Higher Predictive Value Positive for MMA Than ACA MTM Eligibility Criteria Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities: An Observational Study.

The objective of this study was to examine positive predictive value (PPV) of medication therapy management (MTM) eligibility criteria under Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in identifying patients with medication utilization issues across racial and ethnic groups. The study analyzed Medicare data (2012-2013) for 2 213 594 beneficiaries. Medication utilization issues were determined based on medication utilization measures mostly developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. MMA was associated with higher PPV than ACA in identifying individuals with medication utilization issues among non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) and Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites (whites). For example, odds ratio for having medication utilization issues to whites when examining MMA in 2013 and ACA were 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.15) among blacks, and 1.17 (95% CI = 1.10-1.24) among Hispanics, in the main analysis. Therefore, MMA was associated with 9% and 17% higher PPV than ACA in identifying patients with medication utilization issues among blacks and Hispanics, respectively, than whites.

Predictive Value Positive of MTM Eligibility Criteria under MMA and ACA in Identifying Individuals with Medication Utilization Issues.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive value positives (PVP) of medication therapy management eligibility criteria under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in identifying individuals with medication utilization issues (MUI). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of Medicare database (2012-2013). MUI were determined based on medication utilization measures related to Medicare Part D Star Ratings. PVP or proportions of individuals with MUI were compared between individuals eligible for MTM under MMA and ACA. Need-based and demand-based logistic regression was used to adjust for patient characteristics. MTM eligibility thresholds in 2009 and 2013 and proposed 2015 MTM eligibility thresholds under MMA were examined. Main/sensitivity/disease-specific analyses were conducted to cover the range of eligibility thresholds and combinations. KEY FINDINGS: MMA has higher PVP in identifying patients with MUI than ACA. Proportions of individuals with MUI were higher based on MMA than ACA (e.g., 74.96% for 2009 MMA, 73.51% for 2013 MMA, and 62.46% for proposed 2015 MMA vs. 52.17% for ACA in main analysis; P<0.05). Adjusted findings were similar. For example, based on the demand-based model in the main analysis, the odds ratios were 2.474 (95% CI: 2.454-2.494) for 2013 MMA in comparison to ACA. These numbers indicate that the MMA MTM eligibility criteria for 2013 had 147.4% higher PVP in identifying patients with MUI than ACA. Similar patterns were found in most sensitivity and disease-specific analyses. CONCLUSIONS: MMA has higher PVP than ACA in identifying patients with MUI. This study may inform the government on future MTM policy.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Meeting MTM Eligibility Criteria Based on Star Ratings Compared with the Medicare Modernization Act.

