Family cascade screening for equitable identification of familial hypercholesterolemia: study protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a heritable disorder affecting 1.3 million individuals in the USA. Eighty percent of people with FH are undiagnosed, particularly minoritized populations including Black or African American people, Asian or Asian American people, and women across racial groups. Family cascade screening is an evidence-based practice that can increase diagnosis and improve health outcomes but is rarely implemented in routine practice, representing an important care gap. In pilot work, we leveraged best practices from behavioral economics and implementation science-including mixed-methods contextual inquiry with clinicians, patients, and health system constituents-to co-design two patient-facing implementation strategies to address this care gap: (a) an automated health system-mediated strategy and (b) a nonprofit foundation-mediated strategy with contact from a foundation-employed care navigator. This trial will test the comparative effectiveness of these strategies on completion of cascade screening for relatives of individuals with FH, centering equitable reach. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III randomized controlled trial testing the comparative effectiveness of two strategies for implementing cascade screening with 220 individuals with FH (i.e., probands) per arm identified from a large northeastern health system. The primary implementation outcome is reach, or the proportion of probands with at least one first-degree biological relative (parent, sibling, child) in the USA who is screened for FH through the study. Our secondary implementation outcomes include the number of relatives screened and the number of relatives meeting the American Heart Association criteria for FH. Our secondary clinical effectiveness outcome is post-trial proband cholesterol level. We will also use mixed methods to identify implementation strategy mechanisms for implementation strategy effectiveness while centering equity. DISCUSSION: We will test two patient-facing implementation strategies harnessing insights from behavioral economics that were developed collaboratively with constituents. This trial will improve our understanding of how to implement evidence-based cascade screening for FH, which implementation strategies work, for whom, and why. Learnings from this trial can be used to equitably scale cascade screening programs for FH nationally and inform cascade screening implementation efforts for other genetic disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05750667. Registered 15 February 2023-retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05750667 .

Sustainable deimplementation of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in children hospitalized with bronchiolitis: study protocol for the Eliminating Monitor Overuse (EMO) type III effectiveness-deimplementation cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Methods of sustaining the deimplementation of overused medical practices (i.e., practices not supported by evidence) are understudied. In pediatric hospital medicine, continuous pulse oximetry monitoring of children with the common viral respiratory illness bronchiolitis is recommended only under specific circumstances. Three national guidelines discourage its use for children who are not receiving supplemental oxygen, but guideline-discordant practice (i.e., overuse) remains prevalent. A 6-hospital pilot of educational outreach with audit and feedback resulted in immediate reductions in overuse; however, the best strategies to optimize sustainment of deimplementation success are unknown. METHODS: The Eliminating Monitor Overuse (EMO) trial will compare two deimplementation strategies in a hybrid type III effectiveness-deimplementation trial. This longitudinal cluster-randomized design will be conducted in Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) Network hospitals and will include baseline measurement, active deimplementation, and sustainment phases. After a baseline measurement period, 16-19 hospitals will be randomized to a deimplementation strategy that targets unlearning (educational outreach with audit and feedback), and the other 16-19 will be randomized to a strategy that targets unlearning and substitution (adding an EHR-integrated clinical pathway decision support tool). The primary outcome is the sustainment of deimplementation in bronchiolitis patients who are not receiving any supplemental oxygen, analyzed as a longitudinal difference-in-differences comparison of overuse rates across study arms. Secondary outcomes include equity of deimplementation and the fidelity to, and cost of, each deimplementation strategy. To understand how the deimplementation strategies work, we will test hypothesized mechanisms of routinization (clinicians developing new routines supporting practice change) and institutionalization (embedding of practice change into existing organizational systems). DISCUSSION: The EMO trial will advance the science of deimplementation by providing new insights into the processes, mechanisms, costs, and likelihood of sustained practice change using rigorously designed deimplementation strategies. The trial will also advance care for a high-incidence, costly pediatric lung disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05132322 . Registered on November 10, 2021.

Implementation mapping to plan for a hybrid trial testing the effectiveness and implementation of a behavioral intervention for HIV medication adherence and care retention.

