Endocarditis, invasive dental procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy in US Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cohort and case-crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. RESULTS: The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40-52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62-119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, p < 0.0001). Case-crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65-5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18-21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high-risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Against Infective Endocarditis Before Invasive Dental Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) is recommended to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in those at high IE risk, but there are sparse data supporting a link between IDPs and IE or AP efficacy in IE prevention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate any association between IDPs and IE, and the effectiveness of AP in reducing this. METHODS: We performed a case-crossover analysis and cohort study of the association between IDPs and IE, and AP efficacy, in 7,951,972 U.S. subjects with employer-provided Commercial/Medicare-Supplemental coverage. RESULTS: Time course studies showed that IE was most likely to occur within 4 weeks of an IDP. For those at high IE risk, case-crossover analysis demonstrated a significant temporal association between IE and IDPs in the preceding 4 weeks (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.59-2.52; P = 0.002). This relationship was strongest for dental extractions (OR: 11.08; 95% CI: 7.34-16.74; P < 0.0001) and oral-surgical procedures (OR: 50.77; 95% CI: 20.79-123.98; P < 0.0001). AP was associated with a significant reduction in IE incidence following IDP (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85; P = 0.01). The cohort study confirmed the associations between IE and extractions or oral surgical procedures in those at high IE risk and the effect of AP in reducing these associations (extractions: OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.34; P < 0.0001; oral surgical procedures: OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant temporal association between IDPs (particularly extractions and oral-surgical procedures) and subsequent IE in high-IE-risk individuals, and a significant association between AP use and reduced IE incidence following these procedures. These data support the American Heart Association, and other, recommendations that those at high IE risk should receive AP before IDP.

Two-Year Costs and Quality in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The 4-year, multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative was started in October 2012 to determine whether several forms of support would produce changes in care delivery that would improve the quality and reduce the costs of care at 497 primary care practices in seven regions across the United States. Support included the provision of care-management fees, the opportunity to earn shared savings, and the provision of data feedback and learning support. METHODS: We tracked changes in the delivery of care by practices participating in the initiative and used difference-in-differences regressions to compare changes over the first 2 years of the initiative in Medicare expenditures, health care utilization, claims-based measures of quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices and a group of matched comparison practices. RESULTS: During the first 2 years, initiative practices received a median of $115,000 per clinician in care-management fees. The practices reported improvements in approaches to the delivery of primary care in areas such as management of the care of high-risk patients and enhanced access to care. Changes in average monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary did not differ significantly between initiative and comparison practices when care-management fees were not taken into account (-$11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$23 to $1; P=0.07; negative values indicate less growth in spending at initiative practices) or when these fees were taken into account ($7; 95% CI, -$5 to $19; P=0.27). The only significant differences in other measures were a 3% reduction in primary care visits for initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P<0.001) and changes in two of the six domains of patient experience--discussion of decisions regarding medication with patients and the provision of support for patients taking care of their own health--both of which showed a small improvement in initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P=0.006 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Midway through this 4-year intervention, practices participating in the initiative have reported progress in transforming the delivery of primary care. However, at this point these practices have not yet shown savings in expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B after accounting for care-management fees, nor have they shown an appreciable improvement in the quality of care or patient experience. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.).

The effects of mental health parity on spending and utilization for bipolar, major depression, and adjustment disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act requires insurance parity for mental health/substance use disorder and general medical services. Previous research found that parity did not increase mental health/substance use disorder spending and lowered out-of-pocket spending. Whether parity's effects differ by diagnosis is unknown. The authors examined this question in the context of parity implementation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. METHOD: The authors compared mental health/substance use disorder treatment use and spending before and after parity (2000 and 2002, respectively) for two groups: FEHB enrollees diagnosed in 1999 with bipolar disorder, major depression, or adjustment disorder (N=19,094) and privately insured enrollees unaffected by the policy in a comparison national sample (N=10,521). Separate models were fitted for each diagnostic group. A difference-in-difference design was used to control for secular time trends and to better reflect the specific impact of parity on spending and utilization. RESULTS: Total spending was unchanged among enrollees with bipolar disorder and major depression but decreased for those with adjustment disorder (-$62, 99.2% CI=-$133, -$11). Out-of-pocket spending decreased for all three groups (bipolar disorder: -$148, 99.2% CI=-$217, -$85; major depression: -$100, 99.2% CI=-$123, -$77; adjustment disorder: -$68, 99.2% CI=-$84, -$54). Total annual utilization (e.g., medication management visits, psychotropic prescriptions, and mental health/substance use disorder hospitalization bed days) remained unchanged across all diagnoses. Annual psychotherapy visits decreased significantly only for individuals with adjustment disorders (-12%, 99.2% CI=-19%, -4%). CONCLUSIONS: Parity implemented under managed care improved financial protection and differentially affected spending and psychotherapy utilization across groups. There was some evidence that resources were preferentially preserved for diagnoses that are typically more severe or chronic and reduced for diagnoses expected to be less so.