Health related social needs and whole person health: Relationship between unmet social needs, health outcomes, and healthcare spending among commercially insured adults.

Commercially-insured adults comprise a majority of health plan members but are least likely to be surveyed about their social needs. Little is known, consequently, about health-related social needs (HRSNs) in this population. The primary aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of HRSNs and health among commercially-insured adults and estimate their relationship with health outcomes and spending. This cross-sectional study used survey data from a representative sample of Elevance Health commercially insured members residing in Georgia and Indiana (U.S.) Adult members reported on HSRNs across nine different domains. Survey data were linked to medical claims data, and regression models were used to estimate the relationship between HRSNs and self-reported health, emergency department visits, three major health outcomes, and healthcare spending (medical and pharmaceutical). Of 1,160 commercially insured adults, 76 % indicated ≥ 1 HRSN, and 29 % reported > 3 HRSNs, (i.e., "high" HRSN). Each HRSN was associated with 2.2 (95 % CI, 1.84-2.55) additional unhealthy days per month, 3.0 percent (95 % CI 1.36 - 4.57) higher prevalence of anxiety/depression, 2.2 percent (95 % CI 0.88 - 3.50) higher prevalence of hypertension, 3.9 more ED visits per 1,000 member-months (95 % CI, 0.29-7.42), and $1,418 higher total healthcare spending (95 % CI, $614.67-$2,220.39) over a 12-month period. The widespread prevalence of HRSNs among commercially insured adults demonstrates the importance of screening all health plan members for HRSNs-not just Medicare and Medicaid members. Commercially insured members who experience high HRSN are at significantly higher risk for worse health, even after controlling for income and demographic characteristics.

Impact of COVID-19 on Behavioral Health Services Use Among Medicaid Enrollees with Chronic Behavioral Needs by Race and Ethnicity.

The COVID-19 pandemic may widen the disparities in access to behavioral health (BH) services among groups that have been historically marginalized. However, the rapid expansion of telehealth presents an opportunity to reduce these disparities. The objective was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on BH visits, including in-person and telehealth, and BH treatments by different race and ethnicity groups. This was a retrospective, observational study using administrative claim data. Two cohorts were created: a before-COVID-19 group and a during-COVID-19 group. A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to assess the access to BH-related visits between the 2 groups by different race and ethnicity groups. The study sample included 90,268 patients aged 18 to 64 years with repeated BH diagnoses in baseline periods and continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment. During the pandemic, BH telehealth visits surged, whereas the overall utilization of BH services, mental health medication, and counseling declined among all racial groups as the BH telehealth increase did not fully compensate for the reduction of in-person visits. Latino patients had a higher likelihood of using BH telehealth visits than White patients. However, Black patients had a lower likelihood of using substance use disorder (SUD) treatment than their White counterparts. Our results also suggested that care continuation and pre-established care-seeking behaviors are associated with increasing BH visits and treatments. As policy makers and payers are expanding offerings of telehealth visits, it is imperative to do so through a health equity lens and center the needs of groups that have been economically and socially marginalized to advance equitable adoption of telehealth.

Association of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Program With Transmucosal Fentanyl Prescribing.

Importance: Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) drugs are potent, rapid-acting opioids approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are tolerant to other around-the-clock opioid analgesics. In March 2012, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was implemented, mandating prescribers, distributors, pharmacies, and patients to enroll in the REMS to prescribe, dispense, or receive TIRF drugs. Objective: To evaluate the association of the TIRF-REMS Access Program with TIRF prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using an interrupted time series analysis of TIRF prescriptions to Medicare Part D beneficiaries nationwide from 2010 to 2014. Data were analyzed from August 2017 through July 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescribing of TIRF per 100 000 Medicare Part D beneficiaries, overall and stratified by cancer status; percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer, overall and by brand; and percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance, defined as patients prescribed at least 60 morphine milligram equivalents per day, overall and by brand. Results: There were 99 601 TIRF prescriptions written by 8619 clinicians to 10 472 patients. Most of the patients (79%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 56 [13] years), and most (67%) did not have cancer. Implementation of TIRF-REMS was associated with a 26.7% relative level decrease in TIRF prescribing (95% CI, -33.3% to -19.4%; P < .001) but was followed by 2.0% monthly increases in prescribing (95% CI, 1.3% to 2.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses that accounted for overall opioid prescribing trends were consistent with these findings. Furthermore, there were no significant changes associated with REMS implementation in the level (0.47%; 95% CI, -5.36% to 4.69%; P = .85) or trend (0.16%; 95% CI, -0.06% to 0.37%; P = .15) of the percentage of prescriptions for patients without cancer. However, a sensitivity analysis that used a broader cancer definition found implementation was associated with a 7.2% (95% CI, -13.5% to -0.48%; P = .04) level decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer. Lastly, the TIRF-REMS was associated with a 22.5% level decline in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance (95% CI, -36.1% to -5.95%; P = .01) followed by 1.98% monthly decreases (95% CI, -3.19% to -0.80%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of the TIRF-REMS Access Program, a restrictive drug distribution program, was associated with a temporary reduction in the rate of TIRF prescribing to Medicare Part D beneficiaries, and with a sustained decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance. Implementation may have also been associated with a temporary decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer.

Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm. Objective: To investigate if peer comparison letters targeting high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine meaningfully reduce their prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial (intent to treat) conducted from 2015 to 2017 of prescribers and their patients nationwide in the Medicare program. The trial targeted the 5055 highest-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in 2013 and 2014 (approximately 5% of all primary care prescribers of quetiapine). Interventions: Prescribers were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a placebo letter or 3 peer comparison letters stating that their quetiapine prescribing was high relative to their peers and was under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total quetiapine days supplied by prescribers from the intervention start to 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quetiapine receipt from all prescribers by baseline patients, quetiapine receipt by patients with low-value or guideline-concordant indications for therapy, mortality, and hospital use. In exploratory analyses, the study followed outcomes to 2 years. Results: Of the 5055 prescribers, 231 (4.6%) were general practitioners, 2428 (48.0%) were in family medicine, and 2396 (47.4%) were in internal medicine; 4155 (82.2%) were male. All were included in the analyses. Over 9 months, the treatment arm supplied 11.1% fewer quetiapine days per prescriber vs the control arm (2456 vs 2864 days; percentage difference, 11.1% fewer days; 95% CI, -13.1% to -9.2% days; P < .001; adjusted difference, -319 days; 95% CI, -374 to -263 days; P < .001), which persisted through 2 years (15.6% fewer days; 95% CI, -18.1% to -13.0%; P < .001). At the patient level, individuals in the treatment arm received 3.9% (95% CI, -5.0% to -2.9%; P < .001) fewer days of quetiapine from all prescribers over 9 months, with a larger decrease among patients with low-value vs guideline-concordant indications (-5.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to -3.9%] vs -2.4% [95% CI, -4.0% to -0.9%], P = .01 for test that effects were equal for both patient groups). There was no evidence of substitution to other antipsychotics, and 9-month mortality and hospital use were similar between the treatment vs control arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Peer comparison letters caused substantial and durable reductions in quetiapine prescribing, with no evidence of negative effects on patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933.

Elucidating the impacts of initial supersaturation and seed crystal loading on struvite precipitation kinetics, fines production, and crystal growth.

To reduce intra-plant nutrient cycling, and recover phosphorus (P) fertilizers from nutrient-rich sidestreams, wastewater utilities increasingly elect to employ struvite precipitation processes without a clear understanding of the inherent tradeoffs associated with specific design and operating decisions. Specifically, the impact of reactor conditions on struvite crystallization rate, and distribution between formation of fines particles and secondary growth onto large diameter seed crystals represent critical knowledge gaps limiting the predictive capabilities of existing process models. In this work, the relative impacts of initial supersaturation (Si), and seed loading, on P removal kinetics, and struvite solids distribution were investigated. In experiments conducted at different levels of initial supersaturation (1.7-2.4) and seed loading (0-25 g L-1), struvite fines represented the majority of phosphate solids formed in 10 of 12 conditions. While total P removal was dependent on Si, and primarily attributed to formation of fines, the concentration of struvite seed granules had a significant impact on the rate of P removal. Struvite seed granules increased the rate of precipitation by reducing induction time of primary nucleation of struvite fines. Secondary crystal growth represented the majority of struvite solids formed at high seed loading and low Si, but presented the tradeoff of low total removal and low rate of removal. To convey the significance of these findings on process modeling, we show how a prominent kinetic model with a first-order dependency on solid struvite concentration over-predicts P removal rate when total mass is dominated by large diameter seeds (0.9 mm). This works reveals the critical role of struvite fines in P removal, and highlights the need to account for their production and kinetic importance in struvite process design and operation.

Financial Relationships between Urologists and Industry: An Analysis of Open Payments Data.

