Association of Remote Patient Monitoring with Mortality and Healthcare Utilization in Hypertensive Patients: a Medicare Claims-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension management is complex in older adults. Recent advances in remote patient monitoring (RPM) have warranted evaluation of RPM use and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To study associations of RPM use with mortality and healthcare utilization measures of hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) utilization, and outpatient visits. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with an outpatient hypertension diagnosis between July 2018 and September 2020. The first date of RPM use with a corresponding hypertension diagnosis was recorded (index date). RPM non-users were documented from those with an outpatient hypertension diagnosis; a random visit was selected as the index date. Six months prior continuous enrollment was required. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes studied within 180 days of index date included (i) all-cause mortality, (ii) any hospitalization, (iii) cardiovascular-related hospitalization, (iv) non-cardiovascular-related hospitalization, (v) any ED, (vi) cardiovascular-related ED, (vii) non-cardiovascular-related ED, (viii) any outpatient, (ix) cardiovascular-related outpatient, and (x) non-cardiovascular-related outpatient. Patient demographics and clinical variables were collected from baseline and index date. Propensity score matching (1:4) and Cox regression were performed. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. KEY RESULTS: The matched sample had 16,339 and 63,333 users and non-users, respectively. Cumulative incidences of mortality outcome were 2.9% (RPM) and 4.3% (non-RPM), with a HR (95% CI) of 0.66 (0.60-0.74). RPM users had lower hazards of any [0.78 (0.75-0.82)], cardiovascular-related [0.79 (0.73-0.87)], and non-cardiovascular-related [0.79 (0.75-0.83)] hospitalizations. No significant association was observed between RPM use and the three ED measures. RPM users had higher hazards of any [1.10 (1.08-1.11)] and cardiovascular-related outpatient visits [2.17 (2.13-2.19)], while a slightly lower hazard of non-cardiovascular-related outpatient visits [0.94 (0.93-0.96)]. CONCLUSIONS: RPM use was associated with substantial reductions in hazards of mortality and hospitalization outcomes with an increase in cardiovascular-related outpatient visits.

Real-World Survival of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment Versus Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Synchronous Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: This study assessed real-world survival among older patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BMs) at diagnosis (synchronous BM [SBM]) receiving first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) compared with chemotherapy only. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC and SBM age 65 years or older at diagnosis from 2010 to 2019 SEER-Medicare database and received US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICIs (pembrolizumab/nivolumab/ipilimumab/atezolizumab/durvalumab/cemiplimab) and/or chemotherapy (platinum-based doublets/taxane/pemetrexed/gemcitabine) as first-line systemic treatment were included, excluding those with no cranial radiation or ever being treated with targeted therapies. Overall survival time was from the start of systemic treatment (ICI/chemotherapy) to death, censored at disenrollment from Medicare part A/B, enrollment in part C, or end of the study period (December 31, 2019). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were compared between treatment groups using the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) between groups, adjusting for patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 1,481 patients (1,303 chemotherapy and 178 ICI). The median (range) age was 71 (65-91) years. First-line ICI patients were more likely to be older, live in urban areas, and less likely to be non-White than the chemotherapy group. KM estimates showed that survival curves initially overlapped but diverged approximately 6 months after initiating first-line systemic treatment (median survival [95% CI]: ICI, 190 [131 to 303] days versus chemotherapy, 189 [177 to 201] days), with ICI showing a better survival than the chemotherapy group (log-rank test P < .0001). First-line ICI was associated with a lower risk of death compared with chemotherapy in adjusted CPH model (HR [95% CI], 0.67 [0.55 to 0.80]; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among older patients with NSCLC and SBM, first-line ICI use was associated with improved survival occurring 6 months after treatment initiation compared with chemotherapy only.

Association between broadband capacity and telehealth utilization among Medicare Fee-for-service beneficiaries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth is a rapidly growing modality for expanding healthcare access, especially in the post-COVID-19 era. However, telehealth requires high-quality broadband, thus making broadband a social determinant of health. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between broadband access and telehealth utilization across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional, ecological study design, we merged county-level data on broadband capacity (Microsoft's Rural Broadband Initiative), telehealth utilization among Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries from January through September 2020 (CareJourney), and county-level socioeconomic characteristics (Area Health Resources Files). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the association between broadband capacity, county-level characteristics, and telehealth utilization. RESULTS: Among the 3107 counties, those with the greatest broadband availability (quintile 5) had 47% higher telehealth utilization compared to counties with the least broadband availability (quintile 1). In the adjusted model, a 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in broadband access was associated with a 1.54 percentage point (pp) increase in telehealth utilization (P < 0.001). Rural county designation (-1.96 pp; P < 0.001) and 1 SD increases in average Medicare beneficiary age (-1.34 pp; P = 0.001), number of nursing home beds per 1000 individuals (-0.38 pp; P = 0.002), and proportion of Native Americans/Pacific Islanders (-0.59 pp; P < 0.001) were associated with decreased telehealth utilization. CONCLUSION: The association between broadband access and telehealth utilization and the decreased telehealth utilization in rural areas highlight the importance of broadband access for healthcare access and the need to continue investing in broadband infrastructure to promote equitable healthcare access across populations.

