Characterising incident opioid use among incident users of prescription sedative hypnotics: A national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate co-prescribing of sedatives hypnotics and opioids. DESIGN: Retrospective study evaluating the association of patient characteristics and comorbidities with coprescribing. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the national Merative MarketScan Database between 2005 and 2018, we identified patients who received an incident sedative prescription with or without subsequent, incident opioid prescriptions within a year of the sedative prescription in the USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprescription of sedative-hypnotics and opioids. RESULTS: A total of 2 632 622 patients (mean (SD) age, 43.2 (12.34) years; 1 297 356 (62.5%) female) received incident prescriptions for sedatives over the course of the study period. The largest proportion of sedative prescribing included benzodiazepines (71.1%); however, z-drugs (19.9%) and barbiturates (9%) were also common. About 557 845 (21.2%) patients with incident sedatives also received incident opioid prescriptions. About 59.2% of these coprescribed patients received opioids coprescription on the same day. Multivariate logistic regression findings showed that individuals with a comorbidity index score of 1, 2 or ≥3 (aOR 1.19 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.21), 1.17 (95% C 1.14 to 1.19) and 1.25 (95% C 1.2 to 1.31)) and substance use disorder (1.21 (95% C 1.19 to 1.23)) were more likely to be coprescribed opioids and sedatives. The likelihood of receiving both opioid and sedative prescriptions was lower for female patients (aOR 0.93; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94), and those receiving a barbiturate (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.31) or z-drugs (aOR 0.67; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.68) prescriptions at the index date. CONCLUSIONS: Coprescription of sedatives with opioids was associated with the presence of comorbidities and substance use disorder, gender and types of sedatives prescribed at the index date. Additionally, more than half of the coprescribing occurred on the same day which warrants further evaluation of current prescribing and dispensing best practice guidelines.

ACO Clinicians Have Higher Medicare Part B Medical Services Payments Than MIPS Clinicians Under the Quality Payment Program.

The Quality Payment Program (QPP) is a Medicare value-based payment program with 2 tracks: -Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs), including two-sided risk Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In 2020, A-APM eligible ACO clinicians received an additional 5% positive, and MIPS clinicians received up to 5% negative or 2% positive performance-based adjustments to their Medicare Part B medical services payments. It is unclear whether the different payment adjustments have differential impacts on total medical services payments for ACO and MIPS participants. We compare Medicare Part B medical services payments received by primary care clinicians participating in ACO and MIPS programs using Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use Files from 2014 to 2018 using difference-in-differences regressions. We have 254 395 observations from 50 879 unique clinicians (ACO = 37.86%; MIPS = 62.14%). Regression results suggest that ACO clinicians have significantly higher Medicare Part B medical services payments ($1003.88; 95% CI: [579.08, 1428.69]) when compared to MIPS clinicians. Our findings suggest that ACO clinicians had a greater increase in medical services payments when compared to MIPS clinicians following QPP participation. Increased payments for Medicare Part B medical services among ACO clinicians may be driven partly by higher payment adjustment rates for ACO clinicians for Part B medical services. However, increased Part B medical services payments could also reflect clinicians switching to increased outpatient services to prevent potentially costly inpatient services. Policymakers should examine both aspects when evaluating QPP effectiveness.

Productivity Loss Among Opioid and Benzodiazepine Users in the United States: A Medical Expenditure Panel Survey From 2010 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to estimate the association between productivity losses and the use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines among employed US adults with painful conditions. METHODS: Using Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (2010-2019), we used two-part (logistic regression and generalized linear model with zero-truncated negative binomial link) model to compare missed workdays due to illness or injury among employed adults with a painful condition. RESULTS: Of the eligible sample of 57,413 working US individuals, 14.65% were prescription opioid users, 2.95% were benzodiazepine users, and 1.59% were both opioid and benzodiazepine users. The predicted missed workdays were 5.75 (95% Confidence Limit [CL]: 5.58-5.92) days for benzodiazepine users, 13.06 (95% CL: 12.88-13.23) days among opioid users, and 15.18 (95% CL: 14.46-15.90) days for opioid and benzodiazepine concomitant users. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines was significantly associated with having more missed workdays among employed adults with documented painful conditions.

Medicine procurement in hospital pharmacies of Nepal: A qualitative study based on the Basel Statements.

BACKGROUND: Accessibility and affordability of evidence-based medicines are issues of global concern. For low-income countries like Nepal, it is crucial to have easy and reliable access to affordable, good-quality, evidence-based medicines, especially in the aftermath of natural or manmade disasters. Availability of affordable and evidence-based high quality medicines depends on the medicine procurement procedure, which makes it an important aspect of healthcare delivery. In this study, we aimed to investigate medicine procurement practices in hospital pharmacies of Nepal within the framework of International Pharmaceutical Federation [FIP] hospital pharmacy guidelines "the Basel Statements". METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital pharmacists or procurement officers in hospital pharmacies of four major regions in Nepal to explore procurement practices. Data were collected until saturation of themes, analysed using the framework approach, and organised around the statements within the procurement theme of the Basel Statements. RESULTS: Interviews conducted with 53 participants revealed that the procurement guidelines of the Basel Statements were adopted to a certain extent in hospital pharmacies of Nepal. It was found that the majority of hospital pharmacies in Nepal reported using an expensive direct-procurement model for purchasing medicines. Most had no formulary and procured medicines solely based on doctors' prescriptions, which were heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies' marketing strategies. Whilst most procured only registered medicines, a minority reported purchasing unregistered medicines through unauthorised supply-chains. And although the majority of hospital pharmacies had some contingency plans for managing medicine shortages, a few had none. CONCLUSIONS: Procurement guidelines of the Basel Statements were thus found to be partially adopted; however, there is room for improvement in current procurement practices in hospital pharmacies of Nepal. Adoption and regulation of national and international policies is recommended for enhancing medicine accessibility, as well as improving preparedness for health emergencies during natural disasters and health epidemics.