INTRODUCTION: The Open Payments Program was enacted to increase transparency of financial relationships between physicians and the medical device and pharmaceutical industry. We examined nonresearch related financial relationships between urologists and industry in the United States using the latest Open Payments data. METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis of Open Payments data released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for 2014. Total payment amounts associated with various urological drug and device categories were calculated. We then examined for correlations between payments and prescribing at the national level using Medicare Part D prescribing data. RESULTS: There were 232,207 payments totaling $32,418,618 made to 8,618 urologists (73.6% of practicing urologists in the United States) during calendar year 2014. Median payment was $15 (IQR $11 to $24). While the majority of individual payments (68%) were $20 or less, 82% of the urologists in the database received more than $100 from industry during 2014. The frequency of industry payments was positively correlated with Medicare Part D prescribing frequency as well as the sum of claims (r = 0.726, p = 0.005 and r = 0.755, p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 75% of urologists in United States received nonresearch payments from industry in 2014. Most individual payments were for less than $20 but the majority of urologists received more than $100 in aggregate during the study year, with most of the money going toward speaker fees. Payments were positively correlated with Part D prescribing, yet confounding variables make it difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship.

Value-Based Approaches for Emergency Care in a New Era.

Although emergency departments (EDs) play an integral role in the delivery of acute unscheduled care, they have not been fully integrated into broader health care reform efforts. Communication and coordination with the ambulatory environment remain limited, leaving ED care disconnected from patients' longitudinal care. In a value-based environment focused on improving quality, decreasing costs, enhancing population health, and improving the patient experience, this oversight represents a missed opportunity for emergency care. When integrated with primary and subspecialty care, emergency care might meet the needs of patients, providers, and payers more efficiently than yet realized. This article uses the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System from the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act as a framework to outline a strategy for improving the value of emergency care, including integrating quality and resource use measures across health care delivery settings and populations, encouraging care coordination from the ED, and implementing robust health information exchange systems.

Association between payments from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and regional prescribing: cross sectional ecological study.

OBJECTIVE:  To examine the association between payments made by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and prescribing by physicians within hospital referral regions. DESIGN:  Cross sectional analysis of 2013 and 2014 Open Payments and Medicare Part D prescribing data for two classes of commonly prescribed, commonly marketed drugs: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs, overall and stratified by physician and payment type. SETTING:  306 hospital referral regions, United States. PARTICIPANTS:  45 949 454 Medicare Part D prescriptions written by 623 886 physicians to 10 513 173 patients for two drug classes: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  Proportion, or market share, of marketed oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs prescribed by physicians among all drugs in each class and within hospital referral regions. RESULTS:  Among 306 hospital referral regions, there were 977 407 payments to physicians totaling $61 026 140 (£46 174 600; €54 632 500) related to oral anticoagulants, and 1 787 884 payments totaling $108 417 616 related to non-insulin diabetes drugs. The median market share of the hospital referral regions was 21.6% for marketed oral anticoagulants and 12.6% for marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs. Among hospital referral regions, one additional payment (median value $13, interquartile range, $10-$18) was associated with 94 (95% confidence interval 76 to 112) additional days filled of marketed oral anticoagulants and 107 (89 to 125) additional days filled of marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs (P<0.001). Payments to specialists were associated with greater prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists (212 v 100 additional days filled per payment of marketed oral anticoagulants, 331 v 114 for marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs, P<0.001). Payments for speaker and consulting fees for non-insulin diabetes drugs were associated with greater prescribing of marketed drugs than payments for food and beverages or educational materials (484 v 110, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND STUDY LIMITATIONS:  Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials. As a cross sectional, ecological study, we cannot prove causation between payments to physicians and increased prescribing. Furthermore, our findings should be interpreted only at the regional level. Our study is limited to prescribing by physicians and the two drug classes studied.

Industry Relationships With Pediatricians: Findings From the Open Payments Sunshine Act.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ties between physicians and pharmaceutical/medical device manufactures have received considerable attention. The Open Payments program, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires public reporting of payments to physicians from industry. We sought to describe payments from industry to physicians caring for children by (1) comparing payments to pediatricians to other medical specialties, (2) determining variation in payments among pediatric subspecialties, and (3) identifying the types of payment and the products associated with payments to pediatricians. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of Open Payments data from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The primary outcomes included percent of physicians receiving payments, median total pay per physician, the types of payments received, and the drugs and devices associated with payments. RESULTS: There were 9 638 825 payments to physicians, totaling $1 186 217 157. There were 244 915 payments to general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, totaling >$32 million. The median individual payment to general pediatricians was $14.63 (interquartile range 12-20), and median total pay per general pediatrician was $89 (interquartile range 32-186). General pediatricians accounted for 1.7% of total payments, and 0.9% of the sum of payments. Developmental pediatricians had the highest percentage of pediatric physicians receiving payment, and pediatric endocrinologists received the highest median payment. Top marketed medications were for attention-deficient/hyperactivity disorder and vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: More than 40% of pediatricians received payments from industry in 2014, a lower percentage than family physicians or internists. There was considerable variation in physician-industry ties among the pediatric subspecialties. Most payments were associated with medications that treat attention-deficient/hyperactivity disorder and vaccinations.