Unintended Consequences of Increased Out-of-Pocket Costs During Medicare Coverage Gap on Anticoagulant Discontinuation and Stroke.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the risk of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) discontinuation among Medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who reach the Medicare coverage gap stratified by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and the impact of DOAC discontinuation on rates of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) among beneficiaries with increased out-of-pocket (OOP) costs due to not receiving LIS. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, Medicare claims data (2015-2020) were used to identify beneficiaries with NVAF who initiated rivaroxaban or apixaban and entered the coverage gap during ≥ 1 year. DOAC discontinuation rates during the coverage gap were stratified by receipt of Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), a proxy for not experiencing increased OOP costs. Among non-LIS beneficiaries, incidence rates of stroke and SE during the subsequent 12 months were compared between beneficiaries who did and did not discontinue DOAC in the coverage gap. RESULTS: Among 303,695 beneficiaries, mean age was 77.3 years, and 28% received LIS. After adjusting for baseline differences, non-LIS beneficiaries (N = 218,838) had 78% higher risk of discontinuing DOAC during the coverage gap vs. LIS recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.78; 95% CI [1.73, 1.82]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, DOAC discontinuation during coverage gap (N = 91,397; 34%) was associated with 14% higher risk of experiencing stroke and SE during the subsequent 12 months (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI [1.08, 1.20]). CONCLUSION: Increased OOP costs during Medicare coverage gap were associated with higher risk of DOAC discontinuation, which in turn was associated with higher risk of stroke and SE among beneficiaries with NVAF.

Impact of non-medical switching of prescription medications on health outcomes: an e-survey of high-volume medicare and medicaid physician providers.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical switching refers to a change in a stable patient's prescribed medication to a clinically distinct, non-generic, alternative for reasons other than poor clinical response, side-effects or non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceptions of high-volume Medicare and/or Medicaid physician providers regarding the impact non-medical switching has on their patients' medication-related outcomes and health-care utilization. METHODS: We performed an e-survey of high-volume Medicare and/or Medicaid physicians (spending >50% of their time caring for Medicare and/or Medicaid patients), practicing for >2 years but <30 years post-residency and/or fellowship; working in a general, internal, family medicine or specialist setting; spending ≥40% of their time providing direct care and having received ≥1 request for a non-medical switch in the past 12 months. Physicians were queried on 15-items to assess perceptions regarding the impact non-medical switching on medication-related outcomes and health-care utilization. RESULTS: Three-hundred and fifty physicians were included. Respondents reported they felt non-medical switching, to some degree, increased side-effects (54.0%), medication errors (56.0%) and medication abandonment (60.3%), and ~50% believed it increased patients' out-of-pocket costs. Few physicians (≤13.4% for each) felt non-medical switching had a positive impact on effectiveness, adherence or patients' or physicians' confidence in the quality-of-care provided. Non-office visit and prescriber-pharmacy contact were most frequently thought to increase due to non-medical switching. One-third of physicians felt office visits were very frequently/frequently increased, and ~ 1-in-5 respondents believed laboratory testing and additional medication use very frequently/frequently increased following a non-medical switch. About 1-in-10 physicians felt non-medical switching very frequently/frequently increased the utilization of emergency department or in-hospital care. CONCLUSION: This study suggests high-volume Medicare and/or Medicaid physician providers perceive multiple negative influences of non-medical switching on medication-related outcomes and health-care utilization.

Communication of Medication Nonmedical Switching Policies and Procedures by Insurance Companies: Results of an E-Survey.

