Policy Change for Deep Vein Thrombosis: Effects on Length of Stay and Hospitalization Costs of Moving From Warfarin to Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

PURPOSE: Renown Health (Reno, Nevada), a large, locally owned, not-for-profit integrated health care network, has developed an institution-wide policy to shift the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from a short-acting anticoagulant and vitamin K antagonist to the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban combined with pharmacy-directed follow-up at an outpatient anticoagulation clinic. We examined data on hospitalizations and costs pre-/post-policy change. METHODS: Data were obtained from the electronic health records of adults with newly diagnosed DVT treated at Renown Health. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate patients who received a DVT diagnosis before versus after the policy change. Primary outcomes were number of all-cause inpatient nights at 30 and 60 days post-DVT index date. Secondary outcomes were costs of all-cause overnight stays at 30 and 60 days post-DVT index. Outcomes were evaluated in propensity-weighted logistic regression and generalized linear models. FINDINGS: There were 343 patients pre-policy change and 266 post-policy change. In the first 30 days postindex, the mean (95% CI) numbers of propensity-weighted all-cause inpatient nights were 1.27 (0.83-1.95) prechange and 0.66 (0.42-1.02) postchange (P = 0.038). Mean propensity-weighted estimated all-cause hospital costs in patients diagnosed as outpatients were $7848 ($4990-$12,344) prechange and $2466 ($1553-$3915) postchange (P <0.001). Mean costs of all-cause overnight stays in inpatient-diagnosed DVT patients were $8907 prechange and $7449 postchange (P = 0.600). In the first 60 days postindex, the mean number of all-cause inpatient nights (P = 0.219) and mean costs of all-cause overnight stays (P = 0.275) were not significantly different before and after the policy change. IMPLICATIONS: Changing institutional policy to increase the utilization of a direct oral anticoagulant and pharmacist-led outpatient anticoagulation clinics may reduce length of hospital stay and decrease health care expenditures in the treatment of DVT.

Healthcare costs for Crohn's disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVE: The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn's disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006-2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI = [$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI = [$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p = 0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI = [$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI = [$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.

Complexity of pain management among patients with nociceptive or neuropathic neck, back, or osteoarthritis diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Approaches to pain management are diverse, requiring prescribers to evaluate an array of clinical issues and potential solutions. In addition to the difficult task of selecting a treatment option, pain treatment may be further complicated by multiple prescribers, multiple medications, and multiple mechanisms of pain origination. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient demographics (e.g., age, gender); comorbidities; office visits (e.g., physician, chiropractor, physical therapy, psychiatry, allergist); number of different prescribers overall prescription use; pain medications as classified by the World Health Organization's (WHO) pain ladder; adjuvant medications; nonpharmacologic procedures; and potential drug interactions in a broad sample of patients with nociceptive or neuropathic neck or back diagnoses, or osteoarthritis diagnoses, in a commercial population. METHODS: This claims-data analysis used a cross-sectional cohort comparison with a fixed 2-year observation period from September 1, 2006, to August 31, 2008, for patients in the PharMetrics national managed care database. The assigned cohorts were neuropathic-related neck/back diagnoses (NEURO); neuropathic and nociceptive neck/back diagnoses (NEURO/NOCI); nociceptive neck/back diagnoses without a neuropathic-related diagnosis (NOCI); and only osteoarthritis (OA) diagnoses. All analyses were conducted by cohort. The analysis included the following patient-descriptive variables: patient demographics, comorbidities, office visits, most frequent medical providers and number of different prescribers, all medications, pain medications as classified by the WHO pain ladder, adjuvant medications, adjuvant procedures and potential drug interactions. The goal for selecting these variables was to describe a range of data that might provide insight into the complexity of pain management decisions faced by clinicians. RESULTS: The study included 85,014 patients, classified as NEURO (n = 2,375), NEURO/NOCI (n = 37,019), NOCI (n = 39,496), and OA (n = 6,124). The most frequently occurring comorbidities (observed in > 40% of patients) included cardiovascular and neuropathic pain conditions. Considering all types of medication claims observed among all cohorts, the overall mean prescription claim count for the 2-year observation period was 57.9 claims (standard deviation 56.2). Weak opioids (WHO pain relief ladder rung 2) accounted for the majority of pain medication claims across all cohorts. Across cohorts, 25.7% of patients had 10 or more days of overlapping drug availability (for inducers or inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 system concomitantly), a measure of potential for drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing the appropriate pain treatment involves assessing currently used medications for existing illnesses and deciding on the appropriate types of pain medications. However, potentially serious drug-drug interactions are a consequence of multiple drug use, and such a potential requires thoughtful consideration by those involved in patient care.

