Registry-based study in people with cystic fibrosis and an R117H variant treated with ivacaftor.

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor approval was extended to people with cystic fibrosis (CF) and an R117H variant in 2014 in the USA. This observational, real-world, postapproval study evaluated long-term outcomes among people with CF and an R117H variant on ivacaftor using data from the US Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry. METHODS: Key outcomes were evaluated in ivacaftor-treated people with CF and an R117H variant for up to 36 months before and after treatment initiation using within-group comparisons. Analyses were descriptive in nature, focused on evaluation of observed outcome patterns over time and were performed both overall and for age groups ≥2 to <6 years, ≥6 to <18 years and ≥18 years. Key outcomes included lung function, body mass index (BMI), pulmonary exacerbations (PEx) and hospitalisations. RESULTS: The ivacaftor cohort included 369 people with CF and an R117H variant who initiated therapy between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016. During each of the 12-month intervals following treatment initiation, the mean observed percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) and BMI values were higher and the mean annualised number of PEx and hospitalisation events were lower than pretreatment values. Mean change in ppFEV1 from pretreatment baseline was an increase of 1.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.3), 1.7 (95% CI 0.7 to 2.7) and 1.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 3.0) percentage points in the first, second and third years of treatment, respectively. Similar trends were observed in adult and paediatric subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the clinical effectiveness of ivacaftor in people with CF and an R117H variant, including adult and paediatric subgroups.

Factors Associated With Disparities in Hospital Readmission Rates Among US Adults Dually Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

Importance: Low-income older adults who are dually eligible (DE) for Medicare and Medicaid often experience worse outcomes following hospitalization. Among other federal policies aimed at improving health for DE patients, Medicare has recently begun reporting disparities in within-hospital readmissions. The degree to which disparities for DE patients are owing to differences in community-level factors or, conversely, are amenable to hospital quality improvement, remains heavily debated. Objective: To examine the extent to which within-hospital disparities in 30-day readmission rates for DE patients are ameliorated by state- and community-level factors. Design Setting and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Disparity Methods were used to calculate within-hospital disparities in 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates for DE vs non-DE patients in US hospitals participating in Medicare. All analyses were performed in February and March 2019. The study included Medicare patients (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia in 2014 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Within-hospital disparities, as measured by the rate difference (RD) in 30-day readmission between DE vs non-DE patients following admission for AMI, HF, or pneumonia; variance across hospitals; and correlation of hospital RDs with and without adjustment for state Medicaid eligibility policies and community-level factors. Results: The final sample included 475 444 patients admitted for AMI, 898 395 for HF, and 1 214 282 for pneumonia, of whom 13.2%, 17.4%, and 23.0% were DE patients, respectively. Dually eligible patients had higher 30-day readmission rates relative to non-DE patients (RD >0) in 99.0% (AMI), 99.4% (HF), and 97.5% (pneumonia) of US hospitals. Across hospitals, the mean (IQR) RD between DE vs non-DE was 1.00% (0.87%-1.10%) for AMI, 0.82% (0.73%-0.96%) for HF, and 0.53% (0.37%-0.71%) for pneumonia. The mean (IQR) RD after adjustment for community-level factors was 0.87% (0.73%-0.97%) for AMI, 0.67% (0.57%-0.80%) for HF, and 0.42% (0.29%-0.57%) for pneumonia. Relative hospital rankings of corresponding within-hospital disparities before and after community-level adjustment were highly correlated (Pearson coefficient, 0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, within-hospital disparities in 30-day readmission for DE patients were modestly associated with differences in state Medicaid policies and community-level factors. This suggests that remaining variation in these disparities should be the focus of hospital efforts to improve the quality of care transitions at discharge for DE patients in efforts to advance equity.

Measuring hospital-specific disparities by dual eligibility and race to reduce health inequities.