PURPOSE: Nonmedical switching is defined as a change in a stable patient's prescribed medication to a clinically distinct, nongeneric alternative for reasons other than lack of clinical response, adverse effects, or poor adherence. Nonmedical switching often results from formulary changes implemented by insurers to lower medication costs. We sought to survey randomly sampled physicians to elicit their opinions regarding insurers' communication about nonmedical switching. METHODS: We performed an online, cross-sectional survey of licensed, practicing physicians who were >2 years but <30 years out of residency and/or fellowship, who practiced in an internal medicine, family medicine, or specialist setting, spent ≥10% of their work time providing direct patient care, and had received at least 1 request for a nonmedical switch for ≥1 patient in the prior 12 months. The survey was fielded from November to December 2018. We report weighted percent responses categorized from 5- or 7-point Likert scale questions. FINDINGS: E-mail invitations were sent to 13,117 randomly sampled physicians, and 1818 opened the e-mail and followed the embedded survey link to participate. Of these, 1010 total physicians (55.5%), 606 primary care and 404 specialists, who treated patients experiencing nonmedical switching in the prior 12 months completed the survey. A few physicians were notified about nonmedical switches by insurers; more frequently physicians learned about them from pharmacies serving their patients. Notification frequently occurred at or after a refill came due. Notification via electronic medical record or insurer letter was less frequent. Few thought that insurers clearly communicated information about alternative medications when a nonmedical switch was required, and most disagreed that insurers provided clear procedures, timelines, and methods to track challenges. Nearly all agreed that insurers should provide supporting documentation or rationale for nonmedical switches and specifics on alternatives. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that steps to improve communication and physicians' and patients' ability to navigate nonmedical switches or challenge procedures should be implemented. IMPLICATIONS: This survey of primary care and speciality physicians suggests that physicians believe that insurers' current level of communication regarding nonmedical switching is suboptimal. Respondents suggested that insurers did not optimally communicate information about alternative medications when a nonmedical switch was required and did not provide clear procedures, timelines, and methods to track challenges. A preponderance of physicians agreed that steps to improve physician-insurer communication to aid in the navigation of nonmedical switch and to challenge procedures should be implemented. If not addressed, these identified nonmedical switch communication issues may have a negative effect on achieving the quadruple aim of enhancing patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, and improving the work life of health care practitioners and their staff.

Specialist physician perspectives on non-medical switching of prescription medications.

Introduction: A non-medical switch is a change to a patient's medication regimen for reasons other than lack of clinical response, side-effects or poor adherence. Specialist physicians treat complex patients who may be vulnerable to non-medical switching. Objectives: To evaluate specialist physicians' perceptions regarding the frequency of non-medical switch requests, and the impact on their patients' outcomes and healthcare utilization. Methods: An online survey of randomly sampled physicians spending ≥10% of time providing patient care and having received ≥1 non-medical switch request during the prior 12-months. Results: Among 404 specialist physicians surveyed, non-medical switch requests were reported as very frequent or frequent by 35.0% of oncologists (for injectable cancer agents) and up to 80.3% of endocrinologists (for injectable anti-hyperglycemics). Respondents reported decreased medication effectiveness (25.0% of oncologists to 75.0% of dermatologists) and increased side-effects (32.5% of oncologists to 66.7% of psychiatrists). Most specialists reported very frequent or frequent increases in non-office visits (52.5% of oncologists to 75.3% of endocrinologists) and calls with pharmacies (57.5% of oncologists to 80.5% of rheumatologists) due to non-medical switching. Conclusions: Receipt of non-medical switching requests were common among specialist physicians. Non-medical switching may lead to negative effects on patient care and require increased healthcare utilization.

Physicians' perspectives regarding non-medical switching of prescription medications: Results of an internet e-survey.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are in an ideal position to describe the impact of medication non-medical switching (switching commonly due to formulary changes by insurer for reasons unrelated to patient health) on their practice dynamics and patient care. We sought to examine physicians' openness to requests for non-medical switching and their experiences and opinions regarding the impact of non-medical switching on their practice, staff and patients. METHODS: An online survey of randomly-sampled physicians spending ≥10% of time providing patient care and having received ≥1 non-medical switch request during the prior 12-months. The impact of non-medical switching on clinical decision-making process; professional experience with clinical practice, patient-physician relationship, insurance process; and perceived impact on practice, staff and patients were assessed. Weighted percent responses were calculated. RESULTS: We sampled 1,010 physicians (response rate = 55.5%). Many responded being frequently not amenable (26.0%) or had reservations (41.8%) to non-medical switch requests; with >50% indicating patient stability on current therapy and suboptimal alternatives as factors frequently influencing amenability. Physicians agreed non-medical switching can create ethical concerns (clinical judgement, autonomy, ability to treat per guidelines; 74.8%, 82.3%, 53.5%, respectively), while forcing them to take responsibility for insurers' decisions (81.1%) and diverting their clinical time (84.3%). Most indicated non-medical switching increased practice burden (administrative, non-billable interactions, additional staffing, non-office patient contact, calls to/from the pharmacy; 85.0%, 72.5%, 62.2%, 64.2%, 69.5%, respectively). Physicians felt insurer processes discouraged non-medical switch challenges (76.7%) and required inconvenient lengths-of-time (76.1%) speaking to insurer representatives without proper expertise (62.0%). They believed non-medical switching negatively impacted aspects of care (effectiveness, side-effects, medication adherence and abandonment, out-of-pocket costs, medication errors; 46.5%, 53.2%, 50.6%, 49.4%, 59.6%, 54.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians were frequently not amenable or had reservations regarding non-medical switching. They noted ethical concerns due to non-medical switching. Most felt non-medical switches burdened their practice and negatively impacted care.

