Association of daily copayments with use of hospital care among medicare advantage enrollees.

BACKGROUND: While the traditional Medicare program imposes a deductible for hospital admissions, many Medicare Advantage plans have instituted per-diem copayments for hospital care. Little evidence exists about the effects of changes in cost-sharing for hospital care among the elderly. Changing inpatient benefits from a deductible to a per diem may benefit enrollees with shorter lengths of stay, but adversely affect the out-of-pocket burden for hospitalized enrollees with longer lengths of stay. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study to compare longitudinal changes in proportion hospitalized, inpatient admissions and days per 100 enrollees, and hospital length of stay between enrollees in MA plans that changed inpatient benefit from deductible at admission to per diem, intervention plans, and enrollees in matched control plans - similar plans that maintained inpatient deductibles. The study population included 423,634 unique beneficiaries enrolled in 23 intervention plans and 36 matched control plans in the 2007-2010 period. RESULTS: The imposition of per-diem copayments were associated with adjusted declines of 1.3 admissions/100 enrollees (95% CI - 1.8 to - 0.9), 6.9 inpatient days/100 enrollees (95% CI - 10.1 to - 3.8) and 0.7 percentage points in the probability of hospital admission (95% CI - 1.0 to - 0.4), with no significant change in adjusted length of stay in intervention plans relative to control plans. For persons with 2 or more hospitalizations in the year prior to the cost-sharing change, adjusted declines were 3.5 admissions/100 (95% CI - 8.4 to 1.4), 31.1 days/100 (95% CI - 75.2 to 13.0) and 2.2 percentage points in the probability of hospitalization (95% CI - 3.8 to - 0.6) in intervention plans relative to control plans. CONCLUSIONS: Instituting per-diem copayments was associated with reductions in number of admissions and hospital stays, but not length of stay once admitted. Effects of inpatient cost-sharing changes were magnified for persons with greater baseline use of hospital care.

First-dollar cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility care in medicare advantage plans.

BACKGROUND: The initial days of a Medicare-covered skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay may have no cost-sharing or daily copayments depending on beneficiaries' enrollment in traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage. Some policymakers have advocated imposing first-dollar cost-sharing to reduce post-acute expenditures. We examined the relationship between first-dollar cost-sharing for a SNF stay and use of inpatient and SNF services. METHODS: We identified seven Medicare Advantage plans that introduced daily SNF copayments of $25-$150 in 2009 or 2010. Copays began on the first day of a SNF admission. We matched these plans to seven matched control plans that did not introduce first-dollar cost-sharing. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in SNF and inpatient utilization for the 172,958 members of intervention and control plans. RESULTS: In intervention plans the mean annual number of SNF days per 100 continuously enrolled inpatients decreased from 768.3 to 750.6 days when cost-sharing changes took effect. Control plans experienced a concurrent increase: 721.7 to 808.1 SNF days per 100 inpatients (adjusted difference-in-differences: -87.0 days [95% CI (-112.1,-61.9)]). In intervention plans, we observed no significant changes in the probability of any SNF service use or the number of inpatient days per hospitalized member relative to concurrent trends among control plans. CONCLUSIONS: Among several strategies Medicare Advantage plans can employ to moderate SNF use, first-dollar SNF cost-sharing may be one influential factor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Duplicate federal payments for dual enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans and the Veterans Affairs health care system.

