Health Care Resource Utilization and Exacerbation Rates in Patients with COPD Stratified by Disease Severity in a Commercially Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with substantial economic burden. There is a lack of data regarding COPD outcomes and costs in a real-world setting, particularly by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) severity. OBJECTIVES: To (a) characterize a commercially insured U.S. population with COPD and (b) assess prevalence of exacerbations, health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns in a cohort of patients with confirmed COPD, overall and stratified by GOLD stage. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database to identify patients with ≥ 1 inpatient, emergency room (ER), or office visit claim for COPD between January 1, 2012, and November 30, 2013, and continuous enrollment for 1 year before and 2 years after the first COPD diagnosis date. Patients with a spirometry claim within 12 months were eligible for medical record abstraction to confirm COPD diagnosis (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio < 0.7) and GOLD 1-4 classification (based on postbronchodilator FEV1 percent predicted). HCRU, costs, treatment patterns, and rate of moderate/severe exacerbation were identified from diagnosis up to 24 months. Outcomes were analyzed by univariate analysis stratified by GOLD classification. Multivariable analysis was conducted to assess associations between GOLD classification and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: 53,484 patients newly diagnosed with COPD were identified who met initial inclusion criteria: 14,293 (27%) had a qualifying spirometry claim, and 1,505 had confirmed COPD (GOLD 1, 333 [22%]; GOLD 2, 823 [55%]; GOLD 3, 317 [21%]; GOLD 4, 32 [2%]). Patients with greater disease severity had higher rates of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations (GOLD 1 and 2, 40.4 and 48.9 per 100 person-years, respectively; GOLD 3 and 4, 83.6 and 89.1 per 100 person-years, respectively). All-cause and COPD-related inpatient admissions, COPD-related office visits, and COPD-related ER visits were more prevalent with more severe GOLD classification. Mean annual COPD-related medical costs increased with GOLD classification ($5,945 for GOLD 1 patients, $18,070 for GOLD 4). COPD maintenance medication was filled by 42%, 56%, 73%, and 75% of patients in GOLD 1-4 (57% overall), respectively; combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist inhalers were the most commonly used medication, regardless of GOLD classification. Patients with more severe disease had greater adherence (range 44%-68% of days covered for GOLD 1-4) and persistence (range 107-209 days for GOLD 1-4). CONCLUSIONS: Trends toward increases in exacerbations, HCRU, and costs were observed as airflow limitation worsened. Adherence and persistence with COPD maintenance therapy was suboptimal even with severe disease. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals (Ridgefield, CT), which was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Willey and Singer are employees of HealthCore (parent company Anthem), which received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim to complete this study. Wallace and Shinde were employed by HealthCore at the time of this study. Wallace and Singer report stock ownership in Anthem. Napier is an employee of Anthem. Kaila, Bayer, and Shaikh are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticsls. Portions of this research were presented at the following conferences: (a) A. Wallace, S. Kaila, V. Zubek, A. Shaikh, M. Shinde, V. Willey, M. Napier, and J. Singer, Healthcare resource utilization, costs, and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD stratified by GOLD airflow limitation classification in a US commercially insured population, presented at AMCP Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Dallas, TX; and (b) A.E. Wallace, V. Zubek, S. Kaila, A. Shaikh, M. Shinde, V. Willey, M.B. Napier, and J.R. Singer, Real-world treatment patterns among newly diagnosed COPD patients according to GOLD airflow limitation severity classification in a U.S. commercially insured/Medicare Advantage population, presented at CHEST 2017 Annual Meeting; October 28-November 1, 2017; Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Differences in Health Care Use and Costs Among Patients With Cancer Receiving Intravenous Chemotherapy in Physician Offices Versus in Hospital Outpatient Settings.

PURPOSE: The current shift in site of care from community oncology practices to the hospital outpatient department to deliver oncology services may have significant implications for the economic and clinical outcomes of cancer care. Therefore, this study compares health care use and costs among patients with cancer receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in physician offices (PO) versus in hospital outpatient settings (HOP). METHODS: This retrospective study, which was based on medical and pharmacy claims data, included patients (age, 18 to 64 years) initiating IV chemotherapy/biologic treatment between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2012, who were diagnosed with early or metastatic breast cancer, metastatic lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients were assigned to PO or HOP groups on the basis of where they received > 95% of their IV cancer therapy. RESULTS: The study sample included 18,740 patients (12,899 PO; 5,841 HOP) who had a mean age of 51.6 years and a Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 5.37. Overall office visits (21.8 ± 13.8 PO v 21.2 ± 12.9, P < .005) and outpatient services (50.8 ± 35.5 PO v 48.5 ± 33.6, P < .001) were higher in the PO group than in the HOP group. Cancer-related inpatient hospitalizations (0.6 ± 1.2 PO v 0.7 ± 1.4 HOP, P = .002) were lower in the PO group than in the HOP group. Although quality-of-care metrics were similar between the HOP and PO groups, follow-up all-cause costs ($82,773 PO v $122,473 HOP) and cancer-related health care costs ($69,037 PO v $108,177 HOP) were higher in the HOP group than in the PO group. CONCLUSION: Despite similar resource use, all-cause and cancer-related health care costs in HOP were significantly higher compared with those in PO settings.

Evaluating Adherence to Dilated Eye Examination Recommendations Among Patients with Diabetes, Combined with Patient and Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus remains the leading cause of new cases of blindness among US adults. Routine dilated eye examinations can facilitate early detection and intervention for diabetes-related eye disease, providing an opportunity to reduce the risk for diabetes-related blindness in working-aged Americans. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) established criteria for performing dilated eye examination in patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To obtain information about adherence and nonadherence to diabetic eye examinations among insured patients to understand the barriers to routine dilated eye examinations, and to identify ways to improve the quality of care for these patients. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis is based on administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, a broad database representing claims from a large commercially insured population. Patients with diabetes and who had ≥1 dilated eye examinations between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2013, were defined as adherent to the HEDIS recommendations. The analysis was augmented with findings from focus groups. The patient focus groups included adherent and nonadherent patients. The provider focus group participants were general practice or internal medicine physicians and ophthalmologists who provided medical care for the study population. For the administrative claims analysis, comparisons between the adherent and nonadherent patients were performed using t-tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for categorical data. RESULTS: Of 339,646 patients with diabetes identified in a claims data set, 43% were adherent and 57% were nonadherent to the HEDIS eye examination performance measure. The common barriers to routine eye examination cited by 29 patients across 4 focus groups included a lack of understanding of insurance benefits (N = 15), a lack of awareness of the importance of dilated eye examinations (N = 12), and time constraints (N = 12). The common barriers cited by 18 providers included the patient's level of education (N = 13), eye examinations as a lower priority than the management of other diabetes-related health issues (N = 12), and a lack of symptoms (N = 11). CONCLUSION: Several reasons for patient nonadherence to routine eye examination were identified, including a lack of understanding of insurance benefits, a lack of awareness or low prioritization of having an examination, patient education level, time constraints, and a lack of symptoms. These may be considered by providers and payers when developing programs to increase the rates of eye examinations and improve outcomes among patients with diabetes.