Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Opioid Prescribing on Hospital Discharge Among Older Adults: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in opioid prescribing among racial and ethnic groups have been observed in outpatient and emergency department settings, but it is unknown whether similar disparities exist at discharge among hospitalized older adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine filled opioid prescription rates on hospital discharge by race/ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older discharged from hospital in 2016, without opioid fills in the 90 days prior to hospitalization (opioid-naïve). MAIN MEASURES: Race/ethnicity was categorized by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), grouped as Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, other (American Indian/Alaska Native/unknown/other), and White. The primary outcome was an opioid prescription claim within 2 days of hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among adults with a filled opioid prescription. KEY RESULTS: Among 316,039 previously opioid-naïve beneficiaries (mean age, 76.8 years; 56.2% female), 49,131 (15.5%) filled an opioid prescription within 2 days of hospital discharge. After adjustment, Black beneficiaries were 6% less likely (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97) and Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries were 9% more likely (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.14) to have filled an opioid prescription when compared to White beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries with a filled opioid prescription, mean total MMEs were lower among Black (356.9; adjusted difference - 4%, 95% CI - 7 to - 1%), Hispanic (327.0; adjusted difference - 7%, 95% CI - 10 to - 4%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (328.2; adjusted difference - 8%, 95% CI - 12 to - 4%) beneficiaries when compared to White beneficiaries (409.7). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Black older adults were less likely to fill a new opioid prescription after hospital discharge when compared to White older adults and received lower total MMEs. The factors contributing to these differential prescribing patterns should be investigated further.

Modifications of the readiness assessment for pragmatic trials tool for appropriate use with Indigenous populations.

BACKGROUND: Inequities in health access and outcomes exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Embedded pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (ePCTs) can test the real-world effectiveness of health care interventions. Assessing readiness for ePCT, with tools such as the Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) model, is an important component. Although equity must be explicitly incorporated in the design, testing, and widespread implementation of any health care intervention to achieve equity, RAPT does not explicitly consider equity. This study aimed to identify adaptions necessary for the application of the 'Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials' (RAPT) tool in embedded pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (ePCTs) with Indigenous communities. METHODS: We surveyed and interviewed participants (researchers with experience in research involving Indigenous communities) over three phases (July-December 2022) in this mixed-methods study to explore the appropriateness and recommended adaptions of current RAPT domains and to identify new domains that would be appropriate to include. We thematically analyzed responses and used an iterative process to modify RAPT. RESULTS: The 21 participants identified that RAPT needed to be modified to strengthen readiness assessment in Indigenous research. In addition, five new domains were proposed to support Indigenous communities' power within the research processes: Indigenous Data Sovereignty; Acceptability - Indigenous Communities; Risk of Research; Research Team Experience; Established Partnership). We propose a modified tool, RAPT-Indigenous (RAPT-I) for use in research with Indigenous communities to increase the robustness and cultural appropriateness of readiness assessment for ePCT. In addition to producing a tool for use, it outlines a methodological approach to adopting research tools for use in and with Indigenous communities by drawing on the experience of researchers who are part of, and/or working with, Indigenous communities to undertake interventional research, as well as those with expertise in health equity, implementation science, and public health. CONCLUSION: RAPT-I has the potential to provide a useful framework for readiness assessment prior to ePCT in Indigenous communities. RAPT-I also has potential use by bodies charged with critically reviewing proposed pragmatic research including funding and ethics review boards.

Algorithmic identification of persons with dementia for research recruitment: ethical considerations.

Underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and patterns of social inequality that translate into unequal access to health systems all pose barriers to identifying and recruiting diverse and representative populations into research on Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias. In response, some have turned to algorithms to identify patients living with dementia using information that is associated with this condition but that is not as specific as a diagnosis. This paper explains six ethical issues associated with the use of such algorithms including the generation of new, sensitive, identifiable medical information for research purposes without participant consent, issues of justice and equity, risk, and ethical communication. It concludes with a discussion of strategies for addressing these issues and prompting valuable research.

