Rapid Enrollment Growth In 'Look-Alike' Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans: A Threat To Integrated Care.

Policy makers are increasingly investing in efforts to better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services for people who are eligible for both programs, including expanding Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs). In recent years, however, a potential threat to integration has emerged in the form of D-SNP "look-alike" plans, which are conventional Medicare Advantage plans that are marketed toward and primarily enroll dual eligibles but are not subject to federal regulations requiring integrated Medicaid services. To date, limited evidence exists documenting national enrollment trends in look-alike plans or the characteristics of dual eligibles in these plans. We found that look-alike plans experienced rapid enrollment growth among dual eligibles during the period 2013-20, increasing from 20,900 dual eligibles across four states to 220,860 dual eligibles across seventeen states, for an elevenfold increase. Nearly one-third of dual eligibles in look-alike plans were previously in integrated care programs. Compared with D-SNPs, look-alike plans were more likely to enroll dual eligibles who were older, Hispanic, and from disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that look-alike plans have the potential to compromise national efforts to integrate care delivery for dual eligibles, including vulnerable subgroups who may benefit the most from integrated coverage.

Association of a Medicare Advantage Posthospitalization Home Meal Delivery Benefit With Rehospitalization and Death.

Importance: The 2018 Chronic Care Act allowed Medicare Advantage plans to have greater flexibility in offering supplemental benefits, such as meals and services, to address unmet needs of beneficiaries with certain chronic conditions. Based on earlier studies of community-based nutritional support, such programs may result in reduced use. Objective: To evaluate the association of a 4-week posthospitalization home-delivered meals benefit with 30-day all-cause rehospitalization and mortality in patients admitted for heart failure (HF) and other acute medical conditions (non-HF). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, patients who received meals (the meals group) were compared with 2 controls: (1) no meals in the 2019 historical cohort who would have been eligible for the benefit (the no meals-2019 group) and (2) no meals in the 2021 and 2022 concurrent cohort who were referred but did not receive the meals due to unsuccessful contacts and active declines (the no meals-2021/2022 group). This study took place in a large integrated health care system in southern California among Medicare Advantage members with a hospitalization for HF or other acute medical conditions at 15 Kaiser Permanente hospitals discharged to home. Exposure: The exposure was receipt of at least 1 and up to 4 shipments of home-delivered meals (total of 56 to 84 meals) after hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause composite rehospitalization and death. Results: A total of 4032 adults with admission to the hospital for HF (mean [SD] age, 79 [9] years; 1951 [48%] White; 2001 [50%] female) and 7944 with non-HF admissions (mean [SD] age, 78 [8] years; 3890 [49%] White; 4149 [52%] female) were included in the analyses. Unadjusted rates of 30-day death and rehospitalization for the meals, no meals-2019, and no meals-2021/2022 cohorts were as follows: HF: 23.3%, 30.1%, and 38.5%; non-HF: 16.5%, 22.4%, and 32.9%, respectively. For HF, exposure to meals was significantly associated with lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization compared with the no meals-2021/2022 cohort (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71; P < .001) but was not significant compared with the no meals-2019 cohort (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). For non-HF, exposure to meals was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization when compared with the no meals-2019 (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001) and the no meals-2021/2022 (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .001) cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, exposure to posthospitalization home-delivered meals was associated with lower 30-day rehospitalization and mortality; randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Enrollment And Characteristics Of Dual-Eligible Medicare And Medicaid Beneficiaries In Integrated Care Programs.

Integrated care programs (ICPs) are meant to make Medicare and Medicaid coverage for dual-eligible beneficiaries work more seamlessly. Evidence is limited on ICP enrollment trends and the characteristics of dual-eligible beneficiaries who enroll in these programs-specifically, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, Medicare Advantage (MA) Fully Integrated Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans, and state demonstration Medicare-Medicaid plans. Using national data, we evaluated changes in ICP enrollment between 2013 and 2020 and compared the demographic characteristics of beneficiaries in these programs relative to the characteristics of beneficiaries not in them. The proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries in ICPs increased from 2.0 percent in 2013 to 9.4 percent in 2020. However, nonintegrated or partially integrated coordination-only MA plans experienced the plurality of growth in enrollment of dual-eligible beneficiaries. Relative to non-ICP fee-for-service Medicare, beneficiaries in ICPs were more likely to be Black and Hispanic versus White and were less likely to be rural, younger, or disabled. Policy makers should diligently monitor growth in ICPs and less integrated dual-eligible plans in MA while also evaluating their impact on equity, spending, and quality of care.