Adherence patterns for abiraterone acetate and concomitant prednisone use in patients with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the growing use of oral anticancer medications, understanding adherence patterns has become increasingly important. Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a prodrug of abiraterone, a novel androgen biosynthesis inhibitor. AA is approved for use in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AA and concomitant prednisone utilization and adherence patterns for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. METHODS: This study used data from 2 administrative health care claims databases--Dataset 1: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (December 2010 to August 2012) and Dataset 2: Symphony Health Solutions' ProMetis Lx (June 2009 to March 2013). To evaluate the consistency of medication-taking behavior, adherence was measured using medication possession ratio (MPR), which was calculated as the sum of days of supply divided by the days on therapy in patients with at least 2 AA prescriptions. Additional outcomes included the proportion of patients taking prednisone, mean and median daily dose of AA, and concomitant prednisone use. Adherence was also studied by age, health care plan type, or previous recent chemotherapy subgroups. RESULTS: 515 patients (mean age: 72.2) and 3,228 patients (mean age: 72.2) with at least 1 AA claim were selected from Dataset 1 and Dataset 2, respectively. The mean (median) daily AA dose per person per prescription was 998.8 (1,000) mg for Dataset 1 and 994.2 (1,000) mg for Dataset 2, which is within 1% of the recommended daily dose (1,000 mg). Mean (median) MPR was 93% (98%; n = 492) in Study Population 1 and 93% (100%; n = 2,449) in Study Population 2. The mean (median) daily prednisone dose per person per prescription was similar in both datasets with 10.1 (10.0; n = 488) mg and 10.6 (10.0; n = 2,425) mg in Dataset 1 and 2, respectively. Similar adherence patterns were observed for patients in different age groups, for patients with commercial health care plans versus patients with Medicare coverage, and for patients with recent chemotherapy compared with patients without. CONCLUSIONS: Results from 2 observational studies reported high levels of adherence to AA dosing and administration patterns consistent with prescribing information. These findings provide useful insights into the treatment patterns in patients with prostate cancer treated with AA and can contribute to the current discussion in oncologic research and practice.

