Patient Travel Distance to Neurologist Visits.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The density of neurologists within a given geographic region varies greatly across the United States. We aimed to measure patient travel distance and travel time to neurologist visits, across neurologic conditions and subspecialties. Our secondary goal was to identify factors associated with long-distance travel for neurologic care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using a 2018 Medicare sample of patients with at least 1 outpatient neurologist visit. Long-distance travel was defined as driving distance ≥50 miles 1-way to the visit. Travel time was measured as driving time in minutes. Multilevel generalized linear mixed models with logistic link function, which accounted for clustering of patients within hospital referral region and allowed modeling of region-specific random effects, were used to determine the association of patient and regional characteristics with long-distance travel. RESULTS: We identified 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries with a neurologist visit in 2018. Of them, 96,213 (17%) traveled long distance for care. The median driving distance and time were 81.3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 59.9-144.2) miles and 90 (IQR: 69-149) minutes for patients with long-distance travel compared with 13.2 (IQR: 6.5-23) miles and 22 (IQR: 14-33) minutes for patients without long-distance travel. Comparing across neurologic conditions, long-distance travel was most common for nervous system cancer care (39.6%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS] (32.1%), and MS (22.8%). Many factors were associated with long-distance travel, most notably low neurologist density (first quintile: OR 3.04 [95% CI 2.41-3.83] vs fifth quintile), rural setting (4.89 [4.79-4.99]), long-distance travel to primary care physician visit (3.6 [3.51-3.69]), and visits for ALS and nervous system cancer care (3.41 [3.14-3.69] and 5.27 [4.72-5.89], respectively). Nearly one-third of patients bypassed the nearest neurologist by 20+ miles, and 7.3% of patients crossed state lines for neurologist care. DISCUSSION: We found that nearly 1 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries who saw a neurologist traveled ≥50 miles 1-way for care, and travel burden was most common for lower-prevalence neurologic conditions that required coordinated multidisciplinary care. Important potentially addressable predictors of long-distance travel were low neurologist density and rural location, suggesting interventions to improve access to care such as telemedicine or neurologic subspecialist support to local neurologists. Future work should evaluate differences in clinical outcomes between patients with long-distance travel and those without.

Prescription Opioid Initiation for Neuropathy, Headache, and Low Back Pain: A US Population-based Medicare Study.

Neuropathy, headache, and low back pain (LBP) are common conditions requiring pain management. Yet little is known regarding whether access to specialists impacts opioid prescribing. We aimed to identify factors associated with opioid initiation among opioid-naïve older adults and evaluate how access to particular specialists impacts prescribing. This retrospective cohort study used a 20% Medicare sample from 2010 to 2017. Opioid initiation was defined as a first opioid prescription filled within 12 months after a diagnosis encounter. Disease-related opioid initiation was defined as a first opioid prescription filled within 7 days following a disease-specific claim. Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was used to determine the association of patient demographics, provider types, and regional physician specialty density with disease-related opioid initiation, accounting for within-region correlation. We found opioid initiation steadily declined from 2010 to 2017 (neuropathy: 26-19%, headache: 31-20%, LBP: 45-32%), as did disease-related opioid initiation (4-3%, 12-7%, 29-19%) and 5 to 10% of initial disease-related prescriptions resulted in chronic opioid use within 12 months of initiation. Certain specialist visits were associated with a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation compared with primary care. Residence in high neurologist density regions had a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation (headache odds ratio [OR] .76 [95% CI: .63-.92]) and LBP (OR .7 [95% CI: .61-.81]) and high podiatrist density regions for neuropathy (OR .56 [95% CI: .41-.78]). We found that specialist visits and greater access to specialists were associated with a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation. These data could inform strategies to perpetuate reductions in opioid use for these common pain conditions. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents how opioid initiation for opioid-naïve patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy, headache, and LBP varies across providers. Greater access to certain specialists decreased the likelihood of opioid initiation. Future work may consider interventions to support alternative treatments and better access to specialists in low-density regions.

Measuring Ambulatory Racial and Ethnic Neurologic Disparities With the Axon Registry.

