Use of Physical Therapy and Subsequent Falls Among Patients With Dizziness in the US.

Importance: Among adults who present for clinical evaluation of dizziness, there is a critical need to identify interventions, such as physical therapy (PT), to mitigate the risk of falls over time. Objective: The primary objective was to examine the association between receipt of PT and falls requiring medical care within 12 months of presentation for dizziness. Secondary objectives included identification of factors associated with falls requiring medical care and factors associated with receipt of PT after presentation for dizziness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined US commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage claims from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2015. In all, 805 454 patients 18 years or older with a new diagnosis of symptomatic dizziness or vestibular disorders were identified. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of PT services and the incidence of falls requiring medical care were measured. The association between receipt of PT and falls that occurred 12 months after presentation for dizziness was estimated after accounting for presentation setting (outpatient clinic or emergency department), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; with higher scores indicating greater morbidity), diagnosis code, and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: A total of 805 454 patients presented for dizziness from 2006 through 2015 (median [range] age, 52 [18-87] years; 502 055 females [62%]). Of these patients, 45 771 (6%) received PT within 3 months of presentation for dizziness and 60 060 (7%) experienced a fall resulting in a medical encounter within 12 months after presentation for dizziness. In adjusted models, patients least likely to receive PT were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.81), those aged 50 to 59 years (AOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] compared with patients aged 18-39 years), and those with more comorbidities (AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.70-0.73] for CCI ≥ 2 vs 0). Receipt of PT services within 3 months of presentation for dizziness was associated with a reduced risk of falls over the subsequent 12 months, with the greatest risk reduction found within 3 months after PT (AOR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.14-0.15] at 3-12 months vs 0.18 [95% CI, 0.18-0.19] at 6-12 months and 0.23 [95% CI, 0.23-0.24] at 9-12 months). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that receipt of PT after presentation for dizziness was associated with a reduction in fall risk during the subsequent 12 months; thus, timely PT referral for dizziness may be beneficial for these patients. Future research, ideally with a clinical trial design, is needed to explore the independent impact of PT on subsequent falls for adults with dizziness.

Lymphedema self-care: economic cost savings and opportunities to improve adherence.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) imposes a significant economic burden on patients, providers, and society. There is no curative therapy for BCRL, but management through self-care can reduce symptoms and lower the risk of adverse events. MAIN BODY: The economic burden of BCRL stems from related adverse events, reductions in productivity and employment, and the burden placed on non-medical caregivers. Self-care regimens often include manual lymphatic drainage, compression garments, and meticulous skin care, and may incorporate pneumatic compression devices. These regimens can be effective in managing BCRL, but patients cite inconvenience and interference with daily activities as potential barriers to self-care adherence. As a result, adherence is generally poor and often worsens with time. Because self-care is on-going, poor adherence reduces the effectiveness of regimens and leads to costly treatment of BCRL complications. CONCLUSION: Novel self-care solutions that are more convenient and that interfere less with daily activities could increase self-care adherence and ultimately reduce complication-related costs of BCRL.

Association Between New 340B Program Participation and Commercial Insurance Spending on Outpatient Biologic Oncology Drugs.

