The Affordable Care Act and income-based disparities in health care coverage and spending among nonelderly adults with cancer.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly reduced uninsured individuals and improved financial protection; however, escalating costs of cancer treatment has led to substantial out-of-pocket expenses, causing severe financial and mental health distress for individuals with cancer. Mixed evidence on the ACA's ongoing impact highlights the necessity of assessing health-spending changes across income groups for informed policy interventions. In our nationally representative survey evaluating the early- and long-term effects of the ACA on nonelderly adult patients with cancer, we categorized individuals-based income subgroups defined by the ACA for eligibility. We found that ACA implementation increased insurance coverage, which was particularly evident after 2 years of implementation. Early post-ACA (within two years of implementation), there were declines in out-of-pocket spending for the lowest and low-income groups by 26.52% and 38.31%, respectively, persisting long-term only for the lowest-income group. High-income groups experienced continuously increased out-of-pocket and premium spending by 25.39% and 34.28%, respectively, with a notable 122% increase in the risk of high-burden spending. This study provides robust evidence of income-based disparities in financial burden for cancer care, emphasizing the need for health care policies promoting equitable care and addressing spending disparities across income brackets.

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.

Opioid Overdose Hospitalizations During COVID-19: The Experience of Pennsylvania.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic placed extreme burden on hospitals, while opioid overdose is another challenging public health issue. This study aimed to examine the trends and outcomes of opioid overdose hospitalizations in Pennsylvania during 2018 to 2021. Design: We identified opioid overdose hospitalizations in the state of Pennsylvania using the state-wide hospital discharge database (PHC4) 2018 to 2021. We examined the number of opioid overdose hospitalizations, the corresponding mortality and discharges against medical advice comparing the pre-COVID period (2018-2019) and the COVID period (2020-2021). We also assessed what patient and hospital characteristics were associated with in-hospital death or leaving against medical advice. Results: A total of 13 446 opioid-related hospitalizations were identified in 2018 to 2021. Compared to pre-pandemic, a higher percentage of cases involving synthetics (17.0%vs 10.3%, P < .0001) were observed during COVID. After controlling for covariates, there was no significant difference in opioid overdose in-hospital deaths in the years 2020 to 2021 compared to 2018 to 2019 (OR = 0.846, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01, P = .065). The COVID period was significantly associated with more leaving against medical advice compared to years 2018 to 2019 (OR = 1.265, 95% CI: 1.11-1.44, P = .0003). Compared to commercial insurance, Medicaid insurance was associated with higher odds of both in-hospital death (OR = 1.383, 95% CI: 1.06-1.81, P = .0176) and leaving against medical advice (OR = 1.903, 95% CI: 1.56-2.33, P < .0001). Conclusion: There were no substantial changes in the number of overall opioid overdose cases and deaths at hospitals following the outbreak of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania. This observation suggests that an increased number of patients may have succumbed to overdoses outside of hospital settings, possibly due to a higher severity of overdoses. Further, we found that patients were more likely to leave against medical advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation of Discharge Opioid Prescribing in Coronary Artery Bypass Patients Following an Opioid Stewardship Intervention for Providers.

Introduction: Opioid stewardship efforts can promote safe and effective use of opioids to optimize pain control and minimize unintended consequences. The purpose of this study is to assess the difference in post-operative opioid discharge prescribing in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery following implementation of a tripartite opioid stewardship intervention. Methods: This was a single-center, quality improvement study at a large, quaternary academic medical center. Adult patients undergoing CABG from July 2019 to June 2020 (pre-intervention) and November 2020 to February 2021 (post-intervention) were included. The intervention included adopting hospital-wide post-surgical opioid discharge prescribing guidelines, discharge prescriber education, and electronic medical record changes. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving an opioid prescription at discharge. Secondary outcomes included total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed and non-opioid analgesics prescribed at discharge. Results: A total of 200 patients were included in the study; 100 pre- and 100 post-intervention. There was no difference in opioid discharge prescribing at discharge (74% pre-intervention vs. 72% post-intervention; P = .87). There was no difference in MMEs prescribed at discharge (145.6 ± 57 pre- vs. 162.2 ± 95 post-; P = .202). No difference was seen in non-opioid analgesic prescriptions prescribed at discharge (35% pre- vs. 40% post-; P = .56). Conclusion: A multipronged opioid stewardship intervention did not lead to a reduction in opioid prescribing at discharge. Post-intervention, there was a non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients who received non-opioid analgesics discharge. Future studies should assess the effect of different stewardship interventions on prescribing and patient outcomes.

