The Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion, Social Disadvantage, and the Practice Location Choices of New General Internists.

BACKGROUND: A recent study found that states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) gained new general internists who were establishing their first practices, whereas nonexpansion states lost them. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the level of social disadvantage of the areas of expansion states that gained new physicians and the areas of nonexpansion states that lost them. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used American Community Survey data to classify commuting zones as high, medium, or low social disadvantage. Using 2009-2019 data from the AMA Physician Masterfile and information on states' Medicaid expansion status, we estimated conditional logit models to compare where new physicians located during the 6 years following the expansion to where they located during the 5 years preceding the expansion. SUBJECTS: A total of 32,102 new general internists. RESULTS: Compared with preexpansion patterns, new general internists were more likely to locate in expansion states after the expansion, a finding that held for high, medium, and low disadvantage areas. We estimated that, between 2014 and 2019, nonexpansion states lost 371 new general internists (95% confidence interval, 203-540) to expansion states. However, 62.5% of the physicians lost by nonexpansion states were lost from high disadvantage areas even though these areas only accounted for 17.9% of the population of nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: States that opted not to expand Medicaid lost new general internists to expansion states. A highly disproportionate share of the physicians lost by nonexpansion states were lost from high disadvantage areas, potentially compromising access for all residents irrespective of insurance coverage.

Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association.

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

Effects of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion on the Distribution of New General Internists Across States.

BACKGROUND: Some states expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, boosting their low-income residents' demand for health care, while other states opted not to expand. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the Medicaid expansion influenced the states selected by physicians just completing graduate medical education for establishing their first practices. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using 2009-2019 data from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile and information on states' Medicaid expansion status, we estimated conditional logit models to compare where new physicians located during the 6 years following implementation of the expansion to where they located during the 5 years preceding implementation. SUBJECTS: The sample consisted of 160,842 physicians in 8 specialty groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia expanded Medicaid by the end of the study period. Compared with preexpansion patterns, we found that physicians in one specialty group-general internal medicine-were increasingly likely to locate in expansion states with time after the expansion. The Medicaid expansion influenced the practice location choices of men and international medical graduates in general internal medicine; women and United States medical graduates did not alter their preexpansion location patterns. Simulations estimated that, between 2014 and 2019, nonexpansion states lost 310 general internists (95% confidence interval, 156-464) to expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: The Medicaid expansion influenced the practice location choices of new general internists. States that opted not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act lost general internists to expansion states, potentially affecting access to care for all their residents irrespective of insurance coverage.

Facilitators to referrals to CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program in primary care practices and pharmacies: DocStyles 2016-2017.

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of behavioral change interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention, health care provider referrals to organizations offering the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) lifestyle change program (LCP) remain suboptimal. This study examined facilitators of LCP referrals among primary care providers and pharmacists (providers). We analyzed data on 1956 providers from 2016 to 2017 DocStyles web-based surveys. Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for bivariate associations between facilitators, provider characteristics, and their self-reported referral and bi-directional referral (where they received patient status updates back from the LCPs) to an LCP. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the effects of facilitators to referral practices, controlling for providers' characteristics. Geocoding was done at the street level for in-person, public LCP class locations and at the zip code level for survey respondents to create a density measure for LCP availability within 10 miles. Overall, 21% of providers referred their patients with prediabetes to LCPs, and 6.4% engaged in bi-directional referral. Provider practices that established clinical-community linkages (CCLs) with LCPs (AOR = 4.88), used electronic health records (EHRs) to manage patients (AOR = 2.94), or practiced within 10 miles of an in-person, public LCP class location (AOR = 1.49) were more likely to refer. Establishing CCLs with LCPs (AOR = 8.59) and using EHRs (AOR = 1.86) were also facilitators of bi-directional referral. This study highlights the importance of establishing CCLs between provider settings and organizations offering the National DPP LCP, increasing use of EHRs to manage patients, and increasing availability of in-person LCP class locations near provider practices.

State and Regional Variation in Prescription- and Payment-Related Promoters of Adherence to Blood Pressure Medication.