Importance: Previous studies have found that hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program have higher Medicare Part B spending and expansion into affluent neighborhoods. Less is known about the association of 340B participation with spending by commercial insurance, where reimbursements are higher than Medicare. Objective: To use the Affordable Care Act expansion of eligibility for the 340B Drug Pricing Program to study the association between participation and spending on outpatient-administered oncological drugs for commercially insured patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included a balanced panel hospital cohort containing new and never 340B program participants between 2007 and 2019; more recent data were not included to avoid the effect of disruptions in care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analyses documented spending trends for patients receiving common outpatient-administered biologics used in cancer treatments (bevacizumab, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) at 340B (treated) and non-340B (control) hospitals. A difference-in-differences model assessed changes in episode drug spending. Analyses were conducted between December 2021 and June 2022. Exposure: New 340B program participation between 2010 and 2016. Main Outcome and Measures: Total drug episode spending, with control variables including total billed units, drug, calendar-year fixed effects, and hospital fixed effects. Results: Of 95 127 included episodes (56 917 [59.8%] episodes in female patients) across 478 hospitals, patients seen in 340B and non-340B hospitals were similar in sex and drug used, and 340B hospital patients were older than non-340B patients (median [IQR] age for all patients, 61 [51-71] years). New 340B participating hospitals were more likely to be small (<50 beds) and more likely to be in rural settings. In the difference-in-differences analysis, total episode drug spending increased by $4074.69 (95% CI, $1592.84-$6556.70; P = .001) in the year following start of 340B program participation relative to nonparticipants. Heterogeneous group time effects were seen, with earlier participants less likely to have increased episode spending. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, new 340B participation was associated with statistically significant higher oncological drug episode spending compared with nonparticipants after changes in 340B inclusion rules in 2010. These findings raise questions about unintended consequences of the 340B program on drug spending from the commercially insured population.

Use of Neuroimaging for Patients With Dizziness Who Present to Outpatient Clinics vs Emergency Departments in the US.

Importance: Overuse of costly neuroimaging technology is associated with low-value care for the prevalent symptom of dizziness. Although quality improvement initiatives have focused on the overuse of computed tomography (CT) scans in emergency departments (EDs), most patients with dizziness present to outpatient clinics. To inform practice and policy, a comprehensive understanding of the uses and costs of neuroimaging across settings and episodes of care is needed. Objective: To characterize neuroimaging use, timing, and spending as well as factors associated with imaging acquisition within 6 months of presentation for dizziness in outpatient vs ED settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of commercial and Medicare Advantage claims for 805 454 adults (≥18 years of age) with new diagnoses of dizziness was conducted from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2015. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of neuroimaging (CT scan, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], angiography, and ultrasonography) and total spending on neuroimaging were measured. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed. The associations of neuroimaging with setting, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinicians were estimated with multivariable analyses. Results: A total of 805 454 individuals with dizziness (502 055 women [62%]; median age, 52 years [range, 18-87 years]) were included in this study; 156 969 (20%) underwent neuroimaging within 6 months of presentation (65 738 of 185 338 [36%] presented to EDs and 91 231 of 620 116 [15%] presented to outpatient clinics). The median time to neuroimaging was 0 days (95% CI, 0-2 days) after ED presentation and 10 days (95% CI, 9-10 days) after outpatient presentation. Neuroimaging was independently associated with advanced age, comorbidity, race and ethnicity, ED presentation, and outpatient clinician specialty. Across sites, a head CT scan was the most used test on presentation date (92% of tests [46 852 of 51 022]). Within 6 months of presentation, a head CT scan was the most used test (47% of all tests [177 949 of 376 149]), followed by brain MRI (25% [93 130 of 376 149]), cerebrovascular ultrasonography (15% [56 175 of 376 149]), and magnetic resonance angiography (9% [34 026 of 376 149]). Of $88 646 047.03 in total neuroimaging spending, MRI accounted for 70% ($61 730 251.95), CT scans for 19% ($16 910 506.24), and ultrasonography for 11% ($10 005 288.84). Per-test median spending ranged from $68.97 (CT scan of the head) to $319.63 (MRI of the brain) among commercially insured individuals and $43.21 (CT scan of the head) to $362.02 (MRI of the orbit, face, and neck) among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that use of neuroimaging for dizziness is prevalent across settings. Interventions to optimize the use of neuroimaging must occur early in the patient care journey to discourage guideline-discordant use of CT scans, advocate for judicious MRI use (particularly in ambulatory settings), and account for the effects of price transparency.

Association of 3 CDC opioid prescription guidelines for chronic pain and 2 payer pharmacy coverage changes on opioid initiation practices.

