Training Mentor-Mentee Pairs to Build a Robust Culture for Mentorship and a Pipeline of Clinical and Translational Researchers: The Colorado Mentoring Training Program.

The Colorado Mentoring Training program (CO-Mentor) was developed at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2010, supported by the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. CO-Mentor represents a different paradigm in mentorship training by focusing equally on the development of mentees, who are valued as essential to institutional capacity for effective mentorship. The training model is unique among Clinical and Translational Science Award sites in that it engages mentors and mentees in an established relationship. Dyads participate in 4 day-long sessions scheduled throughout the academic year. Each session features workshops that combine didactic and experiential components. The latter provide structured opportunities to develop mentorship-related skills, including self-knowledge and goal setting, communication skills (including negotiation), "managing up," and the purposeful development of a mentorship support network. Mentors and mentees in 3 recent cohorts reported significant growth in confidence with respect to all mentorship-related skills assessed using a pre-post evaluation survey (P = .001). Mentors reported the most growth in relation to networking to engage social and professional support to realize goals as well as sharing insights regarding paths to success. Mentees reported the most growth with respect to connecting with potential/future mentors, knowing characteristics to look for in current/future mentors, and managing the work environment (e.g., prioritizing work most fruitful to advancing research/career objectives). CO-Mentor represents a novel approach to enhancing mentorship capacity by investing equally in the development of salient skills among mentees and mentors and in the mentorship relationship as an essential resource for professional development, persistence, and scholarly achievement.

Advancing geriatrics research, education, and practice: policy challenges after the great recession.

The series of articles in this JGIM issue provides a number of policy-relevant recommendations for advancing geriatrics research, education and practice. Despite the unprecedented pressure to reduce state and federal spending, policymakers must concurrently address the challenges of a growing population of older individuals with increasingly complex health care problems. Thus, there may be opportunities to advance this agenda in creative ways. For example, without new spending, federal research agencies can make changes to encourage needed new directions in aging research, and the ACA provides new funding opportunities such as the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. States and the federal government have an increasing need for the health professions workforce to have collaborative care skills and geriatrics clinical competencies, and are finding ways to invest in relevant initiatives. On the clinical program side, state and federal governments are initiating programs to promote delivery system changes that improve the care of older adults. Nonetheless, in the face of the policy challenges that have persisted after the "great recession," academic geriatrics and general internal medicine will need to join forces with public and private interests to secure the resources needed to advance this ambitious agenda for geriatrics research, education and practice.

Potential barriers associated with increased prevalence of perforated appendicitis in Colorado's pediatric Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify barriers and delays in care associated with the increased prevalence of perforated appendicitis among Colorado's pediatric Medicaid population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all cases of pediatric appendicitis, which had Colorado Medicaid from 2007 to 2008 using descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 479 appendicitis cases, 42.6% were perforated. In both the bivariate and multivariate analysis, perforated cases did not significantly differ from nonperforated cases with respect to sex, rurality of residence, or race with the exception of black race in the multivariate model. Perforated cases were more likely to be younger, have been enrolled in Medicaid for less than 6 months, have seen a provider within 5 days of their diagnosis, and have been transferred to another hospital for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of perforated appendicitis in Colorado children with Medicaid coverage is not associated with race or physical proximity to care but may be associated with the duration of Medicaid coverage, which highlights the importance of establishing medical homes to direct patients on where and how to seek care.

Improving state Medicaid policies with comparative effectiveness research: a key role for academic health centers.

After the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, Medicaid will be the largest single health care payer in the United States. Each U.S. state controls the size and scope of the medicine benefit beyond the federally mandated minimum; however, regulations that require balanced budgets and prohibit deficit spending limit each state's control. In a recessionary environment with reduced revenue, state Medicaid programs operate under a fixed or shrinking budget. Thus, the state Medicaid experience of providing high-quality care under explicit financial limits can inform Medicare and private payers of measures that control per-capita costs without adversely affecting health outcomes. The academic medicine community must play an expanded role in filling evidence gaps in order to continuously improve health policy making among U.S. states. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project and the Medicaid Evidence-based Decisions Project are two multistate Medicaid collaborations that leverage academic health center researchers' comparative effectiveness research (CER) projects to answer policy-relevant research questions. The authors of this article highlight how academic medicine can support states' health policies through CER and how CER-driven benefit-design choices can help states meet their cost and quality needs.

Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees.

Effective mentorship is likely one of the most important determinants of success in academic medicine and research. Many papers focus on mentoring from the mentor's perspective, but few give guidance to mentees forging these critically important relationships. The authors apply "managing up," a corporate concept, to academic medical settings both to promote effective, successful mentoring and to make a mentor's job easier. Managing up requires the mentee to take responsibility for his or her part in the collaborative alliance and to be the leader of the relationship by guiding and facilitating the mentor's efforts to create a satisfying and productive relationship for both parties. The authors review the initiation and cultivation of a mentoring relationship from the perspective of a mentee at any stage (student through junior faculty), and they propose specific strategies for mentee success.

Medicaid prior authorization and controlled-release oxycodone.

BACKGROUND: Since its introduction in 1996, controlled-release (CR) oxycodone use has increased steadily despite its high cost. To control use and expenditures, many Medicaid programs have implemented CR oxycodone prior authorization (PA) policies. Few studies evaluate Medicaid policies or compare lenient and strict policies in multiple states. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of PA on CR oxycodone use by Medicaid beneficiaries. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of 50 states' aggregate Medicaid prescription dispensing records,1996-2005. PA details were systematically collected. Regression and random effects meta-analyses estimated impact of strict and lenient PA policies on CR oxycodone use and expenditures. MEASURES: Change in rate of CR oxycodone use, proportion of long-acting opiates accounted for by CR oxycodone and average long-acting opiate dose expenditure. RESULTS: In 2004, CR oxycodone accounted for 12.4% of all opiates and 32.2% of long-acting opiates dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries. Over the study period its use increased, on average, 109% annually, and 21 states implemented PA. PA was associated with state-specific use changes ranging from -76% to 9%. In aggregate, PA was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in CR oxycodone use, a significant 8% decrease in CR oxycodone as a proportion of long-acting opiate doses, and a small but significant change of -$0.31 in average cost per long-acting opiate dose. Strict policies were associated with greater changes. CONCLUSIONS: PA impact varied by state and was less dramatic than previously described Medicaid PA effects, suggesting CR oxycodone is relatively refractory to PA. A refined measure of such policies is needed to identify effective prescription management strategies.

Trends and geographic variation of opiate medication use in state Medicaid fee-for-service programs, 1996 to 2002.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have documented hospital and surgical service geographic variability, prescription use geographic variability is largely unknown. Opiate pain medications are widely used, particularly because the promulgation of clinical guidelines promoting aggressive pain treatment. This study describes temporal and interstate variability in aggregate prescription opiate medication use within U.S. Medicaid programs. METHODS: A dataset of 49 states' fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid prescription drug dispensing records from 1996 to 2002 was compiled and used to quantify medication dispensing examining all opiates, controlled release oxycodone, and methadone. The defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 FFS Medicaid adult enrollees per day was calculated for all opiate medication categories. A market basket of nonpain prescription medications was constructed for comparison. Rates, trends, and the coefficient of variation were determined overall, by year and for each state. RESULTS: From 1996 to 2002, overall use of opiate pain medications increased 309%. The market basket use increased 170%. Total opiate dispensing varied widely from state to state, with a range of 6.9 to 44.1 DDD/1000/d in 1996, and 7.1 to 165.0 DDD/1000/d (a 23-fold difference) in 2002. The coefficient of variation was 49.6 in 2002. Controlled release oxycodone and methadone had a greater rate of increase compared with all opiates. CONCLUSIONS: The dispensing of opiate medications in Medicaid programs increased at almost twice the rate of nonpain-related medications during the 7-year study period. Large, unexplained geographic variation in aggregate use exists. The impact of Medicaid cost-containment strategies on utilization and outcomes should be investigated.