OBJECTIVE: To propose and evaluate a metric for quantifying hospital-specific disparities in health outcomes that can be used by patients and hospitals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Inpatient admissions for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia to all non-federal, short-term, acute care hospitals during 2012-2015. STUDY DESIGN: Building on the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services methodology for calculating risk-standardized readmission rates, we developed models that include a hospital-specific random coefficient for either patient dual eligibility status or African American race. These coefficients quantify the difference in risk-standardized outcomes by dual eligibility and race at a given hospital after accounting for the hospital's patient case mix and proportion of dual eligible or African American patients. We demonstrate this approach and report variation and performance in hospital-specific disparities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Dual eligibility and African American race were associated with higher readmission rates within hospitals for all three conditions. However, this disparity effect varied substantially across hospitals. CONCLUSION: Our models isolate a hospital-specific disparity effect and demonstrate variation in quality of care for different groups of patients across conditions and hospitals. Illuminating within-hospital disparities can incentivize hospitals to reduce inequities in health care quality.

Ohio's Medicaid Expansion and Unmet Health Needs Among Low-Income Women of Reproductive Age.

Objective To examine changes in the prevalence and odds of unmet healthcare needs and healthcare utilization among low-income women of reproductive age (WRA) after Ohio's 2014, ACA-associated Medicaid expansion, which extended coverage to non-senior adults with a family income ≤ 138% of the federal poverty level. Methods We analyzed publically available data from the 2012 and 2015 Ohio Medicaid Assessment Survey (OMAS), a cross-sectional telephone survey of Ohio's non-institutionalized adult population. The study included 489 low-income women in 2012 and 1273 in 2015 aged 19-44 years who were newly eligible for Medicaid after expansion in January 2014. Four unmet healthcare need and three healthcare utilization measures were examined. We fit survey-weighted logistic regression models adjusted for race/ethnicity, working status, and educational attainment to determine whether the odds of each measure differed between 2012 and 2015. Results In 2015, low-income WRA had a significantly lower odds of reporting an unmet dental care need (ORadj = 0.72, 95% CI 0.54, 0.95), unmet vision care need (ORadj = 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93), unmet mental health need (ORadj = 0.57, 95% CI 0.39, 0.83), and unmet prescription need (ORadj = 0.39, 95% CI 0.45, 0.80) compared to 2012. There were no significant differences in the odds of seeing a doctor or dentist in the past year or of having a usual source of care for low-income WRA in 2012 and 2015. Conclusions for Practice After Ohio's 2014 Medicaid expansion the odds of low-income WRA having unmet healthcare needs was reduced. Future research should examine outcomes after a longer period of follow-up and include additional measures, such as self-rated health status.

Provider-delivered tobacco dependence treatment to Medicaid smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking prevalence is 49% among Medicaid enrollees in Ohio. The objective of this pilot project was to test a comprehensive tobacco dependence treatment program targeting rural Medicaid-enrolled smokers for both physician-level and smoker-level outcomes. METHODS: Using a group-randomized trial design, intervention group physicians (n = 4) were exposed to systems-level changes in their clinics, and smokers in these clinics were offered 12 weeks of telephone cessation counseling. Control group physicians (n = 4) were given the clinician's version of the U.S. Public Health Serivce (USPHS) Clinical Practice Guideline, and smokers in these clinics were given information about the Ohio Tobacco Quitline. Physician-level and smoker-level outcomes were assessed at 1 week and 3 months, respectively. Costs per quit were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 214 Medicaid smokers were enrolled. At 1 week, there were no reported differences in rates of being asked about tobacco use (68% intervention, 58% control) or advised to quit (69% intervention, 63% control). However, 30% of intervention and 56% of control smokers reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy (p < .01). At 3 months, there were no differences in quit attempts (58% intervention, 64% control), use of pharmacotherapy (34% intervention, 46% control), or abstinence (24% intervention, 16% control for self-reported abstinence; 11% intervention, 3.5% control for cotinine-confirmed abstinence). The intervention group proved more cost-effective at achieving confirmed quits ($6,800 vs. $9,700). CONCLUSIONS: We found few differences in outcomes between physicians exposed to a brief intervention and physicians who were intensively trained. Future studies should examine how tobacco dependence treatment can be further expanded in Medicaid programs.