Background and Objectives: The primary objective is to examine potential racial and ethnic (R/E) disparities in ambulatory neurology quality measures within the American Academy of Neurology Axon Registry. R/E disparities in neurologic US morbidity and mortality have been clearly documented. Despite these findings, there have been no nationwide examinations of how ambulatory neurologic care affects these negative health outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective nonrandomized cohort study of patients in the AAN Axon Registry. The Axon Registry is a neurology-specific outpatient quality registry that collects, reports, and analyzes real-world deidentified electronic health record (EHR) data. Patients were included in the study if they contributed toward one of the selected quality measures for multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson disease, or headache during the study period of January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019. Descriptive analyses of patient demographics were performed and then stratified by race and ethnicity. Results: There were a total of 633,672 patients included in these analyses. Separate analyses were performed for race (64% White, 8% Black, 1% Asian, and 27% unknown) and ethnicity (52% not Hispanic, 5% Hispanic, and 43% unknown). The mean age ranged from 18 to 55 years, with 61% female and 39% male. Quality measures were chosen based on completeness of R/E data and were either process or outcomes focused. Statistically significant differences were noted after controlling for multiple comparisons. Discussion: The large proportion of missing or unknown R/E data and low overall rate of performance on these quality measures made the relevance of small differences difficult to determine. This analysis demonstrates the feasibility of using the Axon Registry to assess neurologic disparities in outpatient care. More education and training are required on the accurate capture of R/E data in the EHR.

Costs and Utilization of New-to-Market Neurologic Medications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the utilization and costs (total and out-of-pocket) of new-to-market neurologic medications with existing guideline-supported neurologic medications over time. METHODS: We used a healthcare pharmaceutical claims database (from 2001 to 2019) to identify patients with both a diagnosis of 1 of 11 separate neurologic conditions and either a new-to-market medication or an existing guideline-supported medication for that condition. Neurologic conditions included orthostatic hypotension, spinal muscular atrophy, Duchenne disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Huntington disease, tardive dyskinesia, transthyretin amyloidosis, and migraine. New-to-market medications were defined as all neurologic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2014 and 2018. In each year, we determined the median out-of-pocket and standardized total costs for a 30-day supply of each medication. We also measured the proportion of patients receiving new-to-market medications compared with all medications specific for the relevant condition. RESULTS: We found that the utilization of most new-to-market medications was small (<20% in all but 1 condition), compared with existing, guideline-supported medications. The out-of-pocket and standardized total costs were substantially larger for new-to-market medications. The median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply in 2019 were largest for edaravone ($712.8 [$59.8-$802.0]) and eculizumab ($91.1 [$3.0-$3,216.4]). For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs was highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications. DISCUSSION: Despite the increasing number of FDA-approved neurologic medications, utilization of newly approved medications in the privately insured population remains small. Given the high costs and similar efficacy for most of the new medications, limited utilization may be appropriate. However, for new medications with greater efficacy, future studies are needed to determine whether high costs are a barrier to utilization.

Five-Year Trends in Payments for Neurologist-Prescribed Drugs in Medicare Part D.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there was an increase in payments for neurologist-prescribed drugs, we performed a retrospective analysis of prescription claims in the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use Files from 2013 to 2017. METHODS: We included claims prescribed by providers with the taxonomy "neurology" and included drugs present in all 5 years. Drugs were designated in 2013 as generic (GEN), brand name only (BNO), and brand name prescribed even though a generic equivalent is available (BNGE). To observe payment trends, the percentage change in the per claim payment was compared between drug classes. RESULTS: We included 520 drugs, of which 322 were GEN, 61 were BNO, and 137 were BNGE, representing 90,716,536 claims and generating payments of $26,654,750,720. While the number of claims from 2013 to 2017 increased only 7.6%, the total payment increased 50.4%. Adjusted for inflation, claim payments for GEN drug increased 0.6%, compared to significant increases in BNO and BNGE drugs of 42.4% and 45.0% (p trend < 0.001). The percentage of overall GEN claims increased from 81.9% to 88.0%, BNO increased from 4.9% to 6.2%, and BNGE decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%. Neuroimmunology/multiple sclerosis drugs represented >50% of the total payments despite being only 4.3% of claims. CONCLUSIONS: Payments for neurologist-prescribed brand name, but not generic, drugs in Medicare Part D increased consistently and well above inflation from 2013 to 2017. Unless the overall trend stabilizes or is reversed or high cost-to-claim drugs are addressed, this trend will place an increasing burden on the neurologic Medicare budget.