Background: Implementation mapping is a systematic, collaborative, and contextually-attentive method for developing implementation strategies. As an exemplar, we applied this method to strategy development for Managed Problem Solving Plus (MAPS+), an adapted evidence-based intervention for HIV medication adherence and care retention that will be delivered by community health workers and tested in an upcoming trial. Methods: In Step 1: Conduct Needs Assessment, we interviewed 31 stakeholders to identify determinants of MAPS+ implementation in 13 clinics serving people with HIV in Philadelphia County. In Step 2: Develop Logic Model, we used these determinants as inputs for a working logic model guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. In Step 3: Operationalize Implementation Strategies, our team held a virtual stakeholder meeting to confirm determinants. We synthesized stakeholder feedback, then identified implementation strategies that conceptually matched to determinants using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Next, we operationalized implementation strategies with specific examples for clinic settings. We linked strategies to behavior change theories to allow for a mechanistic understanding. We then held a second virtual stakeholder meeting to present the implementation menu for feedback and glean generalizable insights for how these strategies could be operationalized in each stakeholder's clinic. In Step 4: Protocolize Strategies, we incorporated stakeholder feedback and finalized the implementation strategy menu. Findings: Implementation mapping produced a menu of 39 strategies including revise professional roles, identify and prepare champions, use warm handoffs, and change record systems. The process of implementation mapping generated key challenges for implementation strategy development: lack of implementation strategies targeting the outer setting (i.e., sociopolitical context); tension between a one-size-fits-all and individualized approach for all clinics; conceptual confusion between facilitators and strategies; and challenges in translating the implementation science lexicon for partners. Implications: This case exemplar advances both MAPS+ implementation and implementation science methods by furthering our understanding of the use of implementation mapping to develop strategies that enhance uptake of evidence-based interventions. The implementation menu will inform MAPS+ deployment across Philadelphia in an upcoming hybrid trial. We will carry out Step 5: Test Strategies to test the effectiveness and implementation of MAPS+.

Stakeholder Perspectives on MAPS.

BACKGROUND: Managed problem solving (MAPS) is an evidence-based intervention that can boost HIV medication adherence and increase viral suppression, but it is not widely used in community clinics. Deploying community health workers to deliver MAPS could facilitate broader implementation, in support of the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative's goal of reducing new HIV infections in the US by 90% by 2030. SETTING: Ryan White-funded clinics in Philadelphia, 1 of 48 US counties prioritized in the EHE. METHODS: Semistructured stakeholder interviews were conducted with 13 clinics and 4 stakeholder groups: prescribing clinicians, nonprescribing clinical team members (eg, medical case managers), clinic administrators, and policymakers. Interviews were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and investigated perceived barriers to and facilitators of MAPS delivery by community health workers. Rapid qualitative analytic techniques were used to synthesize interview data and identify key categories along an implementation pathway. Core determinants (ie, barriers and facilitators) of MAPS implementation were grouped within each category. RESULTS: Stakeholders were receptive to CHW-delivered MAPS and offered critical information on potential implementation determinants including preferences for identification and referral of patients, and the importance of integration and communication within the care team. CONCLUSIONS: This study elucidates insights regarding barriers and facilitators to delivering an evidence-based behavioral intervention in clinics serving people with HIV (PWH) and extends a rapid qualitative approach to HIV care that rigorously incorporates stakeholder data into the development of implementation strategies. It also offers insights for national implementation efforts associated with EHE.

Caregiver experiences during their child's acute medical hospitalization for a mental health crisis.

Adolescents in the United States are increasingly seeking treatment for mental health crises in emergency departments and general medical hospitals. Medical needs are often addressed quickly, yet youth remain hospitalized because further psychiatric treatment is not immediately available. We sought to better understand the experiences of caregivers whose children are "boarding" in a medical hospital while awaiting inpatient psychiatric treatment. We conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers who were recruited, enrolled, and interviewed during their child's hospital stay. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was facilitated by NVivo 12. Fourteen caregivers enrolled in the study. Themes that emerged included positive hospital and provider experiences; frustration with the medical and mental health care systems; information needs; fears about inpatient psychiatric units; practical challenges and emotional needs; difficulties with caregiver-child communication; difficulties with clinician-caregiver communication; and need for self-care and support. While many caregivers felt positively about the overall experience at the hospital, they also wished for more information about their child's treatment plan and future, as well as social support, emotional comfort for themselves, and self-care skills and resources. Their experiences illuminate ways in which clinical practice can ameliorate concerns and alleviate stress of caregivers related to their child's mental health crisis.

