Effect of the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model on Initiating and Intensifying Medications: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk Reduction Model pays provider organizations for measuring and reducing Medicare patients' cardiovascular risk. Objective: To assess whether the model increases the initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medications or statins among patients with blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above guideline thresholds for treatment intensification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial included primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments across the US. Participants included Medicare patients who were enrolled into the model in 2017 by participating organizations and who were at high risk and at medium risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke in 10 years. Patient outcomes were analyzed for 1 year postenrollment (through December 2018) using an intent-to-treat design. Analysis began November 2019. Interventions: US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations for risk stratifying Medicare patients and reducing CVD risk among high-risk patients through discussing risk scores, developing individualized risk reduction plans, and following up with patients twice yearly. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initiating or intensifying statin or antihypertensive therapy within 1 year of enrollment, measured in Medicare Part D claims, and LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure levels approximately 1 year after enrollment, measured in usual care and reported to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via a data registry (data complete for 51% of high-risk enrollees). The study's primary outcome (incidence of first-time myocardial infarction and stroke) is not reported because the trial is ongoing. Results: A total of 330 primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments and 125 436 Medicare patients were included in this analysis. High-risk patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 74 (4.1), 15 213 (63%) were male, 21 657 (90%) were receiving antihypertensive medication at baseline, and 16 558 (69%) were receiving statins. Almost all (21 791 [91%]) high-risk intervention group patients had above-threshold systolic blood pressure level (>130 mm Hg), LDL cholesterol level (>70 mg/dL), or both. Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not pay for CVD risk reduction for medium-risk enrollees, but initiation or intensification rates for these enrollees were also higher in the intervention vs control groups (12 668 [27.9%] vs 7544 [24.8%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3; P < .001). Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a pay-for-performance model led to modest increases in the use of CVD medications in a range of organizations, despite high medication use at baseline.

Out-of-pocket drug costs and drug utilization patterns of postmenopausal Medicare beneficiaries with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Part D coverage gap has been associated with lower adherence and drug utilization and higher discontinuation. Because osteoporosis has a relatively high prevalence among Medicare-eligible postmenopausal women, we examined changes in utilization of osteoporosis medications during this coverage gap. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in out-of-pocket (OOP) drug costs and utilization associated with the Medicare Part D coverage gap among postmenopausal beneficiaries with osteoporosis. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of 2007 pharmacy claims focuses on postmenopausal female Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in full-, partial-, or no-gap exposure standard or Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (PDPs), retiree drug subsidy (RDS) plans, or the low-income subsidy program. We compared beneficiaries with osteoporosis who were taking teriparatide (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana) (n = 5657) with matched samples of beneficiaries who were taking nonteriparatide osteoporosis medications (NTO; n = 16,971) or who had other chronic conditions (OCC; n = 16,971). We measured average monthly prescription drug fills and OOP costs, medication discontinuation, and skipping. RESULTS: More than half the sample reached the coverage gap; OOP costs then rose for teriparatide users enrolled in partial- or full-gap exposure plans (increase of 121% and 186%; $300 and $349) but fell for those in no-gap exposure PDPs or RDS plans (decrease of 49% and 30%; $131 and $40). OOP costs for beneficiaries in partial- or full-gap exposure PDPs increased >120% (increase of $144 and $176) in the NTO group and nearly doubled for the OCC group (increase of $124 and $151); these OOP costs were substantially lower than those for teriparatide users. Both teriparatide users and NTO group members discontinued or skipped medications more often than persons in the OCC group, regardless of plan or benefit design. CONCLUSION: Medication discontinuation and OOP costs among beneficiaries with osteoporosis were highest for those enrolled in Part D plans with a coverage gap. Providers should be aware of potential cost-related nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries taking osteoporosis medications.

The effects of complications and comorbidities on the quality of preventive diabetes care: a literature review.