BACKGROUND: Due to the US opioid epidemic, in March of 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new guidelines for primary care providers on opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Payer coverage changes were also implemented to help modify opioid prescribing behavior. Whether these initiatives were associated with changes in opioid initiation patterns is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between 3 of the 2016 CDC guidelines and 2 subsequent payer pharmacy coverage changes with changes in opioid initiation behavior across different provider specialties. METHODS: We conducted a real-world evidence study using claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse between January of 2014 and December of 2018. Subjects were continuously enrolled opioid naive patients, aged at least 18 years, who had at least 1 chronic pain diagnosis within 2 weeks before their first (first-time) opioid prescription. The study used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis to evaluate the association, across different provider specialties, between the CDC guideline release and the payer pharmacy coverage changes with immediate change in level and overall change in the rate of first-time extended-release opioid prescriptions, firsttime opioid prescriptions at doses of at least 50 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) per day, and first-time opioid prescriptions with overlapping benzodiazepine prescription. RESULTS: The CDC guidelines were not associated with any change in the rate of first-time prescriptions of extended-release opioids. However, a January 2017 payer pharmacy coverage change was associated with a reduction over time in first-time extended-release opioid prescription rates by 22.15 in every 100,000 prescriptions (CI = -40.04 to -2.92, P = 0.013). The CDC guidelines were associated with an immediate decline in level of first-time opioid prescription at doses of at least 50 MME per day by 74.00 in every 10,000 prescriptions (CI = -124.86 to -23.13, P = 0.004) and an increased rate of decline over time by 13.64 in every 10,000 prescriptions (CI = -17.07 to -10.21, P < 0.001). These associations varied across provider types and specialties. The March 2018, payer coverage change was associated with an immediate reduction in level of first-time opioid prescriptions at doses of at least 50 MME per day across all specialties and an increased reduction over time among surgeons. The CDC guidelines were associated, respectively, with a reduction in the rate of overlapping first-time opioid prescriptions with benzodiazepines among family medicine, internal medicine, surgeons, emergency medicine providers, and providers with unknown specialty by 6.11, 5.10, 2.89, 11.43, and 9.11 in every 10,000 prescriptions monthly (CI = -9.48 to -2.73, -9.86 to -0.35, -5.40 to -0.38, -17.26 to -5.61 and -11.96 to -6.25, respectively, P < 0.001, P = 0.035, P = 0.024, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Some specialist providers also adopted the CDC guidelines, and the response to the guidelines differed across various provider specialties. Some CDC guidelines were associated with a reduction in high-risk first-time opioid prescriptions. Payer pharmacy coverage changes reinforced the guidelines both in situations where the CDC guidelines did and did not show any association. DISCLOSURE: This research was funded by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS025164; PI: Karaca-Mandic). Karaca-Mandic reports grants from the American Cancer Society and Sempre Health, along with fees from Tactile Medical and Precision Health Economics, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Uptake of evidence by physicians: De-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents after the TREAT trial.

BACKGROUND: Variation in de-adoption of ineffective or unsafe treatments is not well-understood. We examined de-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in anemia treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) following new clinical evidence of harm and ineffectiveness (the TREAT trial) and the FDA's revision of its safety warning. METHOD: We used a segmented regression approach to estimate changes in use of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DPO) in the commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) populations. We also examined how changes in both trends and levels of use were associated with physicians' characteristics. RESULTS: Use of DPO and EPO declined over the study period. There were no consistent changes in DPO trend across insurance groups, but the level of DPO use decreased right after the FDA revision in all groups. The decline in EPO use trend was faster after the TREAT trial for all groups. Nephrologists were largely more responsive to evidence than primary care physicians. Differences by physician's gender, and age were not consistent across insurance populations and types of ESA. CONCLUSIONS: Physician specialty has a dominant role in prescribing decision, and that specializations with higher use of treatment (nephrologists) were more responsive to new evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness.

Rates of Physician Coprescribing of Opioids and Benzodiazepines After the Release of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines in 2016.