Depression and Anxiety Symptoms During and After Pediatric Asthma Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: Depression and anxiety are common in children with asthma, and asthma hospitalization is an underused opportunity to identify mental health concerns. We assessed depression and anxiety symptoms during asthma hospitalization and 1 to 2 months post discharge. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included children aged 7 to 17 years who were hospitalized for asthma exacerbation. Participants completed the self-report PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) depression and anxiety symptom scales (T score mean = 50, SD = 10) during hospitalization and 1 to 2 months after discharge. Higher scores indicate more symptoms and/or greater severity. We compared patients' scores during hospitalization and at follow-up using paired t tests and examined individual patients' depression and anxiety symptom trajectories using a Sankey diagram. RESULTS: Among 96 participants who completed the study, 53% had elevated symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both either during hospitalization or after discharge. During hospitalization, 38% had elevated depression symptoms and 45% had elevated anxiety symptoms. At postdischarge follow-up, 18% had elevated depression symptoms and 20% had elevated anxiety symptoms. We observed all possible symptom trajectories: symptoms during hospitalization that persisted (especially if both depression and anxiety symptoms were present), symptoms that resolved, and symptoms that were present at follow-up only. CONCLUSIONS: Just more than half of youth hospitalized for asthma exacerbation experienced depression and/or anxiety symptoms during hospitalization or at follow-up. Patients who had both depression and anxiety symptoms during hospitalization were the most likely to have persistent symptoms at follow-up. Screening at both time points may be useful to identify mental health symptoms.

Adapting Safety Check as a Universal Suicide Prevention Strategy in Pediatric Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: The presence of unlocked firearms in the home is associated with increased risk of suicide and unintentional injury in youth. We adapted an evidence-based program for promoting safe firearm storage, Safety Check, to enhance its acceptability as a universal suicide prevention strategy in pediatric primary care. METHODS: We applied ADAPT-ITT, an established adaptation framework, to guide iterative program adaptation with ongoing input from key stakeholders. The present study describes 2 phases of ADAPT-ITT: the Production phase (generating adaptations) and the Topical Experts phase (gathering stakeholder feedback on adaptations). After generating proposed program adaptations based on 3 inputs (stakeholder feedback collected in a prior study, the behavioral science literature, and best practices in pediatric medicine), we elicited feedback from stakeholders with firearm expertise. The adaptations included changes such as clarifying firearm ownership will not be documented in the medical record and offering follow-up reminders. We also crowdsourced feedback from 337 parents to select a new name and program logo. RESULTS: Saturation was reached with 9 stakeholders. Feedback confirmed the value of adaptations that: 1) considered context (eg, reason for ownership), 2) promoted parent autonomy in decision-making, and 3) ensured privacy. The most preferred program name was Suicide and Accident prevention through Family Education (SAFE) Firearm. CONCLUSIONS: Guided by an established adaptation framework that prioritized multistage stakeholder feedback, adaptations to the original Safety Check were deemed acceptable. We plan to test the SAFE Firearm program as a universal suicide prevention strategy in pediatric primary care via a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.

Low Sustainment of High-Dose Oral Medication Regimens for Advanced Parkinson's Disease in Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Increasing doses of oral antiparkinson medications are indicated in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD), but little is known about sustainment of high-dose regimens. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sustainment of high-dose oral medication regimens in Medicare beneficiaries with incident advanced PD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized 100%fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2011-2013. We identified advanced PD using a pharmacy claims-based proxy and selected patients who initiated a new high-dose oral medication regimen (daily levodopa equivalent dose [LED] >1000 mg/day for ≥30 days) in 2012. In the following 12 months, we examined: 1) annual proportion of days covered (PDC)≥0.80 and 2) presence of a ≥ 90 day continuous gap at varying dosage thresholds: the initial >1000 mg/day, >800 mg/day, >500 mg/day, or >0 mg/day. RESULTS: We identified 9,405 patients with advanced PD (mean age 77.4 [SD 6.8] years; 53%men). Only 5%maintained a regimen of >1000 mg/day at PDC ≥0.80; 75% had a ≥ 90-day gap in that dosage level. At a dosage threshold of >800 mg/day, 20% had a PDC ≥0.80 and 53% had a ≥ 90-day gap; at >500 mg/day, 56% had a PDC ≥0.80 and 19%had a ≥ 90-day gap; and at >0 mg/day (any dose), 76% had a PDC ≥0.80 and only 10%had a≥90-day gap. CONCLUSION: Few patients with advanced PD sustained a high-dose oral medication regimen in the year following initiation, but most sustained a substantially lower-dose regimen. Strategies to improve advanced PD treatment are needed.