BACKGROUND: Previous research found racial and ethnic disparities in meeting medication therapy management (MTM) eligibility criteria implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accordance with the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). OBJECTIVE: To examine whether alternative MTM eligibility criteria based on the CMS Part D star ratings quality evaluation system can reduce racial and ethnic disparities. METHODS: This study analyzed the Beneficiary Summary File and claims files for Medicare beneficiaries linked to the Area Health Resource File. Three million Medicare beneficiaries with continuous Parts A, B, and D enrollment in 2012-2013 were included. Proposed star ratings criteria included 9 existing medication safety and adherence measures developed mostly by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Logistic regression and the Blinder-Oaxaca approach were used to test disparities in meeting MMA and star ratings eligibility criteria across racial and ethnic groups. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine whether there was a disparity reduction by comparing individuals who were MTM-eligible under MMA but not under star ratings criteria and those who were MTM-eligible under star ratings criteria but not under the MMA. Concerning MMA-based MTM criteria, main and sensitivity analyses were performed to represent the entire range of the MMA eligibility thresholds reported by plans in 2009, 2013, and proposed by CMS in 2015. Regarding star ratings criteria, meeting any 1 of the 9 measures was examined as the main analysis, and various measure combinations were examined as the sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the main analysis, adjusted odds ratios for non-Hispanic blacks (backs) and Hispanics to non-Hispanic whites (whites) were 1.394 (95% CI = 1.375-1.414) and 1.197 (95% CI = 1.176-1.218), respectively, under star ratings. Blacks were 39.4% and Hispanics were 19.7% more likely to be MTM-eligible than whites. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to be MTM-eligible than whites in some sensitivity analyses. Disparities were not completely explained by differences in patient characteristics based on the Blinder-Oaxaca approach. The multinomial logistic regression of each main analysis found significant adjusted relative risk ratios (RRR) between whites and blacks for 2009 (RRR = 0.459, 95% CI = 0.438-0.481); 2013 (RRR = 0.449, 95% CI = 0.434-0.465); and 2015 (RRR = 0.436, 95% CI = 0.425-0.446) and between whites and Hispanics for 2009 (RRR = 0.559, 95% CI = 0.528-0.593); 2013 (RRR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.521-0.569); and 2015 (RRR = 0.503, 95% CI = 0.488-0.518). These findings indicate a significant reduction in racial and ethnic disparities when using star ratings eligibility criteria; for example, black-white disparities in the likelihood of meeting MTM eligibility criteria were reduced by 55.1% based on star ratings compared with MMA in 2013. Similar patterns were found in most sensitivity and disease-specific analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that minorities were more likely than whites to be MTM-eligible under the star ratings criteria. In addition, MTM eligibility criteria based on star ratings would reduce racial and ethnic disparities associated with MMA in the general Medicare population and those with specific chronic conditions. DISCLOSURES: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AG049696. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Cushman reports an Eli Lilly grant and uncompensated consulting for Takeda Pharmaceuticals outside this work. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Wang and Shih, along with Wan, Kuhle, Spivey, and Cushman. Wang, Qiao, and Wan took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Wang, Kuhle, and Qiao, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Spivey and Qiao, along with the other authors, and revised by Cushman, Dagogo-Jack, and Chisholm-Burns, along with the other authors.

Receipt of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers among Medicare Beneficiaries with Diabetes and Hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of patients with diabetes and hypertension receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACE/ARB), is one of the quality measures for medication management employed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to rate Medicare Part D plans. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate and predictors of receiving ACE/ARB in physician office and outpatient visits made by Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: The study population was Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and hypertension from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Outpatient Department, from 2007 to 2009. Predictors of receiving ACE/ARB were determined using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Of the 6,311 Medicare outpatient and physician office visits with hypertension and diabetes, 40.70% patient visits were associated with receiving ACE/ARB. Bivariate analysis found that higher proportions of ACE/ARB were received during visits made to primary care physicians compared to visits to non-primary care physicians (48.39% vs. 32.56%; p<0.05). Adjusted multivariate analyses indicated that ACE/ARB were more likely to be received during visits to primary care physicians than visits to non-primary care physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59-2.43), and ACE/ARB were more likely to be received during visits by patients residing in zip codes with median household income within Quartile 2 ($32,794-$40,626), compared to visits by patients residing in zip codes with median household income within Quartile 1 (< $32,793, OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of the patient visits were associated with receiving ACE/ARB. Promoting evidence-based medicine and increasing access to primary care may have the potential to increase the rates of receiving ACE/ARB in this population.

Pharmacist care plans and documentation of follow-up before the Iowa Pharmaceutical Case Management program.

OBJECTIVES: To document drug therapy problems and their causes and assess pharmacist follow-up of patients with identified drug therapy problems. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: 160 pharmacists who submitted 754 pharmaceutical care plans in an effort to qualify for participation in the Iowa Pharmaceutical Case Management program. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Care plans were assessed for drug therapy problems and causes and for documentation of pharmacist follow-up (actual, none, or intent to follow up). RESULTS: Pharmacists documented a wide variety of drug therapy problems and causes, including adverse drug reactions (20.1% of care plans), need for additional drug therapy (18.9%), lack of patient adherence to therapy (16.3%), incorrect medication being prescribed (14.1%), and drug dose too high (10.0%). Pharmacist follow-up with patients was not optimal, with 31% of care plans providing documentation of actual follow-up. Another 42.2% of plans indicated that the pharmacist intended to contact the patient for follow-up but either did not do so or did not record the intervention. No actual follow-up or intent to follow up was recorded in 26.8% of care plans. Pharmacists practicing in independent pharmacies followed up with patients more frequently than those in other settings (36.4% of care plans, compared with 22.7%, 23.2%, and 28.4% for chain, clinic, and franchise pharmacies). Pharmacists were more likely to follow up when the identified problem involved drug safety rather than effectiveness (36.2% versus 28.3% of care plans). CONCLUSION: Documentation of pharmacist follow-up with patients was less than optimal. In addition to identifying drug therapy problems and causes, pharmacists must complete the care continuum through documentation of patient monitoring and follow-up to transform the philosophy and vision of the pharmaceutical care concept into a practice of pharmacy recognized and rewarded by patients and payers.