Current Procedural Terminology-based Procedure Categorization Enhances Cost Prediction of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze how a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)-based categorization method can predict cost variation in surgical spine procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck and back disorders affect a majority of the adult population and account for tens of billions of dollars in health care spending each year. In the era of bundled payments and value-based reimbursement, it is imperative for surgeons to identify sources of cost variability across surgical spine procedures. Historically, this has been accomplished using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes, but they utilize an overly simplistic categorization of surgical procedures. The specificity and familiarity of the CPT coding structure makes it a better option for categorizing differences in surgical decision making and technique. METHODS: Hospital billing data for patients undergoing a surgical spine procedure requiring an overnight, in-patient stay was retrospectively collected over 4 fiscal years (2012-2016) from a single health care system. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the correlation between cost variation and: spine-specific MS-DRG codes; a novel CPT-based categorization method; and the combination of MS-DRG codes and CPT-based categorization. RESULTS: There were 5020 surgical procedures were analyzed with respect to 16 different MS-DRG codes and 30 distinct CPT-based surgical categories (CSCs). Linear regression results were: MS-DRG R2 = 0.6545 (P < 0.001); CSC R2 = 0.5709 (P < 0.001); and R2 = 0.744 for the combined MS-DRG and CSC methods (P < 0.05). Median difference between the actual and predicted cost for the combined model was -$261.00, compared with -$727.50 for the CSC model and -$478.70 for the MS-DRG model. CONCLUSION: Addition of the CPT-based categorization method to MS-DRG coding provides an enhanced method to evaluate the association between predicted and actual cost when using linear regression analysis to assess cost variation in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 3.

Geographic Variation in Neurologist Density and Neurologic Care in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe geographic variation in neurologist density, neurologic conditions, and neurologist involvement in neurologic care. METHODS: We used 20% 2015 Medicare data to summarize variation by Hospital Referral Region (HRR). Neurologic care was defined as office-based evaluation/management visits with a primary diagnosis of a neurologic condition. RESULTS: Mean density of neurologists varied nearly 4-fold from the lowest to the highest density quintile (9.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-10.2] vs 43.1 [95% CI 37.6-48.5] per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries). The mean prevalence of patients with neurologic conditions did not substantially differ across neurologist density quintile regions (293 vs 311 per 1,000 beneficiaries in the lowest vs highest quintiles, respectively). Of patients with a neurologic condition, 23.5% were seen by a neurologist, ranging from 20.6% in the lowest quintile regions to 27.0% in the highest quintile regions (6.4% absolute difference). Most of the difference comprised dementia, pain, and stroke conditions seen by neurologists. In contrast, very little of the difference comprised Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis, both of which had a very high proportion (>80%) of neurologist involvement even in the lowest quintile regions. CONCLUSIONS: The supply of neurologists varies substantially by region, but the prevalence of neurologic conditions does not. As neurologist supply increases, access to neurologist care for certain neurologic conditions (dementia, pain, and stroke) increases much more than for others (Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis). These data provide insight for policy makers when considering strategies in matching the demand for neurologic care with the appropriate supply of neurologists.