Burden of Parkinson's Disease by Severity: Health Care Costs in the U.S. Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of the health care costs of Parkinson's disease (PD) and the incremental burden of advanced disease is incomplete. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the direct economic burden associated with advanced versus mild/moderate PD in a prevalent national sample of elderly U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with a PD diagnosis. METHODS: Analyzing 100% fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2013, we defined advanced PD with a medication-based algorithm and calculated all-cause and PD-related costs for the overall sample and by disease severity. We measured primary PD-related costs (based on claims with a primary diagnosis of PD) and any PD-related costs (based on claims with PD in any diagnostic field). Generalized linear models were used to estimate risk-adjusted mean cost differences between the advanced and mild/moderate PD groups for the calendar year. RESULTS: The final sample (N = 144,703) had mean observed all-cause, primary PD-related, and any PD-related costs of $23,041 (SD, $34,045), $3429 (SD, $7431), and $9924 (SD, $22,140), respectively. Twenty percent of patients were classified as advanced PD. Costs varied substantially; any PD-related mean costs were $483 for the lowest patient decile (which included 1% of the advanced group) and $48,145 for the highest decile (which included 15% of the advanced group). Incremental risk-adjusted costs of advanced PD were $5818 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $5411-$6225) for all-cause costs, $3644 (95% CI: $3484-$3806) for primary PD-related costs, and $6088 (95% CI: $5779-$6398) for any PD-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly Medicare beneficiaries with PD had substantial variation in PD-related costs. Advanced PD was associated with a larger economic burden than mild/moderate PD. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Trends and Factors Associated With Insurer Approval of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibitor Prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9is)-innovative yet costly cholesterol-lowering agents-have been subject to substantial prior authorization (PA) requirements and low approval rates. We aimed to investigate trends in insurer approval and reasons for rejection for PCSK9i prescriptions as well as associations between patients' demographic, clinical, pharmacy, payer, and PCSK9i-specific plan/coverage factors and approval. METHODS: We examined trends in PCSK9i approval rates and reasons for rejection using medical and prescription claims from 2015 to 2017 for individuals who received a PCSK9i prescription. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate quarterly risk-adjusted approval rates for initial PCSK9i prescriptions and approval for any PCSK9i prescription within 30, 90, and 180 days of the initial PCSK9i prescription. For a 2016 subsample for whom we had PCSK9i-specific plan policy data, we examined factors associated with approval including PCSK9i-specific plan formulary coverage, step therapy requirements, and number of PA criteria. RESULTS: The main sample included 12 309 patients (mean age 64.8 years [SD = 10.8], 52.1% female, 51.5% receiving Medicare) and was similar in characteristics to the 2016 subsample (n = 6091). Approval rates varied across quarters but remained low (initial prescription, 13%-23%; within 90 days, 28%-44%). Over time, rejections owing to a lack of formulary coverage decreased and rejections owing to PA requirements increased. Lack of formulary coverage and having ≥11 PA criteria in the plan policy were associated with lower odds of PCSK9i prescription approval. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm ongoing PCSK9i access issues and offer a baseline for comparison in future studies examining the impact of recent efforts to improve PCSK9i access.