Real-world impact of empagliflozin on total cost of care in adults with type 2 diabetes: Results from an outcomes-based agreement.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care is expanding through payment models such as outcomes-based agreements between manufacturers and payers. OBJECTIVE: To describe the total-cost-of-care outcomes of an outcomes-based agreement evaluating the real-world impact of empagliflozin vs other type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) drugs among all patients with T2DM, with and without cardiovascular disease (within and beyond the requirement of the agreement). METHODS: In this prospective real-world analysis, members from the health plan of an integrated health care delivery system from the commercial and Medicare Advantage lines of business, who qualify under the confines of the contract, were included for analysis. Thus, members aged 18 years and older who were continuously enrolled in the identification (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018) and measurement periods (≤1 year post-index) with a T2DM diagnosis were retained. Patients using empagliflozin and empagliflozin-combination drugs constituted the empagliflozin group; those using all other antihyperglycemics, the nonempagliflozin group. Patients with type 1 diabetes, or those using metformin or insulin monotherapy, at index were excluded. Eligible members were followed for up to the earliest occurrence of disenrollment date, discontinuation (60-day medication fill gap allowed) of empagliflozin (or nonempagliflozin containing) medication, or the end of the measurement period. We compared, using Student's t-test and summary statistics (for reporting the outcomes agreement) and a propensity-matched difference-in-difference model (for the followup evaluation beyond the requirement of the agreement), the mean all-cause total cost of care (pharmacy plus medical) per patient per month (PPPM) between the 2 groups, including a subgroup of members with a baseline cardiovascular disease diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 4,577 (3,069 and 1,508 in the commercial and Medicare) and 33,712 (15,571 and 18,141 in the commercial and Medicare) in the empagliflozin and nonempagliflozin groups, respectively. The difference in mean total cost PPPM was $75 lower for empagliflozin vs nonempagliflozin groups, driven mainly by lower medical costs in the empagliflozin group (-$465 PPPM). However, the difference was not statistically significant in the propensity score-matched model. CONCLUSIONS: Although empagliflozin had higher pharmacy costs, the total cost of care for patients with T2DM and with established cardiovascular disease were comparable to the group of patients with all other T2DM, driven mainly by lower medical costs. DISCLOSURES: The authors report no conflicts of interest beyond being employees of the 2 organizations involved in this outcomes-based agreement. Ms. Palli is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who was affiliated at the time of study conduct.

Symptom Burden and GOLD Classification in Medicare Advantage Patients with COPD Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Therapy.

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) provide greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated symptom burden and Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) categorization among patients who recently initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; LAMA/LABA) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; ICS/LABA) single-inhaler dual therapy. Methods: COPD-diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥65 years were identified from the Optum Research Database (ORD). Eligible patients had ≥1 pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or FP/SAL in the 6-month period before sample identification, with no evidence of triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA), asthma, or lung cancer. Symptom burden was assessed via cross-sectional surveys using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Patients were classified into GOLD categories using patient-reported symptoms and claims-based exacerbation history. Treatment groups were balanced on potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). CAT and mMRC scores were analyzed with generalized linear regression models using IPTW propensity scores. Results: The final analytic sample included 789 respondents (UMEC/VI: N=392; FP/SAL: N=397). Approximately 66% patients were classified as GOLD B when assessing symptoms with CAT and mMRC together, or CAT alone; more patients were classified as GOLD A (~40%) than GOLD B (~36%) using mMRC alone. Proportions of patients in each GOLD group were similar between treatment cohorts. Post-IPTW multivariable modeling showed similar symptom burden between treatment groups. Conclusion: After controlling for baseline characteristics, symptom burden was similar between patients receiving UMEC/VI or FP/SAL. GOLD classification using mMRC produced more conservative results compared with CAT, potentially underestimating patient symptoms. Many patients receiving FP/SAL were classified as GOLD A or B, despite GOLD recommending non-ICS-containing therapy in these patients. These findings support the need for routine assessment of symptoms in patients with COPD.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare.

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Switching Between Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare Before And After The Onset Of Functional Disability.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have increasing flexibility to provide nonmedical services to support older adults aging in place in the community. However, prior research has suggested that enrollees with functional disability (hereafter, "disability") were more likely than those without disability to leave MA plans. This indicates that MA plans might not meet the needs of older adults with disability. We used data for 2011-16 from the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to Medicare claims to measure and characterize switches in either direction between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in the twelve months before and after onset of disability. While the rate of switches from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare increased slightly after disability onset, people with greater levels of disability were more likely to switch to traditional Medicare, compared to those with lower levels: 36 percent of those who switched from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare needed help with two or more activities of daily living, compared to 14.3 percent of those who switched from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage. This indicates the potential benefit of including functional measures in MA plan risk adjustment and quality measures. Furthermore, the highest-need older adults with disability may experience lower-quality care in Medicare Advantage and thus leave before accessing the program's expanded benefits.