INTRODUCTION: Medication adherence can improve hypertension management. How blood pressure medications are prescribed and purchased can promote or impede adherence. METHODS: We used comprehensive dispensing data on prescription blood pressure medication from Symphony Health's 2017 Integrated Dataverse to assess how prescription- and payment-related factors that promote medication adherence (ie, fixed-dose combinations, generic formulations, mail order, low-cost or no-copay medications) vary across US states and census regions and across the market segments (grouped by patient age, prescriber type, and payer type) responsible for the greatest number of blood pressure medication fills. RESULTS: In 2017, 706.5 million prescriptions for blood pressure medication were filled, accounting for $29.0 billion in total spending (17.0% incurred by patients). As a proportion of all fills, factors that promoted adherence varied by state: fixed-dose combinations (from 5.8% in Maine to 17.9% in Mississippi); generic formulations (from 95.2% in New Jersey to 98.4% in Minnesota); mail order (from 4.7% in Rhode Island to 14.5% in Delaware); and lower or no copayment (from 56.6% in Utah to 72.8% in California). Furthermore, mean days' supply per fill (from 43.1 in Arkansas to 63.8 in Maine) and patient spending per therapy year (from $38 in Hawaii to $76 in Georgia) varied. Concentration of adherence factors differed by market segment. Patients aged 18 to 64 with a primary care physician prescriber and Medicaid coverage had the lowest concentration of fixed-dose combination fills, mean days' supply per fill, and patient spending per therapy year. Patients aged 65 years or older with a primary care physician prescriber and commercial insurance had the highest concentration of fixed-dose combinations fills and mail order fills. CONCLUSION: Addressing regional and market segment variation in factors promoting blood pressure medication adherence may increase adherence and improve hypertension management.

[Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood Pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension GroupOtimização do desempenho do observador na medição clínica da pressão arterial: posicionamento do Grupo da Lancet Commission on Hypertension]. / Optimización del desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio: declaración de posición de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión.

High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-tomiddle- income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

A hipertensão é uma causa altamente prevalente de doença cardiovascular, acidente vascular cerebral e morte. A medição precisa da pressão arterial (PA) é um aspecto crítico, uma vez que erros de mensuração da ordem de 5 mmHg podem levar a uma classificação incorreta do status de hipertensão em 84 milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo. O presente posicionamento resume os procedimentos para otimizar o desempenho do observador (o indivíduo responsável pela mensuração da PA) na mensuração clínica da PA, com atenção especial para contextos de baixa a média renda, onde recursos limitados, cargas de trabalho pesadas, restrições de tempo e falta de energia elétrica tornam mais desafiadora a tarefa de medir a PA. Muitos erros de mensuração podem ser minimizados pela preparação adequada do paciente e pelo uso de técnicas padronizadas. Para simplificar a mensuração e evitar erros do observador, devem-se utilizar dispositivos semiautomatizados ou automatizados validados, com manguito para braço, ao invés de auscultação. O compartilhamento de tarefas, a criação de uma estação de trabalho dedicada à mensuração e o uso de dispositivos semiautomatizados ou com carga solar podem ajudar. É essencial que seja assegurado o treinamento e retreinamento periódico do observador. Programas de certificação de baixo custo e de fácil acesso devem ser considerados para facilitar a adoção das melhores práticas na mensuração da PA.

[Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group position statement on the global improvement of accuracy standards for devices that measure blood pressurePosicionamento do Grupo da Lancet Commission on Hypertension sobre a melhoria global dos padrões de acurácia para aparelhos que medem a pressão arterial]. / Declaración de posición del Grupo de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión con respecto a la mejora mundial de las normas de exactitud para los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial.

The Lancet Commission on Hypertension identified that a key action to address the worldwide burden of high blood pressure (BP) was to improve the quality of BP measurements by using BP devices that have been validated for accuracy. Currently, there are over 3 000 commercially available BP devices, but many do not have published data on accuracy testing according to established scientific standards. This problem is enabled through weak or absent regulations that allow clearance of devices for commercial use without formal validation. In addition, new BP technologies have emerged (e.g. cuffless sensors) for which there is no scientific consensus regarding BP measurement accuracy standards. Altogether, these issues contribute to the widespread availability of clinic and home BP devices with limited or uncertain accuracy, leading to inappropriate hypertension diagnosis, management and drug treatment on a global scale. The most significant problems relating to the accuracy of BP devices can be resolved by the regulatory requirement for mandatory independent validation of BP devices according to the universally-accepted International Organization for Standardization Standard. This is a primary recommendation for which there is an urgent international need. Other key recommendations are development of validation standards specifically for new BP technologies and online lists of accurate devices that are accessible to consumers and health professionals. Recommendations are aligned with WHO policies on medical devices and universal healthcare. Adherence to recommendations would increase the global availability of accurate BP devices and result in better diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, thus decreasing the worldwide burden from high BP.