The impact of care management information technology model on quality of care after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: "Bridging the Divides".

BACKGROUND: Reducing readmissions and improving metrics of care are a national priority. Supplementing traditional care with care management may improve outcomes. The Bridges program was an initial evaluation of a care management platform (CareLinkHub), supported by information technology (IT) developed to improve the quality and transition of care from hospital to home after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABG) and reduce readmissions. METHODS: CareLink is comprised of care managers, patient navigators, pharmacists and physicians. Information to guide care management is guided by a middleware layer to gather information, PLR (ColdLight Solutions, LLC) and presented to CareLink staff on a care management platform, Aerial™ (Medecision). In addition there is an analytic engine to help evaluate and guide care, Neuron™ (Coldlight Solutions, LLC). RESULTS: The "Bridges" program enrolled a total of 716 CABG patients with 850 admissions from April 2013 through March 2015. The data of the program was compared with those of 1111 CABG patients with 1203 admissions in the 3years prior to the program. No impact was seen with respect to readmissions, Blood Pressure or LDL control. There was no significant improvement in patients' reported outcomes using either the CTM-3 or any of the SAQ-7 scores. Patient follow-up with physicians within 1week of discharge improved during the Bridges years. CONCLUSIONS: The CareLink hub platform was successfully implemented. Little or no impact on outcome metrics was seen in the short follow-up time.

The impact of care management information technology model on quality of care after percutaneous coronary intervention: "Bridging the Divides".

BACKGROUND: Reducing readmissions and improving metrics of care are a national priority. Supplementing traditional care with care management may improve outcomes. The Bridges program was an initial evaluation of a care management platform (CareLinkHub), supported by information technology (IT) developed to improve the quality and transition of care from hospital to home after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and reduce readmissions. METHODS: CareLink is comprised of care managers, patient navigators, pharmacists and physicians. Information to guide care management is guided by a middleware layer to gather information, PLR (ColdLight Solutions, LLC) and presented to CareLink staff on a care management platform, Aerial™ (Medecision). An additional analytic engine [Neuron™ (ColdLight Solutions, LLC)] helps, evaluates and guide care. RESULTS: The "Bridges" program enrolled a total of 2054 PCI patients with 2835 admission from April, 1st 2013 through March 1st, 2015. The data of the program was compared with those of 3691 PCI patients with 4414 admissions in the 3years prior to the program. No impact was seen with respect to inpatient and observation readmission, or emergency department visits. Similarly no change was noticed in LDL control. There was minimal improvement in BP control and only in the CTM-3 and SAQ-7 physical limitation scores in the patients' reported outcomes. Patient follow-up with physicians within 1week of discharge improved during the Bridges years. CONCLUSIONS: The CareLink hub platform was successfully implemented. Little or no impact on outcome metrics was seen in the short follow-up time. The Bridges program suggests that population health management must be a long-term goal, improving preventive care in the community.