Validation of Claims-Based Frailty Index for Identifying Moderate-to-Severe Dementia in Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research using the National Health and Aging Trends Study showed that a claims-based frailty index (CFI) could be useful for identifying moderate-to-severe dementia in Medicare claims data. This study aims to validate the findings in an independent cohort. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 658 fee-for-service beneficiaries with dementia who participated in the 2016-2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey in the community-dwelling. METHODS: We operationalized the Functional Assessment Staging Test (FAST) scale (range: 1-7, stages 5-7 indicate moderate-to-severe dementia) using survey information. CFI (range: 0-1, higher scores indicate greater frailty) was calculated using Medicare claims 12 months before the participants' interview date. Using the previously proposed cut point of 0.280, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying moderate-to-severe dementia. Survey procedures were used to account for survey design and weighted to reflect national estimates. RESULTS: The population had a mean age (SD) of 80.7 (8.9) years, 58.5% female, and 101 beneficiaries (14.8%) had moderate-to-severe dementia. The CFI cut point of 0.280 demonstrated sensitivity 0.49 (95% CI, 0.38-0.59), specificity 0.80 (0.77-0.84), PPV 0.30 (0.23-0.38), and NPV 0.90 (0.87-0.93). Compared with those with a CFI <0.280, beneficiaries with a CFI ≥0.280 had an elevated risk of mortality (2.9% vs 4.1%) over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These results confirm our previous findings that CFI among beneficiaries with a dementia diagnosis is a useful measure of moderate-to-severe dementia for Medicare claims data.

Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures.

BACKGROUND: The relationship of claims-based frailty index (CFI), a validated measure to identify frail individuals using Medicare data, and frailty measures used in clinical practice has not yet been fully explored. METHODS: We identified community-dwelling participants of the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) whose CFI scores could be calculated using linked Medicare claims. We calculated 9 commonly used clinical frailty measures from their NHATS in-person examination: Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). Using equipercentile method, CFI scores were linked to clinical frailty measures. C-statistics and test characteristics of CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical frailty measure were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 3 963 older adults, 44.5% were ≥75 years, 59.4% were female, and 82.3% were non-Hispanic White. A CFI of 0.25 was equipercentile to the following clinical frailty measure scores: SOF 1.4, FRAIL 1.8, Phenotype 1.8, CFS 5.4, VES-13 5.7, TFI 4.6, GFI 5.0, EFS 6.0, and FI 0.26. The C-statistics of using CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical measure were ≥0.70, except for CFS and VES-13. The optimal CFI cutpoints to identify frailty per clinical frailty measure ranged from 0.212 to 0.242, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.37-0.83 and 0.66-0.84, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the relationship of CFI and commonly used clinical frailty measures can enhance the interpretability and potential utility of CFI.

Identification of older adults with Alzheimer's and related dementias among patients newly diagnosed with cancer: A comparison of methodological approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Research efforts to characterize and evaluate care delivery and outcomes for older adults with cancer and comorbid dementia are limited by varied methods used to classify Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in demographic, clinical, and cancer characteristics of people newly diagnosed with cancer and concomitant dementia comparing two common methods to identify ADRD using administrative claims data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Our sample included adults aged 66 years and older with a first primary diagnosis of lung or colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2017. For each cancer diagnosis, we constructed analytical cohorts using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) flag and the Bynum-Standard one- and three-year algorithms to capture diagnosed ADRD. We estimated ADRD prevalence using the algorithms and compared Bynum and CCW cohorts on demographic, clinical, and cancer characteristics at cancer diagnosis and survival for lung and colorectal cancer separately. RESULTS: Among older adults with lung cancer, ADRD prevalence was 4.7% with the one-year Bynum, 6.5% with the three-year Bynum, and 12.5% using the CCW flag. In the colorectal cohort, ADRD prevalence was 5.6% with the one-year Bynum, 7.6% with the three-year Bynum, and 14.1% with the CCW flag. Demographic characteristics were similar across ADRD cohorts. The Bynum cohorts identified higher proportions of individuals with moderate to severe dementia (13.8% and 11.2% versus 7.1% CCW in lung cancer; 13.1% and 10.6% versus 6.8% CCW in colorectal cancer), higher frailty rates (27.4% and 22.7% versus 15.0% CCW in lung cancer; 26.4% and 22.3% versus 14.8% CCW in colorectal cancer). Median survival was lower for the Bynum cohorts compared to the CCW, regardless of cancer type. DISCUSSION: Findings demonstrate that ADRD prevalence and certain clinical characteristics vary based on dementia ascertainment method and observation period used to classify individuals with ADRD. Considering differences in the cohorts of registry cases generated by the identification method used is essential when interpreting findings related to treatment, utilization, and outcomes within and across cancer cohorts.