Medicaid drug utilization review annual reports for federal fiscal year 1999: looking back to move forward.

OBJECTIVE: To review states' Medicaid drug utilization (DUR) annual reports for federal fiscal year (FFY) 1999 to assess the usefulness of the information provided in assisting states in improving their DUR programs. DATA SOURCES: Medicaid DUR annual reports from 43 states and the District of Columbia. DATA EXTRACTION: Five DUR experts conducted in-depth reviews of the annual reports to determine whether states provided the information required by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA; now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) annual report instructions, to assess the usefulness of information provided by states to other states seeking to improve their programs, and to consider what changes in report content are needed to increase the value of the reports. DATA SYNTHESIS: States provided the information requested by HCFA, but such information was not particularly useful in helping other states improve their programs, nor was it easily available to other states. These reports need to be reoriented. Rather than instruments useful for compliance monitoring, the reports should be remade as tools useful for educating DUR program staff. To do this, changes in report content are needed, and individual states should have access to reports from all states. Specific recommendations made based on these findings would be important first steps in improving the effectiveness of DUR programs. CONCLUSION: Much room for improvement remains in the content and distribution of Medicaid DUR annual reports. Finding ways to improve the effectiveness of DUR is especially important as the nation moves to implement a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Identification of essential elements in the documentation of pharmacist-provided care.

OBJECTIVES: [corrected] To develop guidelines for the documentation elements that need to be included in any record of pharmacist-provided care to allow the quality of the care to be assessed and to describe the use of these guidelines to improve the quality of pharmacist documentation. DESIGN: An initial list of 85 potential documentation elements, developed through a review of the literature, was validated by a group of pharmacy practitioners. Then, through three rounds of a Delphi process and a group meeting, a panel of experts reached consensus on a refined list of 27 documentation data elements. RESULTS: The documentation elements were formatted into a one-page Tool for Evaluation of Documentation (TED). The TED is a checklist for assessing the completeness of the documentation of pharmacist-provided care. CONCLUSION: The TED and the consensus-building methodology used in the development of this tool can serve as cornerstones of a quality assessment process for documentation of pharmacist-provided care, enable further assessment of the quality of care, and, ultimately, be used to measure the impact of pharmacist-provided care on patient outcomes. Our results should provide guidance both to pharmacists providing care and to organizations that assess the quality of that care.

Identification of essential elements in the documentation of pharmacist-provided care.

OBJECTIVES To develop guidelines for the documentation elements that need to be included in any record of pharmacist-provided care to allow the quality of the care to be assessed and to describe the use of these guidelines to improve the quality of pharmacist documentation. DESIGN An initial list of 85 potential documentation elements, developed through a review of the literature, was validated by a group of pharmacy practitioners. Then, through three rounds of a Delphi process and a group meeting, a panel of experts reached consensus on a refined list of 27 documentation data elements. RESULTS The documentation elements were formatted into a one-page Tool for Evaluation of Documentation (TED). The TED is a checklist for assessing the completeness of the documentation of pharmacist-provided care. CONCLUSION The TED and the consensus-building methodology used in the development of this tool can serve as cornerstones of a quality assessment process for documentation of pharmacist-provided care, enable further assessment of the quality of care, and, ultimately, be used to measure the impact of pharmacist-provided care on patient outcomes. Our results should provide guidance both to pharmacists providing care and to organizations that assess the quality of that care.