Innovative Information Technology-Powered Population Health Care Management Improves Outcomes and Reduces Hospital Readmissions and Emergency Department Visits.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic conditions are often the most frequent users of health care. Moreover, adapting to developments in one's illness, understanding how to self-manage a chronic illness, and sharing information between primary care and specialty providers, can be a full-time job for someone with a chronic illness. In response to these challenges, Christiana Care Health System (Wilmington, Delaware) developed Care Link, an information technology (IT)-enhanced care management support to enable populations of patients to achieve better clinical outcomes at lower cost. METHODS: In 2012 Christiana Care received a grant to design a generalizable, scalable, and replicable IT-driven care model that would integrate disparate clinical and registry data generated from routine care to support longitudinal care management for patients with ischemic heart disease. The single-disease care management program was expanded beginning in mid-2015 to serve risk-based models for many diseases and chronic conditions. RESULTS: More than 8,600 patients in several surgical and medical populations, including joint replacement, cervical spine surgery, and congestive heart failure, have been supported by Care Link. For example, preoperative assessment of patients with elective joint replacement to predict post-acute care needs led to an increase in the volume of patients discharged to home with self-care or with home health care by 30%-from 61% to 80%. CONCLUSION: Care Link IT functions can be replicated to address the unique longitudinal care needs of any population. Care Link's next steps are to continue to increase the number of patients served throughout the region and to expand the scope of care management programming.

Attitudes of Nurse and Physician trainees towards an interprofessional simulated education experience on Pain Assessment and Management.

An interprofessional group of educators from multiple institutions piloted a simulation-based learning experience focusing on acute pain management. The participants in the program were resident physicians-novice nurse dyads, and medical student-nursing student dyads from large universities and a magnet health care system. Each dyad was challenged to assess and manage acute pain in a simulated hospitalized patient using effective collaboration skills. The simulations included pre-debriefing, simulation, and a debriefing session. Participants completed pre- and post-surveys measuring confidence in pain management and attitudes toward physician-nurse collaboration. There was a significant positive shift in the confidence of the learners' ability to assess and manage acute pain in a hospitalized patient after the simulation and debriefing (23.2% strongly agreed versus 7% at baseline). Participants' attitudes regarding education to enhance interprofessional collaboration improved after the simulation experience (83.9% strongly agreed versus 73.7% at baseline). Based on these encouraging findings, we are extending this interprofessional experience to a larger group of learners with the same targeted dyads.

All the World's a Stage: Integrating Theater and Medicine for Interprofessional Team Building in Physician and Nurse Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the delivery of excellent patient care, physician-nurse teams must work in a collaborative manner. We found that venues for the joint training of physician-nurse teams to foster collaboration are insufficient. METHODS: We developed a novel interprofessional experience in which resident physicians and nurse residents practiced communication and collaboration skills involving a simulated alcohol withdrawal patient care scenario. Theater students portrayed the patients experiencing withdrawal. The team cared for each patient in a fully equipped and functioning hospital room in a simulation center. Together, they collaborated on interventions and a patient plan of care. After the 10-minute bedside scenario, physician and nurse educators facilitated a joint debriefing session for the physician-nurse learning team. RESULTS: Learners noted an improvement in their ability to identify alcohol withdrawal (44% of participants preencounter to 94% of participants postencounter) and to communicate with team members (55% of participants preencounter to 81% of participants postencounter). CONCLUSION: The learners felt the physician-nurse team training experience was exceptionally valuable for its authenticity.

Physicians' decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about physicians' decisions in regard to withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures. We therefore studied internists' views on this subject. METHODS: We surveyed 1000 generalist and subspecialist internists about their views on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Thirty-two hypothetical cases were included. The effect of the demographic data on withholding or withdrawing treatment was analyzed via analysis of covariance and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1000 internists, 407 (41%) completed and returned surveys. A majority of respondents (51%) were willing to withhold or withdraw treatment in all 32 scenarios; 49% were unwilling to withhold or withdraw in at least 1 scenario. Respondents were likely to withhold treatment in 14 of 16 scenarios compared with 13.7 of 16 scenarios for withdrawing treatments (P<.001). Respondents withheld or withdrew feeding tubes in 6.6 of 8 scenarios (P<.001) and antibiotics in 6.7 of 8 scenarios (P = .001) compared with ventilators (7.1 of 8 scenarios) and dialysis (7.3 of 8 scenarios). Respondents were less likely to withhold or withdraw treatments in nonterminally ill (12.9 of 16 scenarios) (P = .02) and alert patients (13.2 of 16 scenarios) (P<.001) compared with terminally ill patients (14.9 of 16 scenarios) and patients with dementia (14.5 of 16 scenarios). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of internists would be unwilling to adhere to some of patients' wishes to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The clinical scenario and type of treatment affect internists' decisions about whether they would withhold or withdraw such treatment.