Use of a medication-based algorithm to identify advanced Parkinson's disease in administrative claims data: Associations with claims-based indicators of disease severity.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of a gold standard definition for advanced Parkinson's Disease (APD), coupled with absence of disease severity information in diagnostic codes, hinders use of large administrative databases for conducting population health and comparative effectiveness studies. METHODS: Using pharmacy claims data, we created an algorithm to identify APD: any 30-day average levodopa equivalent dose (LED) >1000 mg/day. Using 2013 100% U.S. Medicare claims, we applied this algorithm and used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between assigned APD status and claims-based indicators of PD severity (any deep brain stimulation, fall, hallucinations, walker, wheelchair, specialty bed, dementia diagnosis, skilled nursing facility, hospice), adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. Levodopa >1000 mg/day, levodopa >800 mg/day and LED >800 mg/day were used in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In our sample (N = 144,703), 20% were assigned APD status based on the LED >1000 mg/day cut-off. This group had significantly higher odds of having each claims-based indicator, compared with those assigned mild-moderate PD status. Odds ratios were highest for indicators for any DBS (OR: 2.96; 95% CI:2.75-3.19) and specialty bed (OR:2.15, 95% CI: 1.99-2.32) and lowest for fall (OR:1.27; 95% CI:1.20-1.34) and dementia diagnosis (OR:1.21; 95% CI:1.18-1.25). Results based on alternative approaches were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patients classified as having APD via a pharmacy claims-based algorithm had higher odds of having claims-based clinical markers of APD, compared with patients categorized as having mild-moderate PD. This proxy strategy could facilitate future claims-based studies and warrants further refinement and validation using medical records or other clinical sources.

Adolescents' Experiences During "Boarding" Hospitalization While Awaiting Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment Following Suicidal Ideation or Suicide Attempt.

BACKGROUND: Two million adolescents experience suicidal ideation (SI) or suicide attempt (SA) annually, and they frequently present to emergency departments. Delays in transfer to inpatient psychiatric units increasingly lead to "boarding" in emergency departments and inpatient medical units. We sought to understand adolescents' perspectives during boarding hospitalizations to gain insight into helpful practices and targets for improvement. METHODS: Using convenience sampling, we conducted semistructured interviews with 27 adolescents hospitalized for SI or SA while they were awaiting transfer to an inpatient psychiatric facility. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the thematic analysis was organized using NVivo 11. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged: (1) supportive clinical interactions, (2) information needs, (3) repetitive inquiries, (4) safety, (5) previous hospital experiences, (6) activities and boredom, (7) physical comfort, and (8) emotions. Adolescents expressed appreciation for compassionate clinicians and for receiving information about what to expect, experienced the hospital as a safe environment, emphasized the value of staying occupied and of physical comfort, and were relieved to be receiving help to reduce their suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Reports of embarrassment and discomfort about repeated inquiries from the clinical team, comparisons with previous hospital experiences, and unanswered questions about what would occur during the planned inpatient psychiatric hospitalization were common. CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of adolescents seeking care for SI or SA are an important source of information for health care systems seeking to improve hospital care. Clinicians can relieve distress of adolescents awaiting psychiatric hospitalization by focusing on compassionate connection, minimizing repeated inquiries, and providing complete and concrete information about treatment plans.

Comparative Survival Associated With Use of Targeted vs Nontargeted Therapy in Medicare Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have shown increased tolerability and survival advantages over older treatments in clinical trials, but understanding of real-world survival improvements is still emerging. Objective: To compare overall and RCC-specific survival associated with use of targeted vs nontargeted therapy for metastatic RCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 2000 to 2013 to examine patients with stage IV (distant) clear cell RCC at the time of diagnosis who received any targeted or nontargeted therapy. A 2-stage residual inclusion model was fitted to estimate the survival advantages of targeted treatments using an instrumental variable approach to account for both measured and unmeasured group differences. Data analyses were conducted from July 24, 2017, to April 4, 2019. Exposures: Targeted therapy (study group) or nontargeted therapy (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival and RCC-specific survival, defined as the interval between the date of first drug treatment and date of death or end of the observation period. Results: The final sample included 1015 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.1] years; 392 [39%] women); 374 (37%) received nontargeted therapy and 641 (63%) received targeted therapy. The targeted therapy group had a greater percentage of disabled patients (ie, those <65 years old who were eligible for Medicare because of disability) and older patients (ie, those ≥75 years old) and higher comorbidity index and disability scores compared with the nontargeted therapy group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed higher overall survival for targeted vs nontargeted therapy (log-rank test, χ21 = 5.79; P = .02); median survival was not statistically significantly different (8.7 months [95% CI, 7.3-10.2 months] vs 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.8-8.8 months]; P = .14). According to the instrumental variable analysis, the median overall survival advantage was 3.0 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.3 months), and overall survival improvements associated with targeted therapy vs nontargeted therapy were statistically significant: 8% at 1 year (44% [95% CI, 39%-50%] vs 36% [95% CI, 30%-42%]; P = .01), 7% at 2 years (25% [95% CI, 20%-30%] vs 18% [95% CI, 13%-23%]; P = .009), and 5% at 3 years (15% [95% CI, 11%-19%] vs 10% [95% CI, 6%-13%]; P = .01). Receipt of targeted therapy was associated with a lower hazard of death compared with nontargeted therapy (overall survival hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; RCC-specific survival hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]). Conclusions and Relevance: Targeted therapies were associated with modest survival advantages despite a treatment group with more medical complexity, likely reflecting appropriateness for an expanded population of patients. As advances in cancer treatment continue, rigorous methods that account for unobserved confounders will be needed to evaluate their real-world impact on outcomes.