Clinical decision making involving prescription drug monitoring programs: A factorial, vignette-based study among student pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-maintained databases that providers may reference when deciding to prescribe or dispense controlled substances. As more states begin to mandate PDMP use at the point of care, it is imperative to assess how pharmacists use PDMP information when determining whether to fill a controlled substance prescription (CSP). The objective of this study was to evaluate which factors affected fourth-year student pharmacists' decision to fill an opioid prescription, their level of confidence in their decision making, and familiarity with the PDMP. METHODS: We used a 24 factorial design to present a series of text-based vignettes to fourth-year student pharmacists. Each participant received 8 vignettes (5 randomly selected, 3 fixed), representing a hypothetical hydrocodone-acetaminophen combination prescription with varying levels of the following dichotomous factors: doctor shopping, dosage, pharmacy shopping, and concurrent benzodiazepine prescription. Participants were asked to decide whether or not they would fill each of the hypothetical prescriptions they received. A multilevel model was used to measure the association between each of the vignette factors, age, race, sex, experience with PDMP, and the decision to refuse to fill a prescription. Each vignette response served as an independent observation. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants yielded 696 vignette responses. Participants were significantly more likely to refuse to fill prescriptions with doctor shopping (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 19.86 [95% CI 10.78-36.58]), pharmacy shopping (6.78 [4.13-11.12]), dosage (1.83 [1.16-2.90]), or if the student pharmacist was of female sex (1.73 [1.02-2.93]). Concomitant benzodiazepine use was not associated with a no-fill decision (1.45 [0.92-2.27]). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that student pharmacists' decision to fill a prescription is dependent on both prescription characteristics and a patient's CSP history. The importance of PDMP history cannot be downplayed and suggests that PDMP use may be effective in informing patient care decisions. Still, the variability in filling decision highlights the need to teach a formulaic approach to CSP dispensing in colleges of pharmacy.

Factors associated with the use of the prescription monitoring program by prescribers and pharmacists in Texas.

PURPOSE: To describe Texas Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) use and identify predictors of PMP query for opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions by prescribers and pharmacists. METHODS: Dispensation and query records from the Texas PMP for opioid and benzodiazepine medications dispensed between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018 were linked using common patient identifiers. Autoregressive linear regression was used to assess trends in utilization. Hierarchical logistic models were specified to identify factors associated with provider and pharmacist query of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. RESULTS: Despite a significant increase in the total number of pharmacists (ß = 169.85, p < 0.0001) and prescribers (ß = 301.59, p < 0.0001) who used the PMP every month, the ratio of active to registered pharmacists (ß = -0.0001, p = 0.75) and prescribers (ß = -0.0015, p = 0.10) did not change. Pharmacists and prescribers were significantly more likely to query opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions of 14 days or more, and those issued to patients new to their practice. Pharmacists were most likely to query opioid prescriptions for oxycodone (aOR = 4.51, 95%CI = 4.42-4.60) and prescribers were most likely to query prescriptions for buprenorphine (aOR = 2.24, 95%CI = 2.15-2.35) compared to codeine. CONCLUSION: Changes in PMP utilization between October 2016 and December 2018 were driven by increasing registration, not increasing frequency of use among registered users. Use of the PMP is inconsistent and dependent upon patient characteristics thus limiting the utility of the PMP as a decision support tool. These results support the need for policy mandating PMP use in Texas and provide a useful baseline and framework to evaluate the effectiveness of mandate implementation.

Impact of COVID-19 Related Policy Changes on Buprenorphine Dispensing in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the change in the daily number of patients receiving buprenorphine and buprenorphine prescribers during the early phase of the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Texas. METHODS: Counts of the number of patients filling and number of providers prescribing buprenorphine were calculated for each weekday between November 4, 2019 and May 12, 2020. The change in daily patients and prescribers between March 2, 2020 and May 12, 2020, was modeled as a change in slope compared to the baseline period using autoregressive, interrupted time series regression. RESULTS: The rate of change of daily buprenorphine prescriptions (ß = -1.75, 95% CI = -5.8-2.34) and prescribers (ß = -0.32, 95% CI = -1.47-0.82) declined insignificantly during the COVID-19 period compared to the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 57% decline in ambulatory care utilization in the south-central US during March and April of 2020, health services utilization related to buprenorphine in Texas remained robust. Protecting access to buprenorphine as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold will require intensive efforts from clinicians and policy makers alike. While the presented results are promising, researchers must continue monitoring and exploring the clinical and humanistic impact of COVID-19 on the treatment of substance use disorders.