CONTEXT: Some veterans are eligible to enroll simultaneously in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan and the Veterans Affairs health care system (VA). This scenario produces the potential for redundant federal spending because MA plans would receive payments to insure veterans who receive care from the VA, another taxpayer-funded health plan. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of dual enrollment in VA and MA, the concurrent use of health services in each setting, and the estimated costs of VA care provided to MA enrollees. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 1,245,657 veterans simultaneously enrolled in the VA and an MA plan between 2004-2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of health services and inflation-adjusted estimated VA health care costs. RESULTS: Among individuals who were eligible to enroll in the VA and in an MA plan, the number of persons dually enrolled increased from 485,651 in 2004 to 924,792 in 2009. In 2009, 8.3% of the MA population was enrolled in the VA and 5.0% of MA beneficiaries were VA users. The estimated VA health care costs for MA enrollees totaled $13.0 billion over 6 years, increasing from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $3.2 billion in 2009. Among dual enrollees, 10% exclusively used the VA for outpatient and acute inpatient services, 35% exclusively used the MA plan, 50% used both the VA and MA, and 4% received no services during the calendar year. The VA financed 44% of all outpatient visits (n = 21,353,841), 15% of all acute medical and surgical admissions (n = 177,663), and 18% of all acute medical and surgical inpatient days (n = 1,106,284) for this dually enrolled population. In 2009, the VA billed private insurers $52.3 million to reimburse care provided to MA enrollees and collected $9.4 million (18% of the billed amount; 0.3% of the total cost of care). CONCLUSIONS: The federal government spends a substantial and increasing amount of potentially duplicative funds in 2 separate managed care programs for the care of same individuals.

Quality and equity of care in the veterans affairs health-care system and in medicare advantage health plans.

BACKGROUND: After an organizational transformation in the mid-1990s, the quality of care in the Veterans Affairs health-care system (VA) compared favorably with the quality of care in some private-sector settings. Whether this performance advantage has persisted, and also its relation to geographic and socioeconomic variations in care, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality and equity of care for older adults in the VA with that delivered in Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans using the same performance measures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison. SUBJECTS: A total of 293,554 observations from enrollees in 142 VA medical centers (VAMCs) and 5,768,573 observations from enrollees in 305 MA plans. MEASUREMENTS: Adherence to quality measures assessing diabetes, cardiovascular, and cancer screening care from 2000 to 2007. RESULTS: The VA outperformed MA plans on 10 of 11 quality measures in the initial study year, and on all 12 measures in the final year. In 2006 and 2007, adjusted differences between the VA and MA ranged from 4.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.2-5.4) for cholesterol testing in coronary heart disease to 30.8 percentage points (95% CI, 28.1-33.5) for colorectal cancer screening. For 9 of 12 measures, socioeconomic disparities (defined as the difference in performance rates between persons in the highest and lowest quartiles of area-level income and education) were lower in the VA than in MA. Across all measures, the mean interquartile range of performance was 6.7 percentage points for VAMCs and 14.5 percentage points for MA plans. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons aged 65 years or older, the VA health-care system significantly outperformed private-sector MA plans and delivered care that was less variable by site, geographic region, and socioeconomic status.

Comparison of Quality of Life, Productivity, Functioning and Self-Esteem in Adults Diagnosed With ADHD and With Symptomatic ADHD.

Objective: Investigate the association between diagnosis and outcomes in adults with symptoms of ADHD. Method: The Validate Attitudes and Lifestyle Issues in Depression, ADHD and Troubles with Eating (VALIDATE) study collected sociodemographic and clinical characteristics data, and responses from validated questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity, functioning, and self-esteem. ADHD-diagnosed respondents (n = 444) were matched with respondents with symptomatic ADHD (n = 1,055) within the same sex-by-age group using propensity score matching. Effects of ADHD diagnosis on each outcome were adjusted for covariates that remained imbalanced after matching, using generalized mixed models. Results: After matching, symptomatic respondents (n = 867) had worse outcomes than ADHD-diagnosed respondents (n = 436), as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: General Health questionnaire and Sheehan Disability Scale (p < .001). ADHD-diagnosed respondents had better mean EuroQol five-dimensional five-level (EQ-5D-5L) scores and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores than symptomatic respondents (p < .001). Conclusion: ADHD-diagnosed individuals are more likely to experience better functional performance, work-related productivity, HRQoL, and self-esteem than individuals with symptomatic ADHD.

Examining the heterogeneity of treatment patterns in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in the Texas Medicaid population: modeling suboptimal treatment response.