Concordance of opioid exposure in all-payer claims databases with prescription drug monitoring program database using Arkansas as a case example.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance between and benefit of adding prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to all-payer claims database (APCD) data for identifying and classifying opioid exposure among insured individuals. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Arkansas APCD and PDMP. STUDY DESIGN: Enrollees in APCD were classified as (1) true positives: if they received opioids in both databases, (2) false positives: if they only received opioids in APCD, (3) true negatives: if they had no opioid exposure in both databases, (4) false negatives: if they only received opioids in the PDMP database. Specificity, sensitivity, negative, and positive predictive values were calculated using PDMP as the "gold standard" database source. Subjects were also categorized as those who received any opioid, chronic opioid, high-dose opioid, or high-risk opioid therapies. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Arkansas residents continuously enrolled with pharmacy coverage in 2016 were included. APCD and PDMP were linked using an encrypted enrollee identifier, gender, and year of birth. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The degree of concordance in opioid exposure between the two databases among 1,411,565 enrollees was high (sensitivity = 92.67%, specificity = 96.13%, positive predictive value = 91.60%, negative predictive value = 96.65%). Enrollees classified as having any opioid (APCD: 31.64% vs. PDMP: 31.26% vs. APCD+PDMP: 33.93%), chronic opioid (APCD: 7.81% vs. PDMP: 7.54% vs. APCD+PDMP: 8.24%), high-dose opioid (APCD: 10.60% vs. PDMP: 9.62% vs. APCD+PDMP: 11.33%), or high-risk opioid (APCD: 5.28% vs. PDMP: 5.33% vs. APCD+PDMP: 6.20%) therapies, were similar using only APCD versus PDMP versus the combined APCD and PDMP data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data sources, such as APCDs, are fairly accurate in identifying opioid exposure and the level of opioid exposure among persons with continuous pharmacy coverage.

Nonelderly Adult Cancer Survivors in High Deductible Health Plan: Healthcare Expenditure, Utilization and Access.

Background: To compare healthcare expenditure, utilization and access between nonelderly adult cancer survivors enrolled in a high deductible health plan with a health savings account ("HDHP+HSA"), HDHP without HSA ("HDHP alone") and low deductible health plan ("LDHP"). Methods: 1735 cancer survivors, aged 18-64 years, with continuous private coverage identified from the 2012-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: HDHP alone (n = 353), HDHP+HSA (n = 242) and LDHP (n = 1140). Healthcare expenditures, utilization and inability/delay obtaining medical care were analyzed using generalized linear regressions with inverse propensity score weighting and doubly robust estimation. Results: HDHP alone group (23,255 USD) had significantly higher total healthcare expenditure compared to HDHP+HSA (15,580 USD, p = 0.012) and LDHP (16,261 USD, p = 0.016). HDHP alone (6089 USD; p = 0.002) and HDHP+HSA (5743 USD; p = 0.012) groups had significantly higher out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure compared to LDHP (4853 USD). HDHP alone (17,128 USD, p = 0.010) and LDHP (12,645 USD, p = 0.045) had significantly higher private insurer payments compared to HDHP+HSA (9216 USD). No differences were found in utilization or inability/delay obtaining medical care across groups. Conclusions: Non-elderly adult cancer survivors with continuous coverage and comparable sociodemographic characteristics enrolled in HDHP with HSA displayed the lowest healthcare costs compared to HDHP without HSA and LDHP. HDHP+HSA had a significantly higher OOP expenditure than LDHP. No significant differences were observed in utilization or access among groups.

A Five-Year Analysis of Industry Payments to Sleep Neurologists From 2014 Through 2018.

Background and objectives  Sleep medicine has been one of the fastest-growing medical fields in recent years. The industry plays a big role in developing new medications and devices for both diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related problems. We analyzed payments made by industry to physicians from 2014 through 2018 based on the Open Payments Program data. Methods Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment Program and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology databases were explored to elicit financial relationships between industry and sleep neurologists. Results Payments made by industry to sleep neurologists have been steadily increasing from 2014 through 2018. Approximately 16% to 22% of sleep certified neurologists received payments from industry during the study period. Interestingly, the payments made to the top 10% of the sleep physicians contributed approximately 85% to 96% of the total payments. The top two categories to which the highest payments were made were compensation for services and royalty and/or licensing fees. Silenor® (doxepin), Xyrem® (sodium oxybate), Aptiom® (eslicarbazepine acetate), Belsomra® (suvorexant), and Fycompa® (perampanel) were most of the drugs, which made the highest payments, that got approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the last decade. Conclusions  It seems that the industry is spending significant amounts of money in educating the physicians and in marketing the newer drugs. This analysis of the data on payments from industry is very useful in identifying any potential conflicts of interest from physicians. Further analyses are needed to study the trends of physician practice behavior and decision making.

Industry Payment to Vascular Neurologists: A 6-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Program From 2013 Through 2018.

Background and Purpose- Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods- Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results- The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions- A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.