A Comissão Lancet sobre Hipertensão Arterial identificou que uma iniciativa central para enfrentar a carga mundial da hipertensão arterial seria a melhoria na qualidade da mensuração da pressão arterial pelo uso aparelhos de pressão arterial validados quanto à acurácia. Atualmente, existem mais de 3 000 aparelhos de pressão arterial disponíveis comercialmente; entretanto, muitos não têm dados publicados sobre testes de acurácia realizados de acordo com padrões científicos estabelecidos. Este problema resulta de regulamentação fraca ou inexistente, o que permite a aprovação para uso comercial de dispositivos sem validação formal. Além disso, surgiram novas tecnologias de mensuração da pressão arterial (por exemplo, sensores sem algemas) sem consenso científico quanto aos padrões de acurácia. No conjunto, essas questões contribuem para a oferta generalizada de dispositivos de pressão arterial clínica e domiciliar com acurácia limitada ou incerta, levando a diagnóstico, gerenciamento e tratamento inadequados da hipertensão em escala global. Os problemas mais significativos relacionados com a acurácia dos dispositivos de pressão arterial podem ser resolvidos por regulamentação que imponha a obrigatoriedade de validação independente dos aparelhos de pressão arterial, de acordo com a norma universalmente aceita pela Organização Internacional de Normalização. Esta é uma recomendação fundamental para a qual existe uma necessidade internacional urgente. Outras recomendações essenciais incluem o desenvolvimento de padrões de validação especificamente para novas tecnologias de mensuração da pressão arterial e listas on-line de aparelhos com acurácia adequada que sejam acessíveis aos consumidores e profissionais de saúde. As recomendações estão alinhadas com as políticas da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) sobre dispositivos médicos e atenção universal à saúde. A adesão às recomendações aumentaria a oferta global de dispositivos de pressão arterial com acurácia adequada e resultaria em melhor diagnóstico e tratamento da hipertensão arterial, diminuindo assim a carga mundial dessa doença.

Trends in Blood Pressure Control Among US Adults With Hypertension, 1999-2000 to 2017-2018.

Importance: Controlling blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease. Objective: To determine whether BP control among US adults with hypertension changed from 1999-2000 through 2017-2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, weighted to be representative of US adults, between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018 (10 cycles), including 18 262 US adults aged 18 years or older with hypertension defined as systolic BP level of 140 mm Hg or higher, diastolic BP level of 90 mm Hg or higher, or use of antihypertensive medication. The date of final data collection was 2018. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean BP was computed using 3 measurements. The primary outcome of BP control was defined as systolic BP level lower than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP level lower than 90 mm Hg. Results: Among the 51 761 participants included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 48 (19) years and 25 939 (50.1%) were women; 43.2% were non-Hispanic White adults; 21.6%, non-Hispanic Black adults; 5.3%, non-Hispanic Asian adults; and 26.1%, Hispanic adults. Among the 18 262 adults with hypertension, the age-adjusted estimated proportion with controlled BP increased from 31.8% (95% CI, 26.9%-36.7%) in 1999-2000 to 48.5% (95% CI, 45.5%-51.5%) in 2007-2008 (P < .001 for trend), remained stable and was 53.8% (95% CI, 48.7%-59.0%) in 2013-2014 (P = .14 for trend), and then declined to 43.7% (95% CI, 40.2%-47.2%) in 2017-2018 (P = .003 for trend). Compared with adults who were aged 18 years to 44 years, it was estimated that controlled BP was more likely among those aged 45 years to 64 years (49.7% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.37]) and less likely among those aged 75 years or older (37.3% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]). It was estimated that controlled BP was less likely among non-Hispanic Black adults vs non-Hispanic White adults (41.5% vs 48.2%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). Controlled BP was more likely among those with private insurance (48.2%), Medicare (53.4%), or government health insurance other than Medicare or Medicaid (43.2%) vs among those without health insurance (24.2%) (multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.80], 1.47 [95% CI, 1.15-1.89], and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.04-1.76], respectively). Controlled BP was more likely among those with vs those without a usual health care facility (48.4% vs 26.5%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.13-1.94]) and among those who had vs those who had not had a health care visit in the past year (49.1% vs 8.0%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.23 [95% CI, 2.88-9.49]). Conclusions and Relevance: In a series of cross-sectional surveys weighted to be representative of the adult US population, the prevalence of controlled BP increased between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, did not significantly change from 2007-2008 through 2013-2014, and then decreased after 2013-2014.