Objectives: To examine suboptimal responses (SR) in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among pediatric patients in the Texas Medicaid program receiving osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) or lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and apply an SR prediction model to identify patients most likely to experience an SR to either OROS-MPH or LDX therapies. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Texas Medicaid claims data of ADHD children and adolescents (6-17 years of age) initiating OROS-MPH or LDX. Primary SR endpoints were drug discontinuation, switching, and augmentation 12-months post-ADHD drug initiation. Logistic regression models were developed to predict SR to OROS-MPH and LDX in 1:1 matched groups of children and adolescent cohorts. Results: A total of 3,633 children and 1,611 adolescents were matched for each cohort. SR was observed among more children (76.4% vs 72.3%; p < 0.001) and adolescents (82.7% vs 78.2%; p = 0.002) initiating OROS-MPH compared to LDX. Patient sub-groups with the highest predicted risk of OROS-MPH SR experienced significantly lower observed SR rates (p < 0.05) when initiating LDX (children: 80.6% for OROS-MPH vs 75.8% for LDX; OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-0.94; adolescents: 87.2% for OROS-MPH vs 80.6% for LDX; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). For patients with highest predicted SR rates to LDX, observed SR rates were not significantly different between patients initiating LDX or OROS-MPH. Conclusions: This study demonstrated how a personalized medicine approach using administrative claims data can be used to identify sub-groups of child and adolescent ADHD patients with different risks for suboptimal response with OROS-MPH or LDX in a Medicaid population.

Variation in Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Children and Adolescents With ADHD Across European Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences in presentation, diagnosis, and management of children/adolescents with ADHD in six European countries. METHOD: Physicians abstracted clinical records for patients aged 6 to 17 years, diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 and treated for ≥2 years. Documentation included impairment due to core ADHD symptoms and additional ADHD symptoms/behaviors at diagnosis, diagnostic approach, and treatment modality. RESULTS: Study included 779 patients treated by 340 physicians. Prevalence of ADHD subtypes (inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or combined) was similar across countries. Mean scores for core and noncore symptom impairment varied and were highest in Italy and the United Kingdom. Variability was noted in diagnostic approach; 95% of physicians in the Netherlands used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) criteria versus 10% in Germany. Differences were reported for initial treatment modality, treatment switching, and physician-reported treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: European countries varied in diagnostic approaches and practice management of children/adolescents with ADHD.

Treatment patterns among adults with ADHD receiving long-acting therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the treatment patterns among commercially insured adults in the United States with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who received long-acting (LA) combination therapy (CT) or monotherapy for ADHD. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Adults with at least 1 ADHD diagnosis and at least 1 LA ADHD medication were identified from the MarketScan claims database (April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2014). The index date was randomly selected among LA medication initiation dates (index treatment). CT was identified if a different ADHD medication was filled within 30 days of the index date and the 2 medications overlapped by 30 days or more; otherwise, the treatment was considered monotherapy. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) during the 1 year post index date and was defined as a PDC of 0.8 or greater. Persistence was defined as time to discontinuation (TTD) (ie, ≥30-day supply gap). Adherence and persistence were compared between CT and monotherapy using multivariable logistic and Cox models, respectively, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 225,600 eligible patients, 7.3% received LA CT and 92.7% received LA monotherapy (mean age, 29 vs 31 years, respectively). Patients receiving LA CT had significantly lower adherence than those receiving LA monotherapy (mean PDC, 0.33 vs 0.41; adherence rate, 7% vs 16%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; P <.001). They also demonstrated significantly lower persistence than patients receiving LA monotherapy (median TTD, 59 vs 79 days, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.32; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among US adults with ADHD treated with LA medications, LA CT was associated with significantly lower adherence and persistence compared with LA monotherapy.

