Financial hardship is associated with lower uptake of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings.

PURPOSE: Cancer screening uptake differs between groups in ways that cannot be explained by socioeconomic status alone. This study examined associations between material, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects of financial hardship and cancer screening behaviors. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 7,979 people ages 18-75 who were seen in the statewide health system in Indiana. Participants reported SES, feelings about finances, and whether they had to forgo medical care due to cost. This was compared to uptake of mammogram, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and Pap testing in best-fit multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for demographic and healthcare characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 970 surveys were returned; the majority of respondents were female (54%), non-Hispanic White (75%), and over 50 years old (76%). 15% reported forgoing medical care due to cost; this barrier was higher among Black than White participants (24% vs. 13%; p = 0.001). In a best fit regression model for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, those who reported they had to forgo medical care due to cost had lower odds of screening (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.74). Forgoing medical care due to cost was not significantly associated with Pap testing in bivariate analyses. For mammogram, forgoing medical care due to cost was significant in bivariate analyses (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22-0.88), but was not significant in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Associations between financial hardship and cancer screening suggest the need to reduce barriers to cancer screening even among patients who have access to healthcare. Future research should explore barriers related to both healthcare and personal costs.

Too Many Don'ts and Not Enough Do's? A Survey of Hospitals About Their Portal Instructions for Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information. DESIGN: A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals. KEY RESULTS: Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.

Rural and Urban Differences in the Adoption of New Health Information and Medical Technologies.

BACKGROUND: This statewide survey sought to understand the adoption level of new health information and medical technologies, and whether these patterns differed between urban and rural populations. METHODS: A random sample of 7,979 people aged 18-75 years, stratified by rural status and race, who lived in 1 of 34 Indiana counties with high cancer mortality rates and were seen at least once in the past year in a statewide health system were surveyed. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 970 participants. Rural patients were less likely than urban to use electronic health record messaging systems (28.3% vs 34.5%, P = .045) or any communication technology (43.0% vs 50.8%, P = .017). Rural patients were less likely to look for personal health information for someone else's medical record (11.0% vs 16.3%, P = .022), look-up test results (29.5% vs 38.3%, P = .005), or use any form of electronic medical record (EMR) access (57.5% vs 67.1%, P = .003). Rural differences in any use of communication technology or EMRs were no longer significant in adjusted models, while education and income were significantly associated. There was a trend in the higher use of low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan among rural patients (19.1% vs 14.4%, P = .057). No significant difference was present between rural and urban patients in the use of the human papilloma virus test (27.1% vs 26.6%, P = .880). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in health information technology use between rural and urban populations may be moderated by social determinants. Lower adoption of new health information technologies (HITs) than medical technologies among rural, compared to urban, individuals may be due to lower levels of evidence supporting HITs.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Cancer-Related Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behaviors in Indiana.

BACKGROUND: This statewide survey examined differences in cancer-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors between racial and socioeconomic groups in select counties in Indiana. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 7,979 people aged 18-75 who lived in one of 34 Indiana counties with higher cancer mortality rates than the state average, and were seen at least once in the past year in a statewide health system were mailed surveys. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 970 participants, yielding a 12% response rate. Black respondents were less likely to perceive they were at risk for cancer and less worried about getting cancer. Individuals most likely to perceive that they were unlikely to get cancer were more often black, with low incomes (less than $20,000) or high incomes ($50,000 or more), or less than a high school degree. Black women were greater than six times more likely to be adherent to cervical cancer screening. Higher income was associated with receiving a sigmoidoscopy in the last 5 years and a lung scan in the past year. Those with the highest incomes were more likely to engage in physical activity. Both income and education were inversely related to smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic and racial disparities were observed in health behaviors and receipt of cancer screening. Black individuals had less worry about cancer. IMPACT: Understanding populations for whom cancer disparities exist and geographic areas where the cancer burden is disproportionately high is essential to decision-making about research priorities and the use of public health resources.