Importance: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines in 2016 recommended avoiding concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines. Objective: To determine whether the release of the guidelines was associated with changes in coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used claims data obtained from a US national database of medical and pharmacy claims for 3 598 322 adult commercially insured patients and 1 299 142 Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with no recent history of cancer, sickle cell disease, or hospice care who ever used prescribed opioids during the study period, January 1, 2014, through March 31, 2018. Exposures: Overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions filled. Main Outcomes and Measures: The extent (proportion of person-months with any overlapping days of prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines) and intensity (proportion of days with opioids prescribed where benzodiazepines were also available) of coprescription. Results: Of 4 897 464 patients (with 13.4 million person-months of opioid use), the total number of unique commercially insured individuals was 3 598 322 (1 974 731 women [54.9%]), and the total number of unique MA beneficiaries was 1 299 142 (770 256 women [59.3%]). Among 128 576 participants experiencing chronic pain episodes, more than one-half of person-months of long-term opioid use occurred in women (52.7% of person-months among those with commercial insurance and 62.4% of person-months among MA beneficiaries). The median (interquartile range) age of the participants was 51 (41-58) years for patients in the commercial insurance group and 70 (61-77) years for those in the MA group. The mean (SE) extent of coprescription was 23.0% (0.18%) for the commercial insurance group and 25.7% (0.18%) for the MA group. The extent of coprescription decreased in the targeted guideline population-individuals with long-term opioid use-after the guideline release (postguideline slope, -0.95 percentages point per year [95% CI, -1.44 to -0.46 percentage points per year] for the commercial insurance group and -1.06 percentage points per year [95% CI, -1.49 to -0.63 percentage points per year] for the MA group). Nontargeted short-term episodes of opioid use were associated with no change or small declines in trend (for the MA group, postguideline slope of 0.47 percentage point per year [95% CI, 0.35-0.59 percentage point per year]; for the commercial insurance group, postguideline slope of -0.05 percentage point per year [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02 percentage point per year]). High coprescribing intensity was seen, with 79.3% (95% CI, 78.9%-79.6%) of opioid prescription days in the commercial insurance group and 83.9% (95% CI, 83.7%-84.2%) in the MA group overlapping with benzodiazepines. There was no change in the intensity of coprescribing. Intensity of coprescription was higher when the same clinician prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines. Conclusion and Relevance: This study observed a reduction in the extent but not intensity of coprescribing of benzodiazepines for patients with long-term opioid use.

The potential impact of CAR T-cell treatment delays on society.

OBJECTIVES: To date, breakthrough chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, such as tisagenlecleucel, indicated for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (pALL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and axicabtagene ciloleucel, indicated for DLBCL, although clinically effective, have been limited by treatment delays. Our study measured the social value of CAR T-cell therapy (CAR T) for relapsed or refractory pALL and DLBCL in the United States and quantified social value lost due to treatment delays. STUDY DESIGN: We used an economic framework for therapy valuation, measuring social value as the sum of consumer surplus and manufacturer profit. Consumer surplus is the difference between the value of health gains from a therapy and its incremental cost, while accounting for indirect costs and benefits to patients. METHODS: For 20 incident cohorts of pALL (n = 20 × 400 = 8000) and DLBCL (n = 20 × 5902 = 118,040), we quantified patient value, calculated as the value of additional quality-adjusted life-years gained with CAR T, minus the incremental cost of CAR T compared with standard of care (SOC). We calculated manufacturer profits using a range of production costs given uncertainties in the production process. Patient value and manufacturer profits were summed to obtain total social value. We measured social value lost from treatment delays, assuming that patients received the SOC while awaiting CAR T-cell treatment. RESULTS: Depending on production costs, as much as $6.5 billion and $34.8 billion in social value was generated for patients with pALL and DLBCL, respectively. However, with 1, 2, or 6 months of treatment delay (assuming $200,000 production costs), the pALL population lost 9.8%, 36.2%, and 67.3% of social value, respectively, whereas the DLBCL population lost 4.2%, 11.5%, and 46.0%, relative to no delay. CONCLUSIONS: The social value of CAR T is significantly limited by treatment delays. Efficient payment mechanisms, adequate capital, and payment policy reform are urgently needed to increase patient access and maximize the value of CAR T.

