Assessing Health Care Utilization and Spending Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without HIV.

Improvements in treatment have made HIV a manageable chronic condition, leading to increased life expectancy and a growing share of people with HIV who are older. Older people with HIV have higher rates of many chronic conditions, yet little is known about differences in health care utilization and spending. This study compared health care utilization and spending for Medicare beneficiaries with and without HIV, accounting for differential mortality. The data included demographic characteristics and claims-based information. Estimated cumulative spending for beneficiaries with HIV aged 67 to 77 years was 26% higher for Medicare Part A and 39% higher for Medicare Part B compared with beneficiaries without HIV; most of these differences would be larger if not for greater mortality risk among people with HIV (and therefore fewer years to receive care). Future research should disentangle underlying causes for this increased need and describe potential responses by policymakers and health care providers.

Assessing the health status and mortality of older people over 65 with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of people with HIV in the United States are 50 years or older, and this proportion is growing. Between 2012 and 2016, the largest percent increase in the prevalence rate of HIV was among people aged 65 and older, the eligibility age for Medicare coverage for individuals without a disability or other qualifying condition. Previous work suggests that older people with HIV may have higher rates of chronic conditions and develop them more rapidly than older people who do not have HIV. This study compared the health status of older people with HIV with the older US population not living with HIV by comparing: (1) mortality; (2) prevalence of certain conditions, and (3) incidence of these conditions with increasing age. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older from the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File for the years 2011 to 2016, including 100% of individuals with HIV (N = 43,708), as well as a random 1% sample of individuals without diagnosed HIV (N = 1,029,518). We conducted a survival analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model to assess mortality and to determine the need to adjust for differential mortality in our analyses of the incidence of certain chronic conditions. These results showed that Medicare beneficiaries living with HIV have a significantly higher hazard of mortality compared to older people without diagnosed HIV (3.6 times the hazard). We examined the prevalence of these conditions using logistic regression analysis and found that people with HIV have a statistically significant higher odds of depression, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), osteoporosis, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, chronic hepatitis, end-stage liver disease, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. To look at the rate at which older people are diagnosed with conditions as they age, we used a Fine-Gray competing risk model and showed that for individuals without diagnosis of a given condition at age 65, the future incidence of that condition over the remaining study period was higher for people with HIV even after adjusting for differential hazard of mortality and for other demographic characteristics. Many of these results also varied by personal characteristics including Medicaid dual enrollment, sex, and race and ethnicity, as well as by condition. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing access to care and improving health outcomes for people with HIV is a critical goal of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy 2020. It is important for clinicians and policymakers to be aware that despite significant advances in the treatment and care of people with HIV, older people with HIV have a higher odds of having multiple chronic conditions at any point in time, a higher incidence of new diagnoses of these conditions over time, and a higher hazard of mortality than Medicare beneficiaries without HIV.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis for preventing acquisition of HIV: A cross-sectional study of patients, prescribers, uptake, and spending in the United States, 2015-2016.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, there were approximately 40,000 new HIV diagnoses in the United States. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective strategy that reduces the risk of HIV acquisition; however, uptake among those who can benefit from it has lagged. In this study, we 1) compared the characteristics of patients who were prescribed PrEP with individuals newly diagnosed with HIV infection, 2) identified the specialties of practitioners prescribing PrEP, 3) identified metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) within the US where there is relatively low uptake of PrEP, and 4) reported median amounts paid by patients and third-party payors for PrEP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed prescription drug claims for individuals prescribed PrEP in the Integrated Dataverse (IDV) from Symphony Health for the period of September 2015 to August 2016 to describe PrEP patients, prescribers, relative uptake, and payment methods in the US. Data were available for 75,839 individuals prescribed PrEP, and findings were extrapolated to approximately 101,000 individuals, which is less than 10% of the 1.1 million adults for whom PrEP was indicated. Compared to individuals with newly diagnosed HIV infection, PrEP patients were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (45% versus 26.2%), older (25% versus 19% at ages 35-44), male (94% versus 81%), and not reside in the South (30% versus 52% reside in the South).Using a ratio of the number of PrEP patients within an MSA to the number of newly diagnosed individuals with HIV infection, we found MSAs with relatively low uptake of PrEP were concentrated in the South. Of the approximately 24,000 providers who prescribed PrEP, two-thirds reported primary care as their specialty. Compared to the types of payment methods that people living with diagnosed HIV (PLWH) used to pay for their antiretroviral treatment in 2015 to 2016 reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV Surveillance Special Report, PrEP patients were more likely to have used commercial health insurance (80% versus 35%) and less likely to have used public healthcare coverage or a publicly sponsored assistance program to pay for PrEP (12% versus 45% for Medicaid). Third-party payors covered 95% of the costs of PrEP. Overall, we estimated the median annual per patient out-of-pocket spending on PrEP was approximately US$72. Limitations of this study include missing information on prescription claims of patients not included in the database, and for those included, some patients were missing information on patient diagnosis, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and income (34%-36%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that in 2015-2016, many individuals in the US who could benefit from being on PrEP were not receiving this HIV prevention medication, and those prescribed PrEP had a significantly different distribution of characteristics from the broader population that is at risk for acquiring HIV. PrEP patients were more likely to pay for PrEP using commercial or private insurance, whereas PLWH were more likely to pay for their antiretroviral treatment using publicly sponsored programs. Addressing the affordability of PrEP and otherwise promoting its use among those with indications for PrEP represents an important opportunity to help end the HIV epidemic.