Untangling the relationship between medication adherence and post-myocardial infarction outcomes: medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients who adhere to medications experience better outcomes than their nonadherent counterparts. However, these observations may be confounded by patient behaviors. The level of adherence necessary for patients to derive benefit and whether adherence to all agents is important for diseases that require multiple drugs remain unclear. This study quantifies the relationship between medication adherence and post-myocardial infarction (MI) adverse coronary events. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized MI FREEE trial. Patients who received full prescription coverage were classified as adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) or not based upon achieved adherence in the 6 months after randomization. First major vascular event or revascularization rates were compared using multivariable Cox models adjusting for comorbidity and health-seeking behavior. RESULTS: Compared with patients randomized to usual care, full coverage patients adherent to statin, ß-blocker, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker were significantly less likely to experience the study's primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] range 0.64-0.81). In contrast, nonadherent patients derived no benefit (HR range 0.98-1.04, P ≤ .01 for the difference in HRs between adherent and nonadherent patients). Partially adherent patients had no reduction in clinical outcomes for any of the drugs evaluated, although their achieved adherence was higher than that among controls. CONCLUSION: Achieving high levels of adherence to each and all guideline-recommended post-MI secondary prevention medication is associated with improved event-free survival. Lower levels of adherence appear less protective.

Value-based insurance design: quality improvement but no cost savings.

Value-based insurance design (VBID) is an approach that attempts to improve the quality of care by selectively encouraging or discouraging the use of specific health care services, based on their potential benefit to patients' health, relative to their cost. Lowering beneficiary cost sharing or out-of-pocket spending to increase medication adherence is one common element of value-based insurance design. We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to evaluate the evidence of the effects of VBID policies on medication adherence and medical expenditures. We identified thirteen studies assessing the effects of VBID programs and found that the programs were consistently associated with improved adherence (average change of 3.0 percent over one year), as well as with lower out-of-pocket spending for drugs. In the studies we reviewed, providing more generous coverage did not lead to significant changes in overall medical spending for patients and insurers. Further research is needed to understand how best to structure VBID programs to both improve quality and reduce spending.

The impact of reducing cardiovascular medication copayments on health spending and resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of reductions in statin and clopidogrel copayments on cardiovascular resource utilization, major coronary events, and insurer spending. BACKGROUND: Copayments are widely used to contain health spending but cause patients to reduce their use of essential cardiovascular medications. Reducing copayments for post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention has beneficial effects, but the impact of this strategy for lower risk patients and other drugs remains unclear. METHODS: An evaluation was conducted of health care spending and resource use by a large self-insured employer that reduced statin copayments for patients with diabetes or vascular disease and reduced clopidogrel copayments for all patients prescribed this drug. Eligible individuals in the intervention company (n = 3,513) were compared with a control group from other companies without such a policy (n = 49,803). Analyses were performed using segmented regression models with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Lowering copayments was associated with significant reductions in rates of physician visits (relative change: statin users 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.98; clopidogrel users: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.96) and hospitalizations and emergency department admissions (relative change: statin users 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.92; clopidogrel users: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90) although not major coronary events. Patient out-of-pocket spending for drugs and other medical services decreased (relative change: statin users 0.79; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.83; clopidogrel users 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.82). Providing more generous coverage did not increase overall spending (relative change: statin users 1.03; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.09; clopidogrel users 0.94; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Lowering copayments for statins and clopidogrel was associated with reductions in health care resource use and patient out-of-pocket spending. The policy appeared cost neutral with respect to overall health spending.

Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medications that are prescribed after myocardial infarction is poor. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs may increase adherence and improve outcomes. METHODS: We enrolled patients discharged after myocardial infarction and randomly assigned their insurance-plan sponsors to full prescription coverage (1494 plan sponsors with 2845 patients) or usual prescription coverage (1486 plan sponsors with 3010 patients) for all statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin-receptor blockers. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event or revascularization. Secondary outcomes were rates of medication adherence, total major vascular events or revascularization, the first major vascular event, and health expenditures. RESULTS: Rates of adherence ranged from 35.9 to 49.0% in the usual-coverage group and were 4 to 6 percentage points higher in the full-coverage group (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome (17.6 per 100 person-years in the full-coverage group vs. 18.8 in the usual-coverage group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.04; P=0.21). The rates of total major vascular events or revascularization were significantly reduced in the full-coverage group (21.5 vs. 23.3; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99; P=0.03), as was the rate of the first major vascular event (11.0 vs. 12.8; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.03). The elimination of copayments did not increase total spending ($66,008 for the full-coverage group and $71,778 for the usual-coverage group; relative spending, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P=0.68). Patient costs were reduced for drugs and other services (relative spending, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.80; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarction did not significantly reduce rates of the trial's primary outcome. Enhanced prescription coverage improved medication adherence and rates of first major vascular events and decreased patient spending without increasing overall health costs. (Funded by Aetna and the Commonwealth Fund; MI FREEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00566774.).