Health and economic benefits of advanced pneumatic compression devices in patients with phlebolymphedema.

OBJECTIVE: Phlebolymphedema (chronic venous insufficiency-related lymphedema) is a common and costly condition. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of evidence comparing phlebolymphedema therapeutic interventions. This study sought to examine the medical resource utilization and phlebolymphedema-related cost associated with Flexitouch (FLX; Tactile Medical, Minneapolis, Minn) advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCDs) relative to conservative therapy (CONS) alone, simple pneumatic compression devices (SPCDs), and other APCDs in a representative U.S. population of phlebolymphedema patients. METHODS: This was a longitudinal matched case-control analysis of deidentified private insurance claims. The study used administrative claims data from Blue Health Intelligence for the complete years 2012 through 2016. Patients were continuously enrolled for at least 18 months, diagnosed with phlebolymphedema, and received at least one claim for CONS either alone or in addition to pneumatic compression (SPCDs or APCDs). The main outcomes included direct phlebolymphedema- and sequelae-related medical resource utilization and costs. RESULTS: After case matching, the study included 86 patients on CONS (87 on FLX), 34 on SPCDs (23 on FLX), and 69 on other APCDs (67 on FLX). Compared with CONS, FLX was associated with 69% lower per patient per year total phlebolymphedema- and sequelae-related costs net of any pneumatic compression device-related costs ($3839 vs $12,253; P = .001). This was driven by 59% fewer mean annual hospitalizations (0.13 vs 0.32; P < .001) corresponding to 82% lower inpatient costs and 55% lower outpatient hospital costs. FLX was also associated with 52% lower outpatient physical therapy and occupational therapy costs and 56% lower other outpatient-related costs. Compared with SPCDs, FLX was associated with 85% lower total costs ($1153 vs $7449; P = .008) driven by 93% lower inpatient costs ($297 vs $4215; P = .002), 84% lower outpatient hospital costs ($368 vs $2347; P = .020), and 85% lower other outpatient-related costs ($353 vs $2313; P = .023). Compared with APCDs, FLX was associated with 53% lower total costs ($3973 vs $8436; P = .032) because of lower outpatient costs and lower rates of cellulitis (22.4% vs 44.9% of patients; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates significant benefits attributable to FLX compared with alternative compression therapies that can help reduce the notable economic burden of phlebolymphedema.

The Cutaneous, Net Clinical, and Health Economic Benefits of Advanced Pneumatic Compression Devices in Patients With Lymphedema.

IMPORTANCE: The prevalence and clinical burden of lymphedema is known to be increasing. Nevertheless, evidence-based comparative effectiveness data regarding lymphedema therapeutic interventions have been poor. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of an advanced pneumatic compression device (APCD) on cutaneous and other clinical outcomes and health economic costs in a representative privately insured population of lymphedema patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a deidentified private insurance database from 2007 through 2013, and multivariate regression analysis comparing outcomes for the 12 months before and after APCD purchase, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. Patients with lymphedema who received an APCD who were commercially insured and Medicare managed care enrollees from a large, national US managed care health insurer. The study population was evaluated as cancer-related and non-cancer-related lymphedema cohorts. INTERVENTION: Receipt of an APCD. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of cellulitis, use of lymphedema-related manual therapy, outpatient hospital visits, and inpatient hospitalizations. Lymphedema-related direct costs were measured for home health care, hospital outpatient care, office visits, emergency department use, and inpatient care. RESULTS: The study sample included 718 patients (374 in the cancer cohort and 344 in the noncancer cohort). In both cohorts, use of an APCD was associated with similar reductions in adjusted rates of cellulitis episodes (from 21.1% to 4.5% in the cancer cohort and 28.8% to 7.3% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both), lymphedema-related manual therapy (from 35.6% to 24.9%in the cancer cohort and 32.3% to 21.2% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both), and outpatient visits (from 58.6% to 41.4% in the cancer cohort and 52.6% to 31.4% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both). Among the cancer cohort, total lymphedema-related costs per patient, excluding medical equipment costs, were reduced by 37% (from $2597 to $1642, P = .002). The corresponding decline in costs for the noncancer cohort was 36% (from $2937 to $1883, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study found an association between significant reductions in episodes of cellulitis (cancer vs noncancer cohorts) and outpatient care and costs of APCD acquisition within a 1-year time frame in patients with both cancer-related and non-cancer-related lymphedema.

