Pharmacy and neighborhood-level variation in cash price of diabetes medications in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes medications place significant financial burden on patients but less is known about factors affecting cost variation. OBJECTIVE: To examine pharmacy and neighborhood factors associated with cost variation for diabetes drugs in the US. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS AND MEASURES: We used all-payer US pharmacy data from 45,874 chain and independent pharmacies reflecting 7,073,909 deidentified claims. We divided diabetes drugs into insulins, non-insulin generic medications, and brand name medications. Generalized linear models, stratified by pharmacy type, identified pharmacy and neighborhood factors associated with higher or lower cash price-per-unit (PPU) for each set of drugs. RESULTS: Cash PPU was highest for brand name therapies ($149.4±203.2), followed by insulins ($42.4±25.0), and generic therapies ($1.3±4.4). Pharmacy-level price variation was greater for non-insulin generic therapies than insulins or brand name therapies. Chain pharmacies had both lower prices and lesser variation compared with independent pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Cash prices for diabetes medications in the US can vary considerably and that the greatest degree of price variation occurs in non-insulin generic therapies.

Assessment of variation in 30-day mortality following cancer surgeries among older adults across US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: While public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded. This is true despite numerous studies showing outcomes to differ between hospitals based on their characteristics. Our objective was to assess whether three prerequisites for quality assessment and reporting are present for 30-day mortality after cancer surgery: low burden for timely reporting, hospital variation, and potential for public health gains. STUDY DESIGN: We used Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare claims to examine the extent of variation in 30-day cancer surgical mortality between 3860 US hospitals. We included 340 489 surgeries for 12 cancer types for FFS Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years, 2011-2013. Hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics and with a random hospital effect were fit to obtain hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated a hospital odds ratio to describe the difference in mortality risk for a hospital above vs below average quality and estimated the potential mortality reduction. RESULTS: The median number of cancer surgeries per hospital was 34. The median RSMR overall was 2.41% (99% CI 2.28%, 2.66%). In aggregate and for most cancers, variation between hospitals exceeded that due to differences in patient and hospital characteristics. For individual cancers, relative differences exceeded 20% in mortality risk between patients undergoing surgery at a hospital below vs above average quality, with the potential for an estimated 500 deaths prevented annually given hypothetical improvements. CONCLUSION: Quality measurement and reporting of 30-day mortality for cancer surgery is worthy of consideration.

Assessing whether cancer stage is needed to evaluate measures of hospital surgical performance.

RATIONAL, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: While public reports of hospital-level surgical quality measures are becoming increasingly common in health care, a comprehensive national assessment of surgical quality across multiple cancer sites has yet to be developed. Fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims present a potential resource from which to measure outcomes following cancer surgery given the national scope of patients and providers. However, due to the administrative nature of the data, clinical cancer information such as stage is not recorded. Leveraging the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked to FFS Medicare claims to analyse outcomes for patients whom we ultimately know stage information, we determined whether Medicare claims are suitable for measuring provider quality following cancer surgery by assessing the extent to which the lack of stage information modifies assessments of provider performance. METHODS: We identified patients aged 66 and older undergoing cancer surgery between 2011 and 2013 from SEER-Medicare. We compared the changes in the risk-standardized rates (RSRs), decile rankings, and c-statistics with and without risk adjustment for cancer stage for three measures of hospital performance: 30-day mortality, surgical complications, and unplanned readmissions. RESULTS: The RSR changed by at most 11.4% for mortality and by less than 4% for complications and readmissions, indicating that measures of hospital performance were stable with and without adjustment for stage. The relative performance of hospitals was also stable, as demonstrated by fewer than 20% of hospitals changing decile rank. The c-statistic declined by less than 2% across all measures, indicating that model fit was not substantially worsened without this information. CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of FFS Medicare claims for hospital-level analyses of short-term outcomes following cancer surgery. Quality reporting based on these analyses can be used to help patients choose among hospitals and for evaluating policies to improve surgical cancer care.

Identifying Cancer-Directed Surgeries in Medicare Claims: A Validation Study Using SEER-Medicare Data.

PURPOSE: Medicare claims provide a rich data source for large-scale quality assessment because data are available for all beneficiaries nationally. For cancer surgery, the absence of information regarding site of cancer and date of diagnosis on an administrative claim necessitates testing to ensure accurate quality assessment and public reporting. METHODS: Using the SEER Medicare-linked database as the gold standard, we developed and tested an approach to identify cancer-directed surgeries from Medicare fee-for-service claims alone. Our analysis evaluated two questions: (1) Can we identify a large percentage of patients who underwent a cancer-directed surgery using only Medicare claims? (2) Of all patients identified as having undergone a cancer-directed surgery, what percentage had cancer? We evaluated this approach for 17 primary cancer sites. RESULTS: The number of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with their first cancer during the years 2011 to 2013 and who underwent cancer-directed surgery ranged from 45 patients (bones and joints) to 20,163 patients (breast). The percentage of cancer-directed surgeries identified using Medicare claims alone ranged from 62% (skin melanoma) to 94% (prostate). For all but three cancer sites (skin melanoma, thyroid, and urinary bladder), more than 80% of cancer-directed surgeries were identified using our approach. Of all surgeries identified, more than 90% were for patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: Identifying patients who underwent a cancer-directed surgery from Medicare claims is feasible for many cancer sites, although careful consideration needs to be given to the validity of each site. Our findings support the use of Medicare claims for large-scale quality assessment of cancer surgery by disease site.