Although concurrent conditions such as complications and comorbidities are common in people with diabetes, both are often omitted from studies of the quality of diabetes preventive care. This systematic review of the literature on the quality of diabetes preventive care assesses not only trends in the reporting of and adjusting for complications and comorbidities, but also the limitations of current measures of complications and comorbidities. This review identified 34 studies in which the quality of diabetes preventive care was assessed with process measures and complications or comorbidities were reported. More often than not, the studies identified the presence of certain complications or comorbidities, counted complications or comorbidities, or used comorbidity indices to measure morbidity. While earlier studies reported the prevalence of complications or comorbidities, more recent studies use complications or comorbidities as covariates in regression models. Despite this progress, the effects of complications and comorbidities on care processes are unclear because of cross-study variation among measures of complications and comorbidities and because very few studies address the independent effects of complications and comorbidities. Effective measures of complications and comorbidity are necessary to evaluate the quality of diabetes preventive care, particularly for patients with concurrent conditions. Current reported measures of complications and comorbidities may not address constructs related to quality, underscoring the need for a methodology that is better than the approaches now documented in the literature.

A pilot test of the effect of guided care on the quality of primary care experiences for multimorbid older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Improving health care of multimorbid older adults is a critical public health challenge. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of a pilot intervention to enhance the quality of primary care experiences for chronically ill older persons (Guided Care). DESIGN: Nonrandomized prospective clinical trial. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Older, chronically ill, community-dwelling patients (N = 150) of 4 General Internists in 1 urban community practice setting who were members of a capitated health plan and identified as being at high risk of heavy use of health services in the coming year by claims-based predictive modeling. INTERVENTIONS: Guided Care, an enhancement to primary care that incorporates the operative principles of chronic care innovations, was delivered by a specially trained, practice-based registered nurse working closely with 2 primary care physicians. Each patient received a geriatric assessment, a comprehensive care plan, evidence-based primary care with proactive follow-up of chronic conditions, coordination of the efforts of health professionals across all health care settings, and facilitated access to community resources. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Quality of primary care experiences (physician-patient communication, interpersonal treatment, knowledge of patient, integration of care, and trust in physician) was assessed using the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS) at baseline and 6 months later. At baseline, the patients assigned to receive Guided Care were similar to those assigned to receive usual care in their demographics and disability levels, but they had higher risk scores and were less likely to be married. Thirty-one of the 75 subjects assigned to the Guided Care group received the intervention. At 6 months, intention-to-treat analyses adjusting for age, gender, and risk score suggest that Guided Care may improve the quality of physician-patient communication. In per-protocol analyses, receipt of Guided Care was associated with more favorable change than usual care from baseline to follow-up in all 5 PCAS domains, but only physician-patient communication showed a statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, Guided Care appeared to improve the quality of primary care experiences for high-risk, chronically ill older adults. A larger cluster-randomized controlled trial of Guided Care is underway.

Rhetoric vs. reality: employer views on consumer-driven health care.

Because of rising premiums, employers are investigating new health insurance approaches that maintain workers' broad choice of providers while raising awareness of health care costs through increased patient financial responsibility. Employers' knowledge of new health plan products, including consumer-driven health plans and tiered-provider networks, has grown considerably in recent years, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2002-03 site visit to 12 nationally representative communities. But employers are concerned that consumer-driven health plans would take considerable effort to implement without much cost savings. They also are skeptical that tiered-provider networks can adequately capture both cost and quality information in a way that is understandable to patients.

The role of health insurance brokers: providing small employers with a helping hand.

Insurance brokers play an important role in helping small employers find affordable health coverage for their workers and dependents. While there are costs for using brokers, an examination of the role of brokers in 12 nationally representative communities by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) indicated that brokers provide valuable services to small firms, such as obtaining prices for coverage, explaining benefits to employees and problem solving for employers. In some markets, brokers also helped educate employers and employees about state policy initiatives to expand coverage. In contrast to the notion that brokers merely make insurance more costly, these findings suggest brokers can provide important benefits to small employers, plans and policy makers.