Out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for adults with cardiovascular risk factors under Amazon's direct-to-consumer pharmacy service.

BACKGROUND: US adults often overpay for generic prescription medications, which can lead to medication nonadherence that negatively impacts cardiovascular outcomes. As a result, new direct-to-consumer online medication services are growing in popularity nationwide. Amazon recently launched a $5/month direct-to-consumer medication subscription service (Amazon RxPass), but it is unclear how many US adults could save on out-of-pocket drug costs by using this new service. OBJECTIVES: To estimate out-of-pocket savings on generic prescription medications achievable through Amazon's new direct-to-consumer subscription medication service for adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or conditions. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of adults 18-64 years in the 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Of the 25,280,517 (SE ± 934,809) adults aged 18-64 years with cardiovascular risk factors or conditions who were prescribed at least 1 medication available in the Amazon RxPass formulary, only 6.4% (1,624,587 [SE ± 68,571]) would achieve savings. Among those achieving savings, the estimated average out-of-pocket savings would be $140 (SE ± $15.8) per person per year, amounting to a total savings of $228,093,570 (SE ± $26,117,241). In multivariable regression models, lack of insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95%CI 1.9-6.5) and being prescribed a greater number of RxPass-eligible medications (2-3 medications versus 1 medication: OR 5.6, 95%CI 3.0-10.3; 4+ medications: OR 21.8, 95%CI 10.7-44.3) were each associated with a higher likelihood of achieving out-of-pocket savings from RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the pricing structure of Amazon's direct-to-consumer medication service are needed to expand out-of-pocket savings on generic medications to a larger segment of the working-age adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or diseases.

Bundled Payments for Care Improvement and Quality of Care and Outcomes in Heart Failure.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program was launched in 2013 with a goal to improve care quality while lowering costs to Medicare. Objective: To compare changes in the quality and outcomes of care for patients hospitalized with heart failure according to hospital participation in the BPCI program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-difference approach to evaluate the BPCI program in 18 BPCI hospitals vs 211 same-state non-BPCI hospitals for various process-of-care measures and outcomes using American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry and CMS Medicare claims data from November 1, 2008, to August 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Hospital participation in CMS BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure, which paid hospitals in a fee-for-service process and then shared savings or required reimbursement depending on how the total cost of an episode of care compared with a target price. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points included 7 quality-of-care measures. Secondary end points included 9 outcome measures, including in-hospital mortality and hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission rate and mortality rate. Results: During the study period, 8721 patients were hospitalized in the 23 BPCI hospitals and 94 530 patients were hospitalized in the 224 same-state non-BPCI hospitals. Less than a third of patients (30 723 patients, 29.8%) were 75 years or younger; 54 629 (52.9%) were female, and 48 622 (47.1%) were male. Hospital participation in BPCI Model 2 was not associated with significant differential changes in the odds of various process-of-care measures, except for a decreased odds of evidence-based ß-blocker at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P = .04). Participation in the BPCI was not associated with a significant differential change in the odds of receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge, receiving an aldosterone antagonist at discharge, having a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-defibrillator or CRT pacemaker placed or prescribed at discharge, having implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) counseling or an ICD placed or prescribed at discharge, heart failure education being provided among eligible patients, or having a follow-up visit within 7 days or less. Participation in the BPCI was associated with a significant decrease in odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86; P = .002). Participation was not associated with a significant differential change in hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day or 90-day all-cause readmission rate and 30-day or 90-day all-cause mortality rate. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study, hospital participation in the BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure program was not associated with improvement in process-of-care quality measures or 30-day or 90-day risk-adjusted all-cause mortality and readmission rates.

Healthcare Market-Level and Hospital-Level Disparities in Access to and Utilization of High-Quality Hip and Knee Replacement Hospitals Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine whether healthcare markets with higher social vulnerability have lower access to high-quality hip and knee replacement hospitals and whether hospitals that serve a higher percentage of low-income patients are less likely to be designated as high-quality. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services outcome measures and 2022 Joint Commission (JC) process-of-care measures to identify hospitals performing high-quality hip and knee replacement. A total of 2,682 hospitals and 304 healthcare markets were included. For the market-level analysis, we assessed the association of social vulnerability with the presence of a high-quality hip and knee replacement center. For the hospital-level analysis, we assessed the association of disproportionate share hospital (DSH) percentage with each high-quality designation. Healthcare markets were approximated by hospital referral regions. All associations were assessed with fractional regressions using generalized linear models with binomial family and logit links. RESULTS: We found that healthcare markets in the most vulnerable quartile were less likely to have a hip and knee replacement hospital that did better than the national average (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, P = 0.02) but not more or less likely to have a hospital certified as advanced by JC (OR 0.41, P = 0.16). We found that hip and knee replacement hospitals in the highest DSH quartile were less likely to be designated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as better than the national average (OR 0.18, P = 0.001) but not more or less likely to be certified as advanced by JC (OR 1.40, P = 0.28). DISCUSSION: Geographic distribution of high-quality hospitals may contribute to socioeconomic disparities in patients' access to and utilization of high-quality hip and knee replacement. Equal access to and utilization of hospitals with high-quality surgical processes does not necessarily indicate equitable access to and utilization of hospitals with high-quality outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Assessment of the COVID-19 vaccine market landscape in 2021 relative to challenges in low- and middle-income countries.

To evaluate the early vaccine landscape relative to challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials in 2021 (n = 123) using a structured 13-point analytic framework. Supply sustainability was defined as a composite metric of four manufacturing and regulation variables. Vaccine desirability was defined as a composite metric of nine development and distribution variables. Ten vaccines in phases 2/3, 3, or 4 and five vaccines in phases 1 and 1/2 had a sustainability score equal to or above 0.5. Ten vaccines in phases 2/3, 3, or 4 and seven vaccines in phases 1 and 1/2 had a desirability score equal to or above 0.5. No vaccines in Phases 2/3, 3, or 4 met more than one distribution criterion. Structured assessment COVID-19 vaccine candidates in clinical trials in 2021 revealed numerous challenges to adequate access in LMICs. Key policy recommendations included increasing technology transfer to LMICs, developing international legal mechanisms to prevent export bans, and increasing investment in vaccine candidates with more favorable distribution profiles.