Family Structure, Residential Mobility, and Environmental Inequality.

This study combines micro-level data on families with children from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics with neighborhood-level industrial hazard data from the Environmental Protection Agency and neighborhood-level U.S. census data to examine both the association between family structure and residential proximity to neighborhood pollution and the micro-level, residential mobility processes that contribute to differential pollution proximity across family types. Results indicate the existence of significant family structure differences in household proximity to industrial pollution in U.S. metropolitan areas between 1990 and 1999, with single-mother and single-father families experiencing neighborhood pollution levels that are on average 46% and 26% greater, respectively, than those experienced by two-parent families. Moreover, the pollution gap between single-mother and two-parent families persists with controls for household and neighborhood socioeconomic, sociodemographic, and race/ethnic characteristics. Examination of underlying migration patterns reveals that single-mother, single-father, and two-parent families are equally likely to move in response to pollution. However, mobile single-parent families move into neighborhoods with significantly higher pollution levels than do mobile two-parent families. Thus, family structure differences in pollution proximity are maintained more by these destination neighborhood differences than by family structure variations in the likelihood of moving out of polluted neighborhoods.

Burden of asthma with elevated blood eosinophil levels.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common chronic condition with an economic burden of almost $56 billion annually in the US. Biologic markers like blood eosinophils, that help predict the risk of exacerbation could help guide more optimal treatment plans and reduce cost. The purpose of this study was to determine whether healthcare resource use and expenditures vary by eosinophil level among patients with asthma. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of asthma defined by ICD-9-CM code 493.xx between January 2004 and July 2011 were extracted from EMRClaims + database (eMAX Health, White Plains NY). Patients were classified as mild, moderate, or severe by medication use following diagnosis, based on recommendations of National Institutes of Health Expert Panel Report 3. Patients were classified as those with elevated eosinophils (≥400 cells/µL) and normal eosinophil level (<400 cells/µL). Patients were followed for resource use, defined as hospitalizations, ER visits and outpatient visit and associated costs were calculated to assess whether an economic difference exists between eosinophil groups. Non-parametric tests were used to compare resource use and associated cost between elevated and normal eosinophil groups. Multivariate modeling was performed to assess the contribution of eosinophil level on the likelihood of study outcomes among patients with severe asthma. RESULTS: Among the 2,164 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 1,144 had severity designations. Of these, 179(16 %) of patients had severe asthma of which 20 % (n = 35) had elevated eosinophils. Seventeen percent of patients with elevated eosinophils were admitted to the hospital during the follow-up period, significantly greater than patients with normal eosinophil levels (12 %; p = 0.011). Overall, compared to patients with normal eosinophil levels (n = 1734), patients with elevated eosinophil levels (n = 430) had significantly greater mean annual hospital admissions (0.51 vs. 0.21/year, p = 0.006) and hospital costs (2,536 vs. $1,091, p = 0.011). Logistic regressions showed that elevated eosinophil level was associated with 5.14 times increased odds of all cause admissions (95 % CI:1.76-14.99, p = 0.003) and 4.07 times increased odds of asthma related admissions (95 % CI: 1.26-13.12, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Eosinophil elevation was associated with greater healthcare resource use in patients with asthma.

Economic burden of recurrent venous thromboembolism: analysis from a U.S. hospital perspective.

PURPOSE: An analysis of resource utilization and hospital costs associated with recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is presented. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using a large U.S. hospital database. Patients with VTE-related hospitalization events during the period January-December 2010 were identified; data collection extended for up to 12 months after the index event. Postdischarge hospital resource use and total costs were compared in cohorts of patients with and without recurrent VTE. Regression analysis was performed to compare hospital costs and length of stay (LOS) during initial and subsequent VTE encounters. RESULTS: Among the study population of 43,734 patients, 4% had postdischarge VTE-related events during the data collection period. The median and mean ± S.D. times to VTE recurrence were 48 days and 98 ± 106 days, respectively. Patients with recurrent VTE had more all-cause hospitalizations than those without recurrent VTE (mean ± S.D., 1.07 ± 0.96 versus 0.15 ± 0.53; p < 0.0001), more all-cause emergency room visits (mean ± S.D., 0.31 ± 0.66 versus 0.05 ± 0.31; p < 0.0001), and greater total costs (mean ± S.D., $28,353 ± $39,624 versus $17,712 ± $33,461; p < 0.0001). Relative to initial VTE admissions, admissions for recurrent VTE were, on average, associated with a 14% longer LOS (p = 0.0002) and a 22% higher total cost (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with recurrent VTE used more hospital resources than those without recurrent VTE. Readmissions for VTE were significantly longer and more costly than index encounters.

Factors associated with medication adherence and persistence of treatment for hypertension in a Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence with antihypertensive therapy is a significant problem. Prior research has generally focused upon one drug or one drug class. Current information across multiple antihypertensive drug classes is limited. OBJECTIVES: To describe the initial treatment of recipients of Louisiana Medicaid with newly-diagnosed hypertension; evaluate differences in adherence and persistence rates among multiple antihypertensive drug classes; and test the association of drug classes, race, gender, age and comorbidity with adherence and persistence to drug therapy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data, initial therapy was described by type and drug class for 4544 Medicaid recipients with newly-diagnosed hypertension. Recipients were placed into cohorts based upon drug classes (diuretics, beta-blockers, angiotensin-II receptor blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers). Persistence with drug therapy and Medication Possession Ratios (MPR) were calculated for 6-month and 12-month periods following diagnosis. Drug class and demographic variables were used as predictor variables in logistic regression analyses of persistence and MPR. RESULTS: Recipients in the study group were primarily female (66%) and Black (65%). Recipients initially were treated with monotherapy (33%), multiple drugs (11%), fixed combinations (8%) or no drugs (48%). After one year, 62% of recipients were not receiving drug therapy. Persistence rates by cohort ranged from 26% to 42% at 6-months following diagnosis, and 14%-28% at 12-months. The proportion of recipients by cohort with MPRs of 0.8 or above ranged from 43% to 60% at 6-months and 25%-42% at 12-months. Race, comorbidities, and initial drug therapy were significant predictors of both persistence and MPR. CONCLUSIONS: Within this study group, adherence and persistence to medication therapy were less than optimal. Future efforts to improve compliance with medication therapy could be focused upon specific groups having poor adherence and/or persistence within the drug class cohorts analyzed in this study.

Remember the MaineRx.

In 2000, Maine became the first state in the US to enact a law to establish maximum retail prices for prescription drugs for all qualified state residents-MaineRx. The purpose was to lower prescription drug prices for all eligible residents of the state. The state was to have the ability to negotiate manufacturer rebates and pharmacy discounts. Major drug manufacturers, represented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, challenged MaineRx in the courts, going to the Supreme Court where it was upheld in 2003. Fifteen other states enacted, proposed, or filed price-control bills in their state legislatures. The result would have been downward pressure on prices outside of the public programs, and the first instance of state-sponsored monopsony power in the US. MaineRx is viewed as one of the proximate causes of the pharmaceutical industry's successful lobbying effort to implement Medicare Part D in 2004. Medicare Part D is administered through private Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs); it made administration via state government PBMs illegal. The lower prices that could have resulted from MaineRx-type laws did not occur and the magnitude of these reductions is commented upon.