Home Health And Postacute Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare.

This article compares patterns of postacute care-including care provided by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies-under Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Overall, Medicare Advantage enrollees received less postacute care, both institutional and home health, than traditional Medicare enrollees did for three common conditions.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care. Objective: To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019. Exposures: Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars). Results: Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Mobile Integrated Healthcare Intervention and Impact Analysis with a Medicare Advantage Population.

Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) is a patient-centered, innovative delivery model offering on-demand, needs-based care and preventive services, delivered in the patient's home or mobile environment. An interprofessional MIH clinical team delivered a care coordination program for a Medicare Advantage Preferred Provider Organization that was risk assigned prior to intervention to target the highest risk members. Using claims and eligibility data, 6 months of pre-program experience and 6 months of program-influenced experience from the intervention cohort was compared to a propensity score-matched comparison cohort to measure impact. The intervention led to a reduction in inpatient and emergency department utilization, resulting in net savings amount totals of $2.4 million over the 6 months of the program. After accounting for the costs of implementing the program, the intervention produced a return on investment of 2.97. Additionally, high patient activation and experience lend strength to this MIH intervention as a promising model to reduce utilization and costs while keeping patient satisfaction high.

Estimated Budget Impact of Increased Use of Mirabegron, A Novel Treatment for Overactive Bladder.

BACKGROUND: Oral pharmacological treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) consists of antimuscarinics and the beta-3 adrenergic agonist mirabegron. Antimuscarinic adverse events (AEs) such as dry mouth, constipation, and blurry vision can result in frequent treatment discontinuation rates, leaving part of the OAB population untreated. Antimuscarinics also contribute to a patient's anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB), so the Beers Criteria recommends cautious use of antimuscarinics in elderly patients who take multiple anticholinergic medications or have cognitive impairment. Since mirabegron does not affect the cholinergic pathways, it is unlikely to contribute to a patient's ACB. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health care costs associated with the pharmacological treatment of OAB with mirabegron and antimuscarinics from U.S. commercial payer and Medicare Advantage perspectives, using a budget impact model. METHODS: For this budget impact model, 2 analyses were performed. The primary analysis estimated the budgetary impact of increasing the use of mirabegron in a closed patient cohort treated with oral pharmacological treatments. The secondary analysis modeled the economic impact in an open cohort by allowing untreated patients to begin treatment with mirabegron after potential contraindication, intolerance, or lack of effectiveness of antimuscarinics. The analyses were performed over a 3-year time horizon. The economic impact of increased mirabegron use was quantified using direct medical costs, including prescription costs and health resource utilization (HRU) costs. Costs of comorbidities included pharmacy and medical costs of treating OAB-related urinary tract infections (UTI), skin rashes, and depression. An analysis of a large single-site integrated health network database was commissioned to quantify ACB-related HRU in terms of the increases in yearly outpatient and emergency department visits. Based on this analysis, the model associated each unit increase in ACB score with increased HRU and probability of mild cognitive impairment. Clinical outcomes of increased use of mirabegron were presented as the number of AEs and comorbidity episodes that could be avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to quantify the expected budget impact over the range of uncertainty for the key input variables. RESULTS: Primary analysis calculated the impact of increasing the use of mirabegron from 4.5% to 5.3%, 7.1%, and 9.4% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, among oral pharmacological OAB treatments that included generic and branded antimuscarinics: oxybutynin, tolterodine, trospium, darifenacin, fesoterodine, and solifenacin. For a 1 million-member U.S. commercial payer plan, the total prescription costs increased, and the total medical costs decreased during the 3-year time horizon, yielding increases of $0.005, $0.016, and $0.031 from current per member per month (PMPM) costs and $0.90, $2.92, and $5.53 from current per treated member per month (PTMPM) costs, an average of less than 2% of current OAB treatment costs. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the resulting incremental PMPM costs were $0.010, $0.034, and $0.065, and the incremental PTMPM costs were $0.93, $3.04, and $5.76; all were less than 4% of the current cost. The secondary analysis estimated the budgetary effects of reducing the untreated population by 1% annually by initiating treatment with mirabegron. For a commercial payer, this resulted in PMPM cost increases of $0.156, $0.311, and $0.467 from the current value, while the incremental PTMPM cost increased by $6.17, $11.67, and $16.61. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the incremental increases in PMPM costs were $0.277, $0.553, and $0.830, and in PTMPM costs were $6.42, $12.15, and $17.29. Clinically, treating more OAB patients resulted in fewer OAB-related comorbidities from both health plan perspectives, since most events associated with nontreatment could be avoided. In the Medicare Advantage population of the secondary analysis, the total numbers of avoided events were predicted as 452 UTIs, 2,598 depression diagnoses, and 3,020 skin rashes during the time horizon of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron addresses an unmet need for therapy for certain OAB patients, for whom antimuscarinics are not recommended because of a risk of cognitive impairment and who are intolerant to the anticholinergic AEs. Using mirabegron involves moderate additional economic cost to a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan for which medical cost savings can offset a substantial part of increased pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Astellas. Perk, Wielage, T. Klein, and R. Klein are employed by Medical Decision Modeling, a contract research company that was paid to perform the described outcomes research and build the model contained in this study. Campbell and Perkins are employed by the Regenstrief Institute, which conducted a database analysis for this research. Campbell reports consultancy fees from Astellas, as well as pending grants from Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme Corp. Posta, Yuran, and Ng are employed by Astellas Pharma Global Development, the developer of mirabegron. Study concept and design were contributed by Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, and Ng. Campbell, T. Klein, and Perkins took the lead in data collection, assisted by Perk, Wielage, and Ng. Data interpretation was performed by Posta and Yuran, along with Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, Ng, Campbell, and Perkins. The manuscript was written by Perk and R. Klein, along with Wielage, T. Klein, Posta, Yuran, and Ng, and revised by all the authors.

