used only tests with claims including diagnosis codes indicating invasive breast cancer and then used all tests regardless of diagnosis code. For each method, we calculated testing rates in the breast cancer cohort above the background rate in the noncancer population. The two methods provided similar estimates of testing prevalence and frequency, with exception of prevalence of CT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Injury is the leading cause of death in people under 45 years of age in the United States; however, how care decisions occur in critical injury is poorly understood. This exploratory study sought to generate hypotheses about how care decisions are made among interdisciplinary providers caring for patients who have been critically injured. This was a qualitative study conducted at two intensive care units in a level 1 trauma center in an urban, teaching, safety-net hospital. Semistructured interviews consisted of case scenarios with competing clinical priorities presented to 25 interdisciplinary providers, elucidating how decisions are approached. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Thematic analysis was conducted to discover central themes. Category formulation and sorting was done for data reduction and thematic structuring of the data. The range and central tendency of these themes are reported. The central theme for how care decisions are made among interdisciplinary providers was through the distribution of shared responsibility. The distribution of shared responsibility depended on interdisciplinary communication to navigate the two subthemes of time and roles. Time had to be navigated carefully, because it was both an opportunity for data acquisition and consensus building but also a pressure to decisively progress care. Roles were distinct but interchangeable and consisted of experts, actualizers, and questioners. Care decisions are made in the context of shared responsibility among interdisciplinary providers. Interdisciplinary communication is a means of establishing roles and navigating time to distribute shared responsibility among interdisciplinary providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]