Increasing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Neurologic Care for Privately Insured Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of evaluation and management (E/M) services and common diagnostic testing for neurology patients. METHODS: Using a large, privately insured health care claims database, we identified patients with a neurologic visit or diagnostic test from 2001 to 2016 and assessed inflation-adjusted OOP costs for E/M visits, neuroimaging, and neurophysiologic testing. For each diagnostic service each year, we estimated the proportion of patients with OOP costs, the mean OOP cost, and the proportion of the total service cost paid OOP. We modeled OOP cost as a function of patient and insurance factors. RESULTS: We identified 3,724,342 patients. The most frequent neurologic services were E/M visits (78.5%), EMG/nerve conduction studies (NCS) (7.7%), MRIs (5.3%), and EEGs (4.5%). Annually, 86.5%-95.2% of patients paid OOP costs for E/M visits and 23.1%-69.5% for diagnostic tests. For patients paying any OOP cost, the mean OOP cost increased over time, most substantially for EEG, MRI, and E/M. OOP costs varied considerably; for an MRI in 2016, the 50th percentile paid $103.10 and the 95th percentile paid $875.40. The proportion of total service cost paid OOP increased. High deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment was associated with higher OOP costs for MRI, EMG/NCS, and EEG. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of patients pay OOP for neurologic diagnostic services. These costs are rising and vary greatly across patients and tests. The cost sharing burden is particularly high for the growing population with HDHPs. In this setting, neurologic evaluation might result in financial hardship for patients.

The effects of the Medicare NCS reimbursement policy: Utilization, payments, and patient access.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 2013 nerve conduction study (NCS) reimbursement reduction changed Medicare use, payments, and patient access to Medicare physicians by performing a retrospective analysis of Medicare data (2012-2016 fee-for-service data from the CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File). METHODS: Individual billable services were identified by Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Current Procedural Terminology and G codes. Medicare use and payments were stratified by specialty and type of service (electrodiagnostic tests, including NCS and EMG, and other neurologic procedures). We also assessed access to Medicare physicians using the annual number of unique beneficiaries receiving initial Evaluation and Management (E/M) services. RESULTS: We identified 676,113 Medicare providers included in all analysis years from 2012 to 2016 (10,599 neurologists, 5,881 physiatrists, and 659,633 other specialties). Comparing 2016 to 2012 showed that 21.1% fewer neurologists, 28.6% fewer physiatrists, and 69.3% fewer other specialists performed NCS and 3.8% fewer neurologists, 21.7% fewer physiatrists, and 5.6% fewer other specialists performed EMG. For NCS providers in 2012, the mean number of unique Medicare beneficiaries increased for neurologists (1.2%) and physiatrists (4.8%) but decreased for other specialists (-6.5%) by 2016. After the NCS cut, the number of providers performing autonomic and evoked potential testing increased substantially. CONCLUSIONS: The Medicare NCS reimbursement policy resulted in a larger decrease in NCS providers than in EMG providers. Despite fewer neurologists and physiatrists performing NCS, Medicare access to these physicians for E/M services was not affected. Increased autonomic and evoked potential testing may be an unintended consequence of NCS reimbursement change.

Association of out-of-pocket costs on adherence to common neurologic medications.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between out-of-pocket costs and medication adherence in 3 common neurologic diseases. METHODS: Utilizing privately insured claims from 2001 to 2016, we identified patients with incident neuropathy, dementia, or Parkinson disease (PD). We selected patients who were prescribed medications with similar efficacy and tolerability, but differential out-of-pocket costs (neuropathy with gabapentinoids or mixed serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], dementia with cholinesterase inhibitors, PD with dopamine agonists). Medication adherence was defined as the number of days supplied in the first 6 months. Instrumental variable analysis was used to estimate the association of out-of-pocket costs and other patient factors on medication adherence. RESULTS: We identified 52,249 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids, 5,246 patients with neuropathy on SNRIs, 19,820 patients with dementia on cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,130 patients with PD on dopamine agonists. Increasing out-of-pocket costs by $50 was associated with significantly lower medication adherence for patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and dementia (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91). Increased out-of-pocket costs for patients with neuropathy on SNRIs (adjusted IRR 0.97, 0.88-1.08) and patients with PD (adjusted IRR 0.90, 0.81-1.00) were not significantly associated with medication adherence. Minority populations had lower adherence with gabapentinoids and cholinesterase inhibitors compared to white patients. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with lower medication adherence in 3 common neurologic conditions. When prescribing medications, physicians should consider these costs in order to increase adherence, especially as out-of-pocket costs continue to rise. Racial/ethnic disparities were also observed; therefore, minority populations should receive additional focus in future intervention efforts to improve adherence.

Out-of-pocket costs are on the rise for commonly prescribed neurologic medications.