Cost outcomes of supplemental nurse staffing in a large medical center.

Use of agency-employed supplemental nurses on nursing personnel costs was examined in 19 adult patient care units in a large academic medical center. Results indicated that the modest use of supplemental nurses was cost-efficient with regard to overall nursing personnel costs, but heavy reliance on supplemental nurses to meet staffing needs was not cost-efficient. In addition, there was no statistical difference in hourly personnel cost between the use of supplemental nurses and overtime worked by permanent nurses.

Association between stroke center hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke and mortality.

CONTEXT: Although stroke centers are widely accepted and supported, little is known about their effect on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between admission to stroke centers for acute ischemic stroke and mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study using data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. We compared mortality for patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke (n = 30,947) between 2005 and 2006 at designated stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals using differential distance to hospitals as an instrumental variable to adjust for potential prehospital selection bias. Patients were followed up for mortality for 1 year after the index hospitalization through 2007. To assess whether our findings were specific to stroke, we also compared mortality for patients admitted with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 39,409) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 40,024) at designated stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 30,947 patients with acute ischemic stroke, 15,297 (49.4%) were admitted to designated stroke centers. Using the instrumental variable analysis, admission to designated stroke centers was associated with lower 30-day all-cause mortality (10.1% vs 12.5%; adjusted mortality difference, -2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6% to -1.4%; P < .001) and greater use of thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs 1.7%; adjusted difference, 2.2%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 2.8%; P < .001). Differences in mortality also were observed at 1-day, 7-day, and 1-year follow-up. The outcome differences were specific for stroke, as stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals had similar 30-day all-cause mortality rates among those with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (5.0% vs 5.8%; adjusted mortality difference, +0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 1.0%; P = .50) or acute myocardial infarction (10.5% vs 12.7%; adjusted mortality difference, +0.1%; 95% CI, -0.9% to 1.1%; P = .83). CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke, admission to a designated stroke center was associated with modestly lower mortality and more frequent use of thrombolytic therapy.

Small rural hospitals and high-risk operations: how would regionalization affect surgical volume and hospital revenue?

BACKGROUND: Because higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes for many high-risk procedures, regionalization to higher-volume hospitals has been proposed as a way to improve quality of surgical care. The potential impact of such policies on small rural hospital volume and revenue is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We identified all hospitalizations in small rural hospitals (less than 50 beds) in New York State from 1998 to 2001 that included an ICD-9 procedure code for 1 of 9 procedures for which there is a documented volume-outcomes association: abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, aortic-valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, colectomy, coronary artery bypass, cystectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or pulmonary resection. Revenue from these procedures was estimated using gross charges and payor-specific reimbursement rates. We then compared these estimates with total hospital inpatient revenue for each rural hospital. RESULTS: We identified 14 small rural hospitals where at least one of the nine procedures was performed. All included hospitalizations for colectomy. Aortic aneurysm repairs, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies were performed in three hospitals; carotid endarterectomy in two; and esophagectomy in one. In no hospitals were cardiac procedures or pulmonary resections performed. Estimated average contribution to hospital net revenue for all 9 procedures was approximately 2%, nearly all attributable to colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: If all aortic aneurysm repairs, major cardiothoracic procedures, carotid endarterectomies, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies in New York State were regionalized to higher-volume hospitals, no small rural hospitals would experience substantial impact in terms of rural hospital procedure volume and revenue. Even regionalization of colectomy would have a small impact on inpatient volume and revenue.