Impact of Cost-Sharing Increases on Continuity of Specialty Drug Use: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of cost-sharing increases on continuity of specialty drug use in Medicare beneficiaries with multiple sclerosis (MS) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Five percent Medicare claims data (2007-2010). STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study examining changes in specialty drug use among a group of Medicare Part D beneficiaries without low-income subsidies (non-LIS) as they transitioned from a 5 percent cost-sharing preperiod to a ≥25 percent cost-sharing postperiod, as compared to changes among a disease-matched contemporaneous control group of patients eligible for full low-income subsidies (LIS), who faced minor cost sharing (≤$6.30 copayment) in both the pre- and postperiods. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Key variables were extracted from Medicare data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Relative to the LIS group, the non-LIS group had a greater increase in incidence of 30-day continuous gaps in any Part D treatment from the lower cost-sharing period to the higher cost-sharing period (MS, absolute increase = 10.1 percent, OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.17; RA, absolute increase = 21.9 percent, OR = 2.75, 95% CI 2.15-3.51). The increase in Part D treatment gaps was not offset by increased Part B specialty drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-sharing increases due to specialty tier-level cost sharing were associated with interruptions in MS and RA specialty drug treatments.

Association of Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs With Prescription Abandonment and Delay in Fills of Novel Oral Anticancer Agents.

Purpose The number of novel oral anticancer agents is increasing, but financial barriers may limit access. We examined associations between out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and reduced and/or delayed treatment initiation. Methods This retrospective claims-based study used 2014 to 2015 data from a large, proprietary, integrated database and included Medicare and commercial insurance enrollees with a new, adjudicated prescription for any of 38 oral anticancer agents. We examined rates of claim reversal (failure to purchase approved prescription), delayed initiation (reversal with subsequent fill of same agent within 90 days after adjudication), and abandonment (reversal with no fill of same agent within 90 days after adjudication) for the index oral anticancer agent. We also examined whether patients filled any alternate oral, injectable, or infusible anticancer agent within 90 days. Logistic regressions controlled for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics to estimate adjusted rates. Results Among the final sample (N = 38,111), risk-adjusted rates of claim reversal ranged from 13% to 67%, increasing with higher OOP costs. Although the abandonment rate was 18% overall, risk-adjusted rates were higher in greater OOP cost categories (10.0% for ≤ $10 group v 13.5% for $50.01 to $100 group, 31.7% for $100.01 to $500 group, 41.0% for $500.01 to $2,000 group, and 49.4% for > $2,000 group; P < .001 compared with ≤ $10 group). Rates remained similar after accounting for use of alternate oral, injectable, or infusible anticancer agents. Delayed initiation was also more frequent for higher OOP cost categories (3% in ≤ $10 group v 18% in > $2,000 group; P < .001). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by insurance type, pharmacy type, sex, and indication identified similar associations. Conclusion Higher OOP costs were associated with higher rates of oral prescription abandonment and delayed initiation across cancers. Fiscally sustainable strategies are needed to improve patient access to cancer medications.