OBJECTIVE: To determine out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications in 5 common neurologic diseases. METHODS: Utilizing a large, privately insured, health care claims database from 2004 to 2016, we captured out-of-pocket medication costs for patients seen by outpatient neurologists with multiple sclerosis (MS), peripheral neuropathy, epilepsy, dementia, and Parkinson disease (PD). We compared out-of-pocket costs for those in high-deductible health plans compared to traditional plans and explored cumulative out-of-pocket costs over the first 2 years after diagnosis across conditions with high- (MS) and low/medium-cost (epilepsy) medications. RESULTS: The population consisted of 105,355 patients with MS, 314,530 with peripheral neuropathy, 281,073 with epilepsy, 120,720 with dementia, and 90,801 with PD. MS medications had the fastest rise in monthly out-of-pocket expenses (mean [SD] $15 [$23] in 2004, $309 [$593] in 2016) with minimal differences between medications. Out-of-pocket costs for brand name medications in the other conditions also rose considerably. Patients in high-deductible health plans incurred approximately twice the monthly out-of-pocket expense as compared to those not in these plans ($661 [$964] vs $246 [$472] in MS, $40 [$94] vs $18 [$46] in epilepsy in 2016). Cumulative 2-year out-of-pocket costs rose almost linearly over time in MS ($2,238 [$3,342]) and epilepsy ($230 [$443]). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have increased considerably over the last 12 years, particularly for those in high-deductible health plans. Out-of-pocket costs vary widely both across and within conditions. To minimize patient financial burden, neurologists require access to precise cost information when making treatment decisions.

Claims data analyses unable to properly characterize the value of neurologists in epilepsy care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of a neurologist visit with health care use and cost outcomes for patients with incident epilepsy. METHODS: Using health care claims data for individuals insured by United Healthcare from 2001 to 2016, we identified patients with incident epilepsy. The population was defined by an epilepsy/convulsion diagnosis code (ICD codes 345.xx/780.3x, G40.xx/R56.xx), an antiepileptic prescription filled within the succeeding 2 years, and neither criterion met in the 2 preceding years. Cases were defined as patients who had a neurologist encounter for epilepsy within 1 year after an incident diagnosis; a control cohort was constructed with propensity score matching. Primary outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations for epilepsy. Secondary outcomes included measures of cost (epilepsy related, not epilepsy related, and antiepileptic drugs) and care escalation (including EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery). RESULTS: After participant identification and propensity score matching, there were 3,400 cases and 3,400 controls. Epilepsy-related ER visits were more likely for cases than controls (year 1: 5.9% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001), as were hospitalizations (year 1: 2.1% vs 0.7%, p < 0.001). Total medical costs for epilepsy care, nonepilepsy care, and antiepileptic drugs were greater for cases (p ≤ 0.001). EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery occurred more commonly for cases (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with epilepsy who visited a neurologist had greater subsequent health care use, medical costs, and care escalation than controls. This comparison using administrative claims is plausibly confounded by case disease severity, as suggested by higher nonepilepsy care costs. Linking patient-centered outcomes to claims data may provide the clinical resolution to assess care value within a heterogeneous population.

Association of neurologist care with headache expenditures: A population-based, longitudinal analysis.

Objective To assess the association of neurologist ambulatory care with healthcare utilization and expenditure in headache. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study from two-year duration panel data, pooled from 2002-2013, of adult respondents identified with diagnostic codes for headache in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Those with a neurologist ambulatory care visit in year one of panel participation were compared with those who did not for the change in annual aggregate direct headache-related health care costs from year one to year two of panel participation, inflated to 2015 US dollars. Results were adjusted via multiple linear regression for demographic and clinical variables, utilizing survey variables for accurate estimates and standard errors. Results Eight hundred and eighty-seven respondents were included, with 23.3% (207/887) seeing a neurologist in year one. The neurologist group had higher year-one mean headache-related expenditures ($3032 vs. $1636), but nearly equal mean year-two expenditures compared to controls ($1900 vs. $1929). Adjusted association between neurologist care and difference in mean annual expenditures from year two to year one was -$1579 (95% CI -$2468, -$690, p < 0.001). Conclusion Among headache sufferers, particularly those with higher headache-related healthcare expenditures, neurologist care is associated with a significant reduction in costs over two years.