Prescribers' perceptions on the impact of hydrocodone rescheduling on geriatric pain management: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess prescribers) perceptions regarding the consequences associated with hydrocodone rescheduling among geriatric patients being discharged from inpatient settings. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two focus groups were conducted by a trained facilitator in a metropolitan academic medical center in January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Prescribers who manage noncancer pain for geriatric patients were recruited. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed using ATLAS.ti Qualitative Data Analysis software. Codes were derived from six primary research questions and results were summarized into key themes regarding the impact of rescheduling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribers) perceptions regarding hydrocodone rescheduling. RESULTS: Prescribers mentioned that they review the prescription monitoring program (PMP) more often before prescribing opioids after rescheduling. They expressed concern regarding the required special serialized prescription forms needed to issue schedule II prescriptions. This led to substituting hydrocodone with potentially less effective pain medications, the inability to issue refills on hydrocodone prescriptions, and an ethical concern over prescribing hydrocodone to patients not under their direct care. Additionally, rescheduling has affected the coordination of care upon discharge, as patients moving to long-term care or skilled nursing facilities may not have adequate pain management when transferred. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of physicians felt rescheduling negatively impacted both practical and ethical aspects of patient care related to pain management after discharge. Rescheduling has changed physicians) hydrocodone prescribing patterns, leading to more caution when prescribing hydrocodone and greater use of the PMP. Future studies should assess geriatric patients) satisfaction and quality of life regarding pain management since hydrocodone was rescheduled.

Direct medical expenditures associated with Alzheimer's and related dementias (ADRD) in a nationally representative sample of older adults - an excess cost approach.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the excess direct annual healthcare expenditures associated with Alzheimer's and related dementias(ADRD) among community-dwelling older adults in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study compared the annual healthcare expenditures between elderly individuals aged 65 years and older with ADRD (n = 662) and without ADRD (n = 13,398) using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for the years 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013. Adjusted total annual medical expenditures was estimated using generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link in 2013 U.S. dollars. Adjusted inpatient, outpatient, emergency, home healthcare and prescription drug expenditures, were estimated using two-part logit-generalized linear regression models. RESULTS: The adjusted mean total healthcare expenditures were higher for the ADRD group as compared to the no ADRD group($14,508 vs. $10,096). Among those with ADRD, 34.3% of the expenditures were for home healthcare as compared to 4.4% among those without ADRD. Among users, the ADRD group had significantly higher home healthcare ($3,240 vs. $566) and prescription drug expenditures($3,471 vs. $2,471). There were no statistically significant differences in inpatient, emergency room and outpatient expenditures between the ADRD and no ADRD group. CONCLUSION: ADRD in U.S. community-dwelling elders is associated with significant financial burden, primarily driven by increased home healthcare use.

Cardiovascular mortality and oral antidiabetic drugs: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with diabetes. Despite the beneficial effects of antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) in terms of lowering haemoglobin A1c, several ADDs have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular events. Given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease among individuals with diabetes, it is important to weigh the benefits of ADDs against their cardiovascular safety. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different oral pharmacological classes of ADDs on cardiovascular safety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English up to 31 January 2017, and which include direct and/or indirect evidence, will be included. Studies will be retrieved by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual selection and abstraction of data will occur. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause mortality, new event of acute myocardial infarction, stroke (haemorrhagic and ischaemic), hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome and urgent revascularisation procedures. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment instrument for RCTs and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology instrument for observational studies. Network meta-analysis will be performed using multivariate random-effects meta-regression models. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to provide a hierarchy of ADDs that increase cardiovascular mortality. DISSEMINATION: The results of this study will be presented at a professional conference and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017051220.

Direct and indirect cost of managing alzheimer's disease and related dementias in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Care of individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) poses special challenges. As the disease progresses, individuals with ADRD require increasing levels of medical care, caregiver support, and long-term care which can lead to substantial economic burden. Areas covered: In this expert review, we synthesized findings from studies of costs of ADRD in the United States that were published between January 2006 and February 2017, highlighted major sources of variation in costs, identified knowledge gaps and briefly outlined directions for future research and implications for policy and program planning. Expert commentary: A consistent finding of all studies comparing individuals with and without ADRD is that the average medical, non-medical, and indirect costs of individuals with ADRD are higher than those without ADRD, despite the differences in the methods of identifying ADRD, duration of the study, payer type and settings of study population. The economic burden of ADRD may be underestimated because many components such as direct non-medical costs for home safety modifications and adult day care services and indirect costs due to the adverse impact of ADRD on caregivers' health and productivity are not included in cost estimates.