An assessment of medical students' knowledge of prediabetes and diabetes prevention.

BACKGROUND: The United States has 84 million adults with prediabetes, putting them at a higher risk than the general population for developing type 2 diabetes. Missed opportunities among primary care providers in diagnosing and managing patients with prediabetes represent a gap in care, suggesting there is a need to educate practicing physicians and medical students about diabetes prevention. The purpose of this study is to assess medical students' basic knowledge of prediabetes and diabetes prevention, identify potential educational needs, and target areas for improvement in undergraduate medical education curricula. METHODS: A cross-sectional study to assess medical students' preclinical and clinical management knowledge of prediabetes and diabetes prevention. Medical students attending the 2016 American Medical Association's annual meeting took a 6-item knowledge questionnaire using a mobile application or a paper version. Scores were reported for the full sample of respondents, by year in medical school, by topic area, and by mode of survey response. RESULTS: The average student answered fewer than half of the questionnaire questions correctly. Scores on some items addressing preclinical content were higher among third- and fourth-year students compared to first- and second-year students (p = 0.039 and effect size = 0.363). Average scores on the items addressing clinical management were not significantly different by year in medical school, but the item measuring effectiveness of metformin to a lifestyle change program had 41.9% correct answers among the mobile application respondents compared to 21.5% among paper test respondents (p = 0.003 and effect size = 0.463). CONCLUSIONS: Medical student performance on the prediabetes knowledge questionnaire was low. Students' year in medical school had a slight impact on overall performance, but only for certain questions. The results suggest the need for improvements in current medical school curricula for increasing the awareness of screening for prediabetes as well as the benefits of the lifestyle change programs in the National Diabetes Prevention Program.

Health Care Costs Following COVID-19 Hospitalization Prior to Vaccine Availability.

BACKGROUND: Postacute sequelae of coronavirus (PASC) disease of 2019 (COVID-19) include morbidity and mortality, but little is known of the impact on medical expenditures. This study measures patients' health care costs after COVID hospitalization before vaccinations. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan database is used to track trends in medical expenditures for commercially insured patients hospitalized for COVID-19 (case subjects) compared with COVID-19 patients not hospitalized (control subjects) using a propensity score matching model. Medical expenditures were estimated from 30-, 60-, and 120-day clean periods after an initial COVID-19 encounter through the end of 2020. RESULTS: Average total medical expenditures were 96% higher for individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 starting 30 days after initial COVID-19 encounter and almost 70% higher 120 days after based on the propensity score matching. The average spending differential was $11,242 30 days after and $4959 120 days after. This effect is highest for inpatient admissions and services 60 days after at $56,862 and lowest among pharmaceuticals 120 days after at $329. The magnitude of the difference is greater for those with hypertension or diabetes where total expenditures is $14,958 30 days after, and $5962 120 days after compared with those without these chronic conditions. DISCUSSION: The results suggest both health and economic implications for COVID-19 hospitalization and supports the use of vaccinations to help mitigate these implications. PASC includes increased health care costs for hospitalized patients, particularly for those with chronic conditions. Preventing COVID-19 hospitalization has economic value in terms of reduced medical spending in addition to health benefits associated with reduced morbidity and mortality.

Changes in Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Use in 14 States From 2019 to 2021: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is an important out-of-office resource that is effective in improving hypertension control. Changes in SMBP use during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have not been described previously. METHODS: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data were used to quantify changes in SMBP use between 2019 (prior COVID-19 pandemic) and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Fourteen states administered the SMBP module in both years. All data were self-reported from adults who participated in the BRFSS survey. We assessed the receipt of SMBP recommendations from healthcare professionals and actual use of SMBP among those with hypertension (n = 68,820). Among those who used SMBP, we assessed SMBP use at home and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Among adults with hypertension, there was no significant changes between 2019 and 2021 in those reporting SMBP use (57.0% vs. 55.7%) or receiving recommendations from healthcare professionals to use SMBP (66.4% vs. 66.8%). However, among those who used SMBP, there were significant increases in use at home (87.7% vs. 93.5%) and sharing BP readings electronically (8.6% vs. 13.1%) from 2019 to 2021. Differences were noted by demographic characteristics and residence state. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a recommendation from the healthcare provider to use SMBP and actual use did not differ before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among those who used SMBP, home use and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professional increased significantly, although overall sharing remained low (13.1%). Maximizing advances in virtual connections between clinical and community settings should be leveraged for improved hypertension management.