Patterns of Care in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Among a U.S. Payer Population with Commercial or Medicare Advantage Membership.

BACKGROUND: Several systemic therapies are now approved for first- and second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines offer physicians evidence-based recommendations for therapy, there are few real-world studies to help inform the utilization of these agents in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the patterns of use associated with systemic therapies for mRCC among Humana members in the United States diagnosed with mRCC, (b) assess consistency with the NCCN guidelines for treatment, and (c) to describe the initial first-line therapy regimen by prescriber specialty and site of care. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using Humana's claims database of commercially insured patients and patients insured by the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan. The study period was from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2013. Patients with mRCC were identified by ICD-9-CM codes 189.0/189.1 and 196.xx to 199.xx; all patients were between 18 and 89 years of age, had received systemic therapy for their disease, and were followed up for 180 days. Outcome measures included choice of initial systemic therapy, starting and ending doses, first-line treatment persistence and compliance, and choice of second-line therapy. Persistence was measured using time to discontinuation of first-line therapy and proportion of days covered (PDC; the ratio of [total days of drug available minus days of supply of last prescription] to [last prescription date minus first prescription date]). Compliance was measured using the medication possession ratio (MPR; the ratio of [total days supply minus days supply of last prescription] to [last prescription date minus first prescription date]). RESULTS: A total of 649 patients met all inclusion criteria; 109 were insured by commercial plans and 540 were insured by Medicare. The mean ± SD age of patients was 68.6 ± 9.4 years, and 68.6% were male; Medicare patients were older than commercial patients (71.7 ± 7.4 vs. 56.6 ± 9.1 years, respectively; P < 0.001). The most common comorbidities among the patient population were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. The majority of patients (68.6%) received an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as their first line of therapy: 43.9% received sunitinib, 14.0% received sorafenib, 10.0% received pazopanib, and 0.6% received axitinib. Mean ± SD time to discontinuation of first-line TKI treatment was 169.1 ± 29.5 days with sunitinib, 160.3 ± 41.1 days with pazopanib, and 160.1 ± 41.4 days with sorafenib. Other first-line therapies included inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (19.7%) and the antivascular endothelial growth factor agent bevacizumab (9.4%). Among patients receiving mTOR inhibitors, 14.8% were started on temsirolimus and 4.9% were started on everolimus. The median starting and ending doses were the same for each drug except for sunitinib. Mean ± SD times to discontinuation of temsirolimus, everolimus, and bevacizumab were 171.8 ± 26.2, 137.0 ± 62.2, and 150.8 ± 56.0 days, respectively. Persistence on first-line regimen as measured by PDC was high (PDC ≥ 80%) for 89% of oral therapies and 77% of injectable therapies; first-line compliance was high (MPR ≥ 80%) for 77% of oral therapies and 68% of injectables. Among patients who received second-line therapy, the most common regimen was everolimus (29.2%), followed by bevacizumab (19.8%), temsirolimus (15.6%), and sunitinib (13.6%). Specialty codes obtained from the database provider identified internal medicine specialists and oncologists as the most common prescribers of TKIs and mTOR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of use were similar for each of the prescribed systemic treatments for mRCC, and the majority of patients were highly persistent and compliant with first-line therapies. Time to treatment discontinuation was slightly longer with oral agents compared with injectable drugs.