Lymphedema prevalence and treatment benefits in cancer: impact of a therapeutic intervention on health outcomes and costs.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema is a common complication of cancer therapeutics; its prevalence, treatment outcomes, and costs have been poorly defined. The objective of this study was to examine lymphedema prevalence among cancer survivors and to characterize changes in clinical outcomes and costs associated with a defined therapeutic intervention (use of a pneumatic compression devices [PCD]) in a representative, privately insured population. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective analysis of de-identified health claims data from a large national insurer for calendar years 2007 through 2013. Patients were required to have 12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to PCD receipt (baseline), as well as a 12-month follow-up period. Analyses were performed for individuals with cancer-related lymphedema (n = 1,065). Lymphedema prevalence was calculated: number of patients with a lymphedema claim in a calendar year divided by total number of enrollees. The impact of PCD use was evaluated by comparing rates of a pre-specified set of health outcomes and costs for the 12 months before and after, respectively, PCD receipt. Lymphedema prevalence among cancer survivors increased from 0.95% in 2007 to 1.24% in 2013. PCD use was associated with decreases in rates of hospitalizations (45% to 32%, p<0.0001), outpatient hospital visits (95% to 90%, p<0.0001), cellulitis diagnoses (28% to 22%, p = 0.003), and physical therapy use (50% to 41%, p<0.0001). The average baseline health care costs were high ($53,422) but decreased in the year after PCD acquisition (-$11,833, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymphedema is a prevalent medical condition that is often a defining attribute of cancer survivorship. The problem is associated with high health care costs; Treatment (in this instance, use of PCD) is associated with significant decreases in adverse clinical outcomes and costs.

Health and health risks among sexual minority women: an examination of 3 subgroups.

We used 2001-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to examine insurance status, source of routine care, cigarette and alcohol use, and self-rated health among lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women who have sex with women, compared with heterosexual women who do not have sex with women. We found higher risks of being uninsured among lesbian and bisexual women, worse self-rated health among bisexual women, higher alcohol use among bisexual and heterosexual women who have sex with women, and higher smoking across all subgroups.

Opioid prescribing by multiple providers in Medicare: retrospective observational study of insurance claims.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency and characteristics of opioid prescribing by multiple providers in Medicare and the association with hospital admissions related to opioid use. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Database of prescription drugs and medical claims in 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2010. PARTICIPANTS: 1,808,355 Medicare beneficiaries who filled at least one prescription for an opioid from a pharmacy in 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of beneficiaries who filled opioid prescriptions from multiple providers; proportion of these prescriptions that were concurrently supplied; adjusted rates of hospital admissions related to opioid use associated with multiple provider prescribing. RESULTS: Among 1,208,100 beneficiaries with an opioid prescription, 418,530 (34.6%) filled prescriptions from two providers, 171,420 (14.2%) from three providers, and 143,344 (11.9%) from four or more providers. Among beneficiaries with four or more opioid providers, 110,671 (77.2%) received concurrent opioid prescriptions from multiple providers, and the dominant provider prescribed less than half of the mean total prescriptions per beneficiary (7.9/15.2 prescriptions). Multiple provider prescribing was highest among beneficiaries who were also prescribed stimulants, non-narcotic analgesics, and central nervous system, neuromuscular, and antineoplastic drugs. Hospital admissions related to opioid use increased with multiple provider prescribing: the annual unadjusted rate of admission was 1.63% (95% confidence interval 1.58 to 1.67%) for beneficiaries with one provider, 2.08% (2.03% to 2.14%) for two providers, 2.87% (2.77% to 2.97%) for three providers, and 4.83% (4.70% to 4.96%) for four or more providers. Results were similar after covariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent opioid prescribing by multiple providers is common in Medicare patients and is associated with higher rates of hospital admission related to opioid use.