The association of neurologists with headache health care utilization and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of a neurologist visit with headache health care utilization and costs. METHODS: Utilizing a large privately insured health care claims database, we identified patients with an incident headache diagnosis (ICD-9 codes 339.xx, 784.0x, 306.81) with at least 5 years follow-up. Patients with a subsequent neurologist visit were matched to controls without a neurologist visit using propensity score matching, accounting for 54 potential confounders and regional variation in neurologist density. Co-primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for headache. Secondary outcomes were quality measures (abortive, prophylactic, and opioid prescriptions) and costs (total, headache-related, and non-headache-related). Generalized estimating equations assessed differences in longitudinal outcomes between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 28,585 cases and 57,170 controls. ED visits did not differ between cases and controls (p = 0.05). Hospitalizations were more common in cases in year 0-1 (0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2%-0.3% vs 0.01%, 95% CI 0.01%-0.02%; p < 0.01), with minimal differences in subsequent years. Costs (including non-headache-related costs) and high-quality and low-quality medication utilization were higher in cases in the first year and decreased toward control costs in subsequent years with small differences persisting over 5 years. Opioid prescriptions increased over time in both cases and controls. CONCLUSION: Compared with those without a neurologist, headache patients who visit neurologists had a transient increase in hospitalizations, but the same ED utilization. Confounding by severity is the most likely explanation given the non-headache-related cost trajectory. Claims-based risk adjustment will likely underestimate disease severity of headache patients seen by neurologists.

Practice and payment trends in neurology in 2012.

This article describes practice and payment trends among neurologists. Data from the 2012 Practice and Payment Trends survey were compared to results from the 2010 Medical Economics survey. Both surveys were sent to a random sample of 1,000 US practicing neurologists, with a response rate of 32%. Since 2010, there has been an 8% increase in the percent of neurologists working in academic medical centers. Nearly half of neurologists reported working for a hospital-affiliated practice. Wait times have increased 40% for a new patient visit. Only 19% of neurologists indicated procedures as the primary focus of their practice. New delivery models have not yet gained traction with neurologists but the majority (>80%) of neurologists currently use electronic health records in their practice.

Health information technology and electronic health records in neurologic practice.

The tipping point for electronic health records (EHR) has been reached and universal adoption in the United States is now inevitable. Neurologists will want to choose their electronic health record prudently. Careful selection, contracting, planning, and training are essential to successful implementation. Neurologists need to examine their workflow carefully and make adjustments to ensure that efficiency is increased. Neurologists will want to achieve a significant return on investment and qualify for all applicable financial incentives from payers, including CMS. EHRs are not just record-keeping tools but play an important role in quality improvement, evidence-based medicine, pay for performance, patient education, bio-surveillance, data warehousing, and data exchange.

Electrical impedance myography in the assessment of disuse atrophy.

UNLABELLED: Tarulli AW, Duggal N, Esper GJ, Garmirian LP, Fogerson PM, Lin CH, Rutkove SB. Electrical impedance myography in the assessment of disuse atrophy. OBJECTIVE: To quantify disuse atrophy using electrical impedance myography (EIM), a noninvasive technique that we have used successfully to study neurogenic and myopathic atrophy. DESIGN: We performed EIM of the tibialis anterior of subjects with disuse atrophy secondary to cast immobilization and in their contralateral normal leg. Subjects were studied shortly after cast removal and again several weeks to months after the cast was removed and normal mobility was restored. SETTING: Outpatient neurology and orthopedic practices at a tertiary care medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Otherwise healthy subjects (N=10) with unilateral leg fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resistance, reactance, and phase measured at 50kHz. RESULTS: The main EIM outcome parameter, phase at 50kHz, was lower in the immobilized leg in 9 of 10 cases. Additionally, when normal mobility was restored, the phase of the casted leg increased relative to its initial measurement in all 10 cases, while it increased inconsistently in the contralateral leg. CONCLUSIONS: EIM may be a powerful tool for the assessment of disuse atrophy.