Age and Comorbidities Are Associated With Therapeutic Inertia Among Older Adults With Uncontrolled Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Lack of initiation or escalation of blood pressure (BP) lowering medication when BP is uncontrolled, termed therapeutic inertia (TI), increases with age and may be influenced by comorbidities. METHODS: We examined the association of age and comorbidities with TI in 22,665 visits with a systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg among 7,415 adults age ≥65 years receiving care in clinics that implemented a hypertension quality improvement program. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the association of comorbidity number with TI by age group (65-74 and ≥75 years) after covariate adjustment. RESULTS: Baseline mean age was 75.0 years (SD 7.8); 41.4% were male. TI occurred in 79.0% and 83.7% of clinic visits in age groups 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. In age group 65-74 years, prevalence ratio of TI with 2, 3-4, and ≥5 comorbidities compared with zero comorbidities was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.12), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.12), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.20), respectively. The number of comorbidities was not associated with TI prevalence in age group ≥75 years. After implementation of the improvement program, TI declined from 80.3% to 77.2% in age group 65-74 years and from 85.0% to 82.0% in age group ≥75 years (P < 0.001 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: TI was common among older adults but not associated with comorbidities after age ≥75 years. A hypertension improvement program had limited impact on TI in older patients.

Target: BP™: A National Initiative to Improve Blood Pressure Control.

TARGET: BP™ is a national initiative launched by the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association in 2017 in response to the high prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) in the United States. TARGET: BP™ provides support to health care organizations and health care teams, with no user fees, to improve the quality of care for adults with hypertension by providing education and resources and recognizing organizations committed to prioritizing and reporting their rate of BP control. Through Target: BP™, the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association also collaborate to align policy with evidence through federal, state, and institutional policy advocacy and raise public awareness through media campaigns. In 2022, Target: BP™ recognized 1309 health care organizations serving 8.4 million patients with hypertension for prioritizing BP control, 675 of which affirmed performance of evidence-based BP measurement activities and 551 of which reported BP control rates ≥70%. With the proportion of US adults with controlled BP falling to 48.2% from 2017 to 2020, Target: BP™ remains focused on regaining lost ground in national BP control rates by emphasizing accurate BP measurement, rapid treatment intensification, healthful lifestyle changes, and evidence-based use of self-measured BP monitoring. TARGET: BP™ also emphasizes adoption of team-based care models and prioritizing equitable health outcomes. More than 1.37 million unique users have visited https://targetbp.org/ and downloaded 98 341 Target: BP™ resources from 2017 to 2022.

Improvement in Hypertension Control Among Adults Seen in Federally Qualified Health Center Clinics in the Stroke Belt: Implementing a Program with a Dashboard and Process Metrics.

Objective: Attain 75% hypertension (HTN) control and improve racial equity in control with the American Medical Association Measure accurately, Act rapidly, Partner with patients blood pressure (AMA MAP BP™) quality improvement program, including a monthly dashboard and practice facilitation. Methods: Eight federally qualified health center clinics from the HopeHealth network in South Carolina participated. Clinic staff received monthly practice facilitation guided by a dashboard with process metrics (measure [repeat BP when initial systolic ≥140 or diastolic ≥90 mmHg; Act [number antihypertensive medication classes prescribed at standard dose or greater to adults with uncontrolled BP]; Partner [follow-up within 30 days of uncontrolled BP; systolic BP fall after medication added]) and outcome metric (BP <140/<90). Electronic health record data were obtained on adults ≥18 years at baseline and monthly during MAP BP. Patients with diagnosed HTN, ≥1 encounter at baseline, and ≥2 encounters during 6 months of MAP BP were included in this evaluation. Results: Among 45,498 adults with encounters during the 1-year baseline, 20,963 (46.1%) had diagnosed HTN; 12,370 (59%) met the inclusion criteria (67% black, 29% white; mean (standard deviation) age 59.5 (12.8) years; 16.3% uninsured. HTN control improved (63.6% vs. 75.1%, p<0.0001), reflecting positive changes in Measure, Act, and Partner metrics (all p<0.001), although control remained lower in non-Hispanic black than in non-Hispanic white adults (73.8% vs. 78.4%, p<0.001). Conclusions: With MAP BP, the HTN control goal was attained among adults eligible for analysis. Ongoing efforts aim to improve program access and racial equity in control.