Effect of rescue medication on seizure duration in non-institutionalized children with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: Characterize the real-world management of and outcomes for children with epilepsy receiving rescue medication for prolonged acute convulsive seizures (PACS) in the community. METHODS: PERFECT-3 (Practices in Emergency and Rescue medication For Epilepsy managed with Community-administered Therapy 3) was a European, retrospective observational study. Eligible patients were non-institutionalized children with epilepsy aged 3-16 years who had experienced ≥1 PACS in the past year and had ≥1 currently prescribed PACS rescue medication. Investigators provided clinical assessments and parents/guardians completed questionnaires. Statistical tests were post hoc; p values are descriptive. RESULTS: At enrollment (N = 286), most patients had prescriptions for diazepam (69.2%) and/or midazolam (55.9%); some had two (26.6%) or three (2.4%) prescribed rescue medications. Most patients experienced PACS despite regular anti-epilepsy medication. According to parents, the average duration of their child's seizures without rescue medication was <5 min in 35.7% of patients, 5-<20 min in 42.6%, and ≥20 min in 21.7% (n = 258); with rescue medication seizure duration was <5 min in 69.4% of patients, 5-<20 min in 25.6%, and ≥20 min in 5.0%. Rescue medication use was significantly associated with average seizures lasting <5 min (χ2 = 58.8; p < 0.0001). At the time of their most recent PACS, 58.5-67.8% of children reportedly received rescue medication within 5 min of seizure onset, and 85.4-94.1% within 10 min. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first real-world data that rescue medications administered in the community reduce the duration of PACS in children with epilepsy. Study limitations including potential recall bias are acknowledged.

Medication use in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a commercially-insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine real-world prescription medication usage among commercially-insured adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US. METHODS: Adults with ADHD who received ≥1 ADHD medication during 2013 were identified from a large US claims database. Combination therapy was defined as an overlap of ≥30 days between the index (first treatment ≥30 days in 2013) and another medication(s). Patients were classified into six groups: long-acting (LA) monotherapy, short-acting (SA) monotherapy, LA + LA, SA + SA, LA + SA, and >2 therapies. Analyses compared baseline characteristics by regimen, ranked combination regimens, and estimated daily average consumption (DACON) for monotherapy users. RESULTS: Of 206,443 adults with ADHD (mean age = 32.9 years; 51.6% female), 56.9% used LA monotherapy, 30.7% SA monotherapy, and 12.5% used combination therapies (LA + SA: 10.3%; LA + LA: 1.3%; SA + SA: 0.4%; >2 therapies: 0.5%). Extended-release mixed amphetamine salts (MAS-XR, 39.2%) and lisdexamfetamine (LDX, 31.5%) were the most common LA monotherapies. Nearly all SA monotherapy patients received immediate-release mixed amphetamine salts (MAS-IR; 81.7%). The top three therapies among combination categories were: (a) LA + LA: branded MAS-XR + generic MAS-XR (13.7%), LDX + generic MAS-XR (10.8%), LDX + guanfacine ER (10.7%); (b) SA + SA: generic MAS-IR + clonidine IR (33.5%), generic MAS-IR + generic MPH SA (17.9%), branded MAS-IR + generic MAS-IR (11.1%); (c) LA + SA: generic MAS-XR+/-IR (39.2%), LDX + generic MAS-IR (16.7%), LA + SA generic MPH (12.6%). Among monotherapy users, DACON was 1.2 ± 0.6 (LA) and 2.1 ± 0.9 (SA) tablets. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant treatment heterogeneity among US adults with ADHD. A sizable proportion of patients received monotherapies at above the recommended dosages or combination therapies, suggesting existing single-tablet regimens may not meet patients' needs.

Medicare Advantage Members' Expected Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Inpatient And Skilled Nursing Facility Services.

Inpatient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) cost sharing in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may reduce unnecessary use of these services. However, large out-of-pocket expenses potentially limit access to care and encourage beneficiaries at high risk of needing inpatient and postacute care to avoid or leave MA plans. In 2011 new federal regulations restricted inpatient and skilled nursing facility cost sharing and mandated limits on out-of-pocket spending in MA plans. After these regulations, MA members in plans with low premiums averaged $1,758 in expected out-of-pocket spending for an episode of seven hospital days and twenty skilled nursing facility days. Among members with the same low-premium plan in 2010 and 2011, 36 percent of members belonged to plans that added an out-of-pocket spending limit in 2011. However, these members also had a $293 increase in average cost sharing for an inpatient and skilled nursing facility episode, possibly to offset plans' expenses in financing out-of-pocket limits. Some MA beneficiaries may still have difficulty affording acute and postacute care despite greater regulation of cost sharing.