A systematic review of adherence to cardiovascular medications in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Medications are a cornerstone of the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. Long-term medication adherence has been the subject of increasing attention in the developed world but has received little attention in resource-limited settings, where the burden of disease is particularly high and growing rapidly. To evaluate prevalence and predictors of non-adherence to cardiovascular medications in this context, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of Ovid Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1966 to August 2010 for studies that measured adherence to cardiovascular medications in the developing world. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects method was used to pool the adherence estimates across studies. Between-study heterogeneity was estimated with an I(2) statistic and studies were stratified by disease group and the method by which adherence was assessed. Predictors of non-adherence were also examined. FINDINGS: Our search identified 2,353 abstracts, of which 76 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall adherence was 57.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 52.3% to 62.7%; I(2) 0.98) and was consistent across study subgroups. Studies that assessed adherence with pill counts reported higher levels of adherence (62.1%, 95% CI 49.7% to 73.8%; I(2) 0.83) than those using self-report (54.6%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.5%; I(2) 0.93). Adherence did not vary by geographic region, urban vs. rural settings, or the complexity of a patient's medication regimen. The most common predictors of poor adherence included poor knowledge, negative perceptions about medication, side effects and high medication costs. INTERPRETATION: Our study indicates that adherence to cardiovascular medication in resource-limited countries is sub-optimal and appears very similar to that observed in resource-rich countries. Efforts to improve adherence in resource-limited settings should be a priority given the burden of heart disease in this context, the central role of medications in their management, and the clinical and economic consequences of non-adherence.

Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The automatic substitution of bioequivalent generics for brand-name antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been linked by anecdotal reports to loss of seizure control. To evaluate studies comparing brand-name and generic AEDs, and determine whether evidence exists of superiority of the brand-name version in maintaining seizure control. English-language human studies identified in searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1984 to 2009). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing seizure events or seizure-related outcomes between one brand-name AED and at least one alternative version produced by a distinct manufacturer. We identified 16 articles (9 RCTs, 1 prospective nonrandomized trial, 6 observational studies). We assessed characteristics of the studies and, for RCTs, extracted counts for patients whose seizures were characterized as 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled'. Seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The aggregate odds ratio (n = 204) was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9, 1.2), indicating no difference in the odds of uncontrolled seizure for patients on generic medications compared with patients on brand-name medications. In contrast, the observational studies identified trends in drug or health services utilization that the authors attributed to changes in seizure control. Although most RCTs were short-term evaluations, the available evidence does not suggest an association between loss of seizure control and generic substitution of at least three types of AEDs. The observational study data may be explained by factors such as undue concern from patients or physicians about the effectiveness of generic AEDs after a recent switch. In the absence of better data, physicians may want to consider more intensive monitoring of high-risk patients taking AEDs when any switch occurs.

Measuring concurrent adherence to multiple related medications.

OBJECTIVES: To propose standardized methods for measuring concurrent adherence to multiple related medications and to apply these definitions to a cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 7567 subjects with diabetes prescribed 2 or more classes of oral hypoglycemic agents in 2005. METHODS: For each medication class, adherence for each patient was estimated using prescription-based and interval-based measures of proportion of days covered (PDC) from cohort entry until December 31, 2006. Concurrent adherence was calculated by applying these 2 measures in the following 3 ways: (1) the mean of each patient's average PDC, (2) the proportion of days during which patients had at least 1 of their medications available to them, and (3) the proportion of patients with a PDC of at least 80% for all medication classes. Because patients taking multiple related medications have distinct patterns of use, the analysis was repeated after classifying patients into mutually exclusive groups. RESULTS: Concurrent medication adherence ranged from 35% to 95% depending on the definition applied. Interval-based measures provide lower estimates than prescription-based techniques. Definitions that require the use of at least 1 drug class categorize virtually all patients as adherent. Requiring patients to have a PDC of at least 80% for each of their drugs results in only 30% to 40% of patients being defined as adherent. The variability in adherence is greatest for patients whose treatment regimen changed the most during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in adherence estimates derived from different definitions may substantially impact qualitative conclusions about concurrent adherence to related medications. Because the measures we propose have different underlying assumptions, the choice of technique should depend on why adherence is being evaluated.

Drug company-sponsored patient assistance programs: a viable safety net?

Drug company-sponsored patient assistance programs (PAPs) provide access to brand-name medications at little or no cost and have been advocated as a safety net for inadequately insured patients. Yet little is known about these programs. We surveyed drug company-sponsored PAPs and found much variability in their structures and application processes. Most cover one or two drugs. Only 4 percent disclosed how many patients they had directly helped, and half would not disclose their income eligibility criteria. A better understanding of PAPs might clarify their role in improving access to medications, the adequacy of existing public programs, and their impact on cost-effective medication use.