Inflammatory bowel disease: healthcare costs for patients who are adherent or non-adherent with infliximab therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare costs of inflammatory bowel disease are substantial. This study examined the effect of adherence versus non-adherence on healthcare costs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Adults who started infliximab treatment between 2006 and 2009 and had a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease were identified from MarketScan Databases. Medication adherence was defined as an infliximab medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year. Mean treatment effects (adherence versus non-adherence) on costs in adherent patients were estimated with propensity-weighted generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 1646 patients were identified. Significant variables in the model used to develop propensity weights were age, year of infliximab initiation, having Medicare coverage, presence of supplementary diagnoses, office as the place of service for infliximab initiation, prior aminosalicylate use, prior outpatient costs, number of prior outpatient visits, and number of prior colonoscopies. Mean total costs in adherent (n = 674) and propensity-weighted non-adherent (n = 972) patients were $41,713 versus $47,411 overall (p < 0.001), including $28,289 versus $14,889 for infliximab drug costs (p < 0.001), $2458 versus $17,634 for hospitalizations (p < 0.001), $7357 versus $10,909 for outpatient visits (p < 0.001), $236 versus $458 for emergency room visits (p < 0.001), and $3373 versus $3521 for other pharmaceuticals costs (p = 0.460). LIMITATIONS: Costs associated with infliximab administration (infusions, adverse events) were captured in healthcare costs (inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room), not in infliximab costs. The influence of adherence on indirect costs (e.g., time lost from work) could not be determined. Reasons for non-adherence were not available in the database. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who were adherent to infliximab treatment (a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year), adherence versus non-adherence was associated with lower total healthcare costs, supporting the overall value of infliximab adherence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Cost and utilization of healthcare services for hip and knee replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Describe resource utilization and costs for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) for the 90 days before hospitalization for surgery, the hospital event, and the 90 and 360 days after hospitalization for surgery with emphasis on 90 days after hospitalization. METHODS: A large insurance database was used to identify outpatient and summarized hospital resource use and payments (insurer perspective) for THR and TKR. A second large US database provided hospital details (charge description master level) of inpatient services, costs, and charges (hospital perspective) for a different sample of THR and TKR patients. Included patients were ≥45 years old, had no hospitalization record within 1 year before surgery, and THR length of stay (LOS) of 2-8 days or TKR LOS 2-6 days. RESULTS: There were 22 618 THR and 50 686 TKR patients in the insurance database and 81 635 THR and 158 990 TKR in the hospital database. Average age was ∼66 years for THR and TKR patients. Median LOS was 4 days (both surgeries). Hospital costs (hospital perspective) were $17 588 in US dollars (USD) and $16 267 (USD) for THR and TKR, respectively. Reimbursement for hospital services (insurer perspective) were $22 967 (USD) and $21 583 (USD) for THR and TKR, respectively. In 90 days post-surgery, THR and TKR total payments were $3827 (USD) and $4237 (USD), respectively. Payments for the first 90 days post-surgery were 57.5% of the 360-day post-period for THR-related payments and 59.9% for TKR-related payments. CONCLUSION: Payers considering use of episode-of-care payment models for THR and TKR may wish to concentrate efforts on the 90 days post-discharge. LIMITATIONS: While this study used large samples of subjects, generalisability of the results may be limited since the samples were not randomized samples of THR and TKR patients. It is noteworthy that patients in the hospital sample are not the same as those in the insurer sample. Selection of hip-related and knee-related procedures and associated costs was based on qualitative review. Payers may use different billing codes or aggregate costs differently.

Comparison of resource use by COPD patients on inhaled therapies with long-acting bronchodilators: a database study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to compare health care costs and utilization among COPD patients who had long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) OR long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA); LABA AND LAMA; or LABA, LAMA, AND inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescription claims. METHODS: This was a 12 month pre-post, retrospective analysis using COPD patients in a national administrative insurance database. Propensity score and exact matching were used to match patients 1:1:1 between the LABA or LAMA (formoterol, salmeterol, or tiotropium), LABA and LAMA (tiotropium/formoterol or tiotropium/salmeterol), and LABA, LAMA and ICS (bronchodilators plus steroid) groups. Post-period comparisons were evaluated with analysis of covariance. Costs were evaluated from a commercial payer perspective. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were matched using 29 pre-period variables (e.g., demographics, medication exposure). Post-match assessments indicated balance among the cohorts. COPD-related costs differed among groups (LABA or LAMA $2,051 SE = 91; LABA and LAMA $2,823 SE = 62; LABA, LAMA and ICS $3,546 SE = 89; all p < .0001) with the differences driven by study medication costs. However, non-study COPD medication costs were higher for the LABA or LAMA therapy group ($911 SE = 91) compared to the LABA and LAMA therapy group ($668 SE = 58; p = 0.0238) and non-study respiratory medications were approximately $100 greater for the LABA or LAMA therapy group relative to both LABA and LAMA (p = .0018) and LABA, LAMA, and ICS (p = .0071) therapy groups. While there was no observed difference in outpatient costs, there was a slightly higher number of outpatient visits per patient in the LABA and LAMA (25.5 SE = 0.9, p = 0.0070) relative to the LABA or LAMA therapy group (22.3 SE = 0.8) and higher utilization (89.7% of patients) with COPD visits in the LABA and LAMA therapy group relative to both the LABA or LAMA (73.8%; p < .0001) and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapy groups (85.3; p = 0.0305). CONCLUSIONS: Significant cost differences driven mainly by pharmaceuticals were observed among LABA or LAMA, LABA and LAMA and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapies. A COPD-related cost offset was observed from single bronchodilator to two bronchodilators. Addition of an ICS with two bronchodilators resulted in higher treatment costs without reduction in other COPD-related costs compared with two bronchodilators.