Factors Associated with Adherence Rates for Oral and Intravenous Anticancer Therapy in Commercially Insured Patients with Metastatic Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, oncology therapies have trended toward orally administered regimens, and there has been growing attention on evaluation of factors that affect adherence. There has not been a rigorous investigation of factors associated with adherence to intravenous (i.v.) and oral anticancer drugs in the setting of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess potential patient-specific factors related to adherence to mCRC chemotherapy regimens and (b) compare adherence with IV versus oral dosage forms. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the Optum Oncology Management claims database. Patients aged 18 years and older diagnosed with mCRC between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2010, who were insured by a commercial health plan were included in the study. Adherence to i.v. and oral chemotherapy regimens was assessed using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as the standard for expected cycle/regimen duration. The most commonly prescribed chemotherapy regimens were assessed. Adherence was evaluated using the medication possession ratio (MPR), calculated as the number of days a patient was covered by their chemotherapy regimen, according to NCCN guidelines, divided by the number of days elapsed from the first to the last infusion of that regimen. For most analyses, the MPR was considered a continuous variable that could take on values between 0 and 1. In other analyses, a dichotomous categorical variable designated if the MPR was at least 0.8 versus less than 0.8. The Wilcoxon rank sum, Kruskal-Wallis, and Student's t-test were used to detect differences in continuous measures between patients receiving oral capecitabine therapy versus i.v. chemotherapy. The chi square test (X(2) test) or Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the dichotomous MPR variable. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used for regimen-level analyses to account for correlated responses within individuals. RESULTS: A total of 6,780 patients were included in the analysis, virtually all (98%) with commercial insurance coverage and the remaining (2%) with Medicare Advantage. Patients with mCRC received 17,095 regimens of chemotherapy, including 2,252 regimens of oral capecitabine. Of the 17,095 regimens, 6,780 (40%) were first-line regimens (i.e., the first time mCRC was treated for a given patient). The most common chemotherapy regimen, regardless of line of therapy, was FOLFOX (2,991 regimens, 17.5% of all regimens used). FOLFOX-based therapies with or without bevacizumab were the most common regimens for first- and second-line chemotherapy, while oral capecitabine treatment was the most commonly prescribed regimen for patients in third- or fourth-line therapy. Overall, medication adherence across all regimens was relatively high, with a mean MPR of 0.87 (SD = 0.17). Evaluation of the distribution of i.v. and oral capecitabine regimens revealed that 28% of all regimens were associated with an MPR of less than 0.8. The average MPR was clinically similar, but statistically higher for i.v. chemotherapy regimens (0.881) compared with oral capecitabine regimens (0.799; P < 0.0001). In the multivariable GEE model, lung or liver metastases were associated with a higher MPR, while lower Charlson Comorbidity Index and oral anticancer therapy were associated with lower MPR. Furthermore, as line of therapy increased, the difference in MPR between patients receiving oral capecitabine and i.v. chemotherapy increased. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis determined that adherence with i.v. chemotherapy regimens was clinically similar, but statistically higher, compared to oral capecitabine therapy. The difference in adherence rates between the 2 routes of administration increased as the line of anticancer regimen increased. These results suggest that there should be an increased focus on improving adherence rates in patients receiving oral capecitabine.

Medicare Advantage associated with lower mortality for incident dialysis patients.

Physicians across the care continuum are increasingly aligned around the belief that coordinated care can improve patient outcomes. As the principal caregivers for one of the most medically fragile patient groups in healthcare, nephrologists are especially attuned to the potential value of integrated care. Medicare Advantage (MA) offers one way to test this hypothesis. By law, end-stage renal disease patients currently cannot enroll into an MA plan, but if they develop ESRD while in such a plan, they may continue to be enrolled. The contrast between these patients and their counterparts who carry Medicare fee for service (MFFS) thereby represents a natural experiment that affords an opportunity to examine whether enrollment in a coordinated care system may improve outcomes. In order to promote (unbiased) comparison of patients in a non-randomized context, we propensity score-matched incident dialysis patients enrolled in MA versus those in MFFS. The data demonstrate that patients who were enrolled in an MA plan upon initiation of dialysis had a 9% lower mortality rate than their MFFS counterparts. This beneficial association of MA enrollment was found to be sustained over the first two years of dialysis treatment.