Impact of new drugs and biologics on colorectal cancer treatment and costs.

PURPOSE: To compare medical expenditures of patients receiving old and new colorectal cancer (CRC) regimens. STUDY DESIGN: USING CLAIMS DATA, WE IDENTIFIED TWO COHORTS OF PRIVATELY INSURED PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH CRC: first, those diagnosed before new treatment introduction (January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002), and second, those diagnosed after new treatment introduction (June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2005). CRC diagnosis was identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 codes 153.xx, 154.xx, and 159.0. First- and second-line chemotherapy regimens were identified. Treatments and expenditures were then observed for up to 2 years after initial diagnosis. METHODS: We estimated multivariate models to measure changes in cost with changes in treatment regimen. Approval dates of new regimens were used as natural experiments. RESULTS: New regimens, such as fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), have rapidly replaced the most prevalent preperiod product (ie, fluorouracil/leucovorin). Changes in treatment have caused large increases in total expenditure, primarily through increases in chemotherapy prices. FOLFOX alone has increased total average cost by 14%. New treatments have not substituted other medical services; rather, they have indirectly raised costs through nonstandard regimen use and increases in second-line treatment use. We found no evidence that expenditure effects were driven by changes in follow-up duration. CONCLUSION: New CRC treatments have increased both regimen choice and expenditures. New regimens have primarily increased expenditures through direct treatment costs; we observed no offsetting expenditure reductions.

Impact of new drugs and biologics on colorectal cancer treatment and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medical expenditures of patients receiving old and new colorectal cancer (CRC) regimens. STUDY DESIGN: Using claims data, we identified 2 cohorts of privately insured patients diagnosed with CRC: first, those diagnosed before new treatment introduction (January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002), and second, those diagnosed after new treatment introduction (June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2005). CRC diagnosis was identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 codes 153.xx, 154.xx, and 159.0. First- and second-line chemotherapy regimens were identified. Treatments and expenditures were then observed for up to 2 years after initial diagnosis. METHODS: We estimated multivariate models to measure changes in cost with changes in treatment regimen. Approval dates of new regimens were used as natural experiments. RESULTS: New regimens, such as fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), have rapidly replaced the most prevalent preperiod product (ie, fluorouracil/leucovorin). Changes in treatment have caused large increases in total expenditure, primarily through increases in chemotherapy prices. FOLFOX alone has increased total average cost by 14%. New treatments have not substituted for other medical services; rather, they have indirectly raised costs through nonstandard regimen use and increases in second-line treatment use. We found no evidence that expenditure effects were driven by changes in follow-up duration. CONCLUSION: New CRC treatments have increased both regimen choice and expenditures. New regimens have primarily increased expenditures through direct treatment costs; we observed no offsetting expenditure reductions.

Cost sharing, family health care burden, and the use of specialty drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of benefit generosity and household health care financial burden on the demand for specialty drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Enrollment, claims, and benefit design information for 35 large private employers during 2000-2005. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated multivariate models of the effects of benefit generosity and household financial burden on initiation and continuation of biologic therapies. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We defined initiation of biologic therapy as first-time use of etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and we constructed an index of plan generosity based on coverage of biologic therapies in each plan. We estimated the household's burden by summing up the annual out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses of other family members. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Benefit generosity affected both the likelihood of initiating a biologic and continuing drug therapy, although the effects were stronger for initiation. Initiation of a biologic was lower in households where other family members incurred high OOP expenses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of biologic therapy for RA is sensitive to benefit generosity and household financial burden. The increasing use of coinsurance rates for specialty drugs (as under Medicare Part D) raises concern about adverse health consequences.