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Seasonal variation in blood pressure control across US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. METHODS: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ±â€Š0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ±â€Š0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ±â€Š2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ±â€Š0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. CONCLUSION: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Exceptions to outpatient quality measures for coronary artery disease in electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Physicians report outpatient quality measures from data in electronic health records to facilitate care improvement and qualify for incentive payments. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and validity of exceptions to quality measures and to test a system for classifying the reasons for these exceptions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: 5 internal medicine or cardiology practices. PARTICIPANTS: 47,075 patients with coronary artery disease between 2006 and 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Counts of adherence with and exceptions to 4 quality measures, on the basis of automatic reports of recommended drug therapy by computer software and separate manual reviews of electronic health records. RESULTS: 3.5% of patients who had a drug recommended had an exception to the drug and were not prescribed it (95% CI, 3.4% to 3.7%). Clinicians did prescribe the recommended drug for many other patients with exceptions. In 538 randomly selected records, 92.6% (CI, 90.3% to 94.9%) of the exceptions reported automatically by computer software were also exceptions during manual review. Most medical exceptions were clinical contraindications, drug allergies, or drug intolerances. In 592 randomly selected records, an unreported exception or a drug prescription was found during manual review for 74.6% (CI, 71.1% to 78.1%) of patients for whom automatic reporting recorded a quality failure. LIMITATION: The study used a convenience sample of practices, nonstandardized data extraction methods, only drug-related quality measures, and no financial incentives. CONCLUSION: Exceptions to recommended therapy occur infrequently and are usually valid. Physicians frequently prescribed drugs even when exceptions were present. Automated reports of quality failure often miss critical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Recommendations From the Surgeon General's Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension.

In response to high prevalence of hypertension and suboptimal rates of blood pressure (BP) control in the United States, the Surgeon General released a Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension (Call-to-Action) in the fall of 2020 to address the negative consequences of uncontrolled BP. In addition to morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, hypertension has an annual cost to the US healthcare system of $71 billion. The Call-to-Action makes recommendations for improving BP control, and the purpose of this review was to summarize the literature on the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. We identified a number of studies that demonstrate the cost saving or cost-effectiveness of recommendations in the Call-to-Action including strategies to promote access to and availability of physical activity opportunities and healthy food options within communities, advance the use of standardized treatment approaches and guideline-recommended care, to promote the use of healthcare teams to manage hypertension, and to empower and equip patients to use self-measured BP monitoring and medication adherence strategies. While the current review identified numerous cost-effective methods to achieve the Surgeon General's recommendations for improving BP control, future work should determine the cost-effectiveness of the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Hypertension guidelines, interventions to lower therapeutic inertia, and optimal team-based care strategies, among other areas of research. Economic evaluation studies should also be prioritized to generate more comprehensive data on how to provide efficient and high value care to improve BP control.

Metformin Prescription Rates for Patients with Prediabetes.

PURPOSE: Prediabetes is a serious public health concern, with 34.5% of US adults meeting the criteria for prediabetes. The American Diabetes Association has highlighted metformin therapy as a consideration for individuals with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, those aged < 60 years, and women with a history of gestational diabetes. We examined metformin prescription rates among a national sample of commercially insured, higher risk patients with prediabetes. METHODS: We gathered 2012 to 2018 demographic, laboratory, and prescription data for 53,551 patients with prediabetes from the IBM MarketScan research database. Our primary outcome was metformin prescription rates 1 or 3 years after a laboratory confirmation of prediabetes among patients who have a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 or are aged < 60 years. RESULTS: Overall, 2.4% (n = 1,124) of patients received a metformin prescription within 1 year of a laboratory confirmed prediabetes result, including 2.4% of patients aged < 60 years and 10.4% of those with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. By a 3 year follow-up, 4.1% (n = 1901) received a metformin prescription, including 3.9% of patients aged < 60 years and 14.0% with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. Patients who developed type 2 diabetes within the 1 (n = 2,769) or 3 year (n = 7,268) follow-up periods were excluded from analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Few prediabetes patients who were either obese or aged < 60 years received a metformin prescription between 2012 and 2018. Prescription rates increased slightly between 1 and 3 years after a prediabetes diagnosis, so strategies to support timely intervention among higher risk patients with prediabetes are critically needed.