Waiving the three-day rule: admissions and length-of-stay at hospitals and skilled nursing facilities did not increase.

The traditional Medicare program requires an enrollee to have a hospital stay of at least three consecutive calendar days to qualify for coverage of subsequent postacute care in a skilled nursing facility. This long-standing policy, implemented to discourage premature discharges from hospitals, might now be inappropriately lengthening hospital stays for patients who could be transferred sooner. To assess the implications of eliminating the three-day qualifying stay requirement, we compared hospital and postacute skilled nursing facility utilization among Medicare Advantage enrollees in matched plans that did or did not eliminate that requirement in 2006-10. Among hospitalized enrollees with a skilled nursing facility admission, the mean hospital length-of-stay declined from 6.9 days to 6.7 days for those no longer subject to the qualifying stay but increased from 6.1 to 6.6 days among those still subject to it, for a net decline of 0.7 day when the three-day stay requirement was eliminated. The elimination was not associated with more hospital or skilled nursing facility admissions or with longer lengths-of-stay in a skilled nursing facility. These findings suggest that eliminating the three-day stay requirement conferred savings on Medicare Advantage plans and that study of the requirement in traditional Medicare plans is warranted.

Despite improved quality of care in the Veterans Affairs health system, racial disparity persists for important clinical outcomes.

Both government and private health care systems have engaged in efforts to improve quality, but the effect of these initiatives on racial and ethnic disparities has not been well studied. In the decade following an organizational transformation, the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system achieved substantial improvements in quality of care with minimal racial disparities for most process-of-care measures, such as rates of cholesterol screenings. However, in our study we observed a striking disconnect between high levels of performance on widely used process measures and modest levels of improvement in clinical outcomes, such as control of blood pressure, blood glucose, and cholesterol levels. We also observed a gap in clinical outcomes of as much as nine percentage points between African American veterans and white veterans. Almost all of the disparity in outcomes in the VA was explained by within-facility disparity, which suggests that VA medical centers need to measure and address racial gaps in care for their patient populations. Moreover, because cardiovascular disease and diabetes are major contributors to racial disparities in life expectancy, the findings of this study and others underscore the urgency of focused efforts to improve intermediate outcomes among African Americans in the VA and other settings.

Prevalence and determinants of isolated systolic hypertension among young adults: the 1999-2004 US National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in younger adults. We examined the prevalence and determinants of ISH in this age group using the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and made comparisons using data from NHANES III (1988-1994). METHODS: A total of 5685 adults aged 18-39 years and not on antihypertensive medications were analyzed. Prevalence estimates of ISH and potential risk factors were estimated by age and sex. For comparison of prevalence estimates with published reports of NHANES III data, age cutoffs (18-24, 25-34, and 35-44 year) by sex were also employed. A multivariate logistic regression model tested independent determinants of ISH. RESULTS: ISH in young adults had a higher prevalence than systolic/diastolic hypertension (1.57 +/- 0.23% vs. 0.93 +/- 0.18%). ISH prevalence increased within the last decade particularly for men for each respective age category [men (0.8 vs. 2.2%, 1.3 vs. 2.4%, 1.3 vs. 2.4%), women (0.0 vs. 0.3%, 0.1 vs. 0.7%, 1.7 vs. 1.8%)]. On multivariate analysis, obesity [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 6.77], male sex (OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.10, 4.37), education level less than high school (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.10, 8.06), and current smoking (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.03, 4.11) were characteristics independently associated with higher odds of ISH among young adults. Relative increases in prevalence between the surveys were noted for current smoking (24.3 vs. 51.5%), obesity (33.9 vs. 42.7%) and low educational level (18.4 vs. 38.6%). CONCLUSION: ISH among young adults is increasing in prevalence, and is more common than systolic/diastolic hypertension. Obesity, smoking, and low socioeconomic status appear to be important determinants of ISH among young adults and have all increased over the last decade.