Use of chronic care management service among Medicare beneficiaries in 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced chronic care management (CCM) services in 2015 for patients with multiple chronic diseases. Few studies examine the utilization of CCM services by geographic region, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics. METHODS: We used 2014-2019 Medicare claims data from a 5% random sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or over. We included beneficiaries potentially eligible for CCM services because they had multiple chronic conditions (1,073,729 in 2015 and 1,130,523 in 2019). We calculated the proportion of potentially eligible beneficiaries receiving CCM service each year for the total population and by geographic region, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The proportion of beneficiaries with two or more chronic conditions receiving CCM services increased from 1.1% in 2015 to 3.4% in 2019. The increase in CCM use was higher in the southern region, among dually eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries with a greater burden of chronic conditions (2-5 conditions vs ≥10 conditions: 0.7% vs 2.0% in 2015; 2.1% vs 7.0% in 2019) and frailty (robust vs severely frail: 0.6% vs 3.3% in 2015; 1.9% vs 9.4% in 2019). Nearly one out of five recipients did not continue CCM service after the initial service. CONCLUSION: We found that CCM service is being used by a very small fraction of eligible patients. Barriers and facilitators to more effective CCM adoption should be identified and incorporated into strategies that encourage more widespread use of this Medicare benefit.

COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccine Coadministration Among Older U.S. Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Coadministering COVID-19 and influenza vaccines is recommended by public health authorities and intended to improve uptake and convenience; however, the extent of vaccine coadministration is largely unknown. Investigations into COVID-19 and influenza vaccine coadministration are needed to describe compliance with newer recommendations and to identify potential gaps in the implementation of coadministration. METHODS: A descriptive, repeated cross-sectional study between September 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 (Period 1) and September 1, 2022 to November 30, 2022 (Period 2) was conducted. This study included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries ≥ 66 years who received an mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine in Periods 1 and 2. The outcome was an influenza vaccine administered on the same day as the COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted ORs and 99% CIs were estimated using logistic regression to describe the association between beneficiaries' characteristics and vaccine coadministration. Statistical analysis was performed in 2023. RESULTS: Among beneficiaries who received a COVID-19 vaccine, 78.8% in Period 1 (N=6,292,777) and 89.1% in Period 2 (N=4,757,501), received an influenza vaccine at some point during the study period (i.e., before, after, or on the same day as their COVID-19 vaccine), though rates were lower in non-White and rural individuals. Vaccine coadministration increased from 11.1% to 36.5% between periods. Beneficiaries with dementia (aORPeriod 2=1.31; 99%CI=1.29-1.32) and in rural counties (aORPeriod 2=1.19; 99%CI=1.17-1.20) were more likely to receive coadministered vaccines, while those with cancer (aORPeriod 2=0.90; 99%CI=0.89-0.91) were less likely. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated against COVID-19, influenza vaccination was high, but coadministration of the 2 vaccines was low. Future work should explore which factors explain variation in the decision to receive coadministered vaccines.

Data resource profile: COVid VAXines effects on the aged (COVVAXAGE).

Background: To improve the assessment of COVID-19 vaccine use, safety, and effectiveness in older adults and persons with complex multimorbidity, the COVid VAXines Effects on the Aged (COVVAXAGE) database was established by linking CVS Health and Walgreens pharmacy customers to Medicare claims. Methods: We deterministically linked CVS Health and Walgreens customers who had a pharmacy dispensation/encounter paid for by Medicare to Medicare enrollment and claims records. Linked data include U.S. Medicare claims, Medicare enrollment files, and community pharmacy records. The data currently span 01/01/2016 to 08/31/2022. "Research-ready" files were created, with weekly indicators for vaccinations, censoring, death, enrollment, demographics, and comorbidities. Data are updated quarterly. Results: As of November 2022, records for 27,086,723 CVS Health and 23,510,025 Walgreens unique customer IDs were identified for potential linkage. Approximately 91% of customers were matched to a Medicare beneficiary ID (95% for those aged 65 years or older). In the final linked cohort, there were 38,250,873 unique beneficiaries representing ~60% of the Medicare population. Among those alive and enrolled in Medicare as of January 1, 2020 (n = 33,721,568; average age = 73 years, 74% White, 51% Medicare Fee-for-Service, and 11% dual-eligible for Medicaid), the average follow-up time was 130 weeks. The cohort contains 16,021,055 beneficiaries with evidence a first COVID-19 vaccine dose. Data are stored on the secure Medicare & Medicaid Resource Information Center Health & Aging Data Enclave. Data access: Investigators with funded or in-progress funding applications to the National Institute on Aging who are interested in learning more about the database should contact Dr Vincent Mor [Vincent_mor@brown.edu] and Dr Kaleen Hayes [kaley_hayes@brown.edu]. A data dictionary can be provided under reasonable request. Conclusions: The COVVAXAGE cohort is a large and diverse cohort that can be used for the ongoing evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine use and other research questions relevant to the Medicare population.