Association of high cost sharing and targeted therapy initiation among elderly Medicare patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High out-of-pocket costs may limit access to oral therapies covered by patients' prescription drug benefits. We explored financial barriers to treatment initiation in patients newly diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by comparing Medicare Part D patients with low out-of-pocket costs due to receipt of full low-income subsidies (LIS beneficiaries) to their counterparts who were responsible for more than 25% cost sharing during Medicare's initial coverage phase (non-LIS beneficiaries). We used 2011-2013 100% Medicare claims for non-LIS and LIS beneficiaries newly diagnosed with metastases in the liver, lung, or bone to examine targeted therapy treatment initiation rates and time to initiation for (1) oral medications (sorafenib, sunitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, or axitinib) covered under Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D); (2) injected or infused medications (temsirolimus or bevacizumab) covered by Medicare's medical benefit (Part B); and (3) any (Part D or Part B) targeted therapy. The final sample included 1721 patients. On average, non-LIS patients were responsible for out-of-pocket costs of ≥$2,800 for their initial oral prescription, as compared to ≤$6.60 for LIS patients. Compared to LIS patients, a lower percentage of non-LIS patients initiated oral therapies (risk-adjusted rates, 20.7% vs. 33.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, P < 0.001) and any targeted therapies (26.7% vs. 40.4%, OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.71, P < 0.001). Non-LIS patients were also slower to access therapy. High cost sharing was associated with reduced and/or delayed access to targeted therapies under Medicare Part D, suggesting that financial barriers play a role in treatment decisions.

Reducing out-of-pocket cost barriers to specialty drug use under Medicare Part D: addressing the problem of "too much too soon".

OBJECTIVES: Medicare Part D specialty drug users not qualifying for low-income subsidies (non-LIS beneficiaries) face high and variable cost sharing during the calendar year. We examined their out-of-pocket (OOP) cost patterns under the existing Part D cost-sharing policies and proposed changes to these policies. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data from 2012, we examined mean annual and monthly OOP drug costs for Medicare Part D patients who were full-year users of Part D specialty drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n = 1063), multiple sclerosis (MS) (n = 2256), or chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) (n = 1135) under existing policy. Using the same data, we simulated costs under both proposed Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) policy recommendations and our own recommendations. RESULTS: In 2012, our sample faced mean annual cumulative OOP drug costs (for all medications) of $3949 (RA), $5238 (MS), and $6322 (CML). Mean OOP costs were $977 (RA), $1613 (MS), and $2456 (CML) in January alone. A substantial proportion of total annual OOP prescription spending also occurred during the catastrophic coverage phase (RA: $1229 [31%]; MS: $2456 [47%]; CML: $3546 [56%]). Under proposed MedPAC changes, patients would have faced maximum annual OOP spending of $4700, but mean OOP costs in January and February would have been higher compared with the existing policy. Under our proposed strategy, OOP costs would have been spread evenly over 12 months (≤$392 per month). The potential incremental costs of our proposed strategy would have been $23.55 per non-LIS Part D beneficiary per year. CONCLUSIONS: The existing Part D cost-sharing structure creates a substantial financial burden for specialty drug users, especially early in the year. Implementing both annual and monthly OOP maximum spending limits would result in lower, more consistent OOP costs, potentially increasing patients' ability to access treatments for life-threatening, chronic, and rare diseases.

High cost sharing and specialty drug initiation under Medicare Part D: a case study in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia.

OBJECTIVES: Specialty drugs often offer medical advances but are frequently subject to high cost sharing. This is particularly true with Medicare Part D, where after meeting a deductible, patients without low-income subsidies (non-LIS) typically face 25% to 33% coinsurance (initial coverage phase with "specialty tier" cost sharing), followed by ~50% coinsurance (coverage gap phase), and then 5% coinsurance (catastrophic phase). Yet, no studies have examined the impact of such high cost sharing on specialty drug initiation under Part D. Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), making it an apt case study. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective claims-based analysis utilizing 2011 to 2013 100% Medicare claims. METHODS: TKI initiation rates and time to initiation were compared between fee-for-service non-LIS Part D patients newly diagnosed with CML and their LIS counterparts who faced nominal cost sharing of ≤ $5. RESULTS: The first 30-day TKI fill "straddled" benefit phases, for a mean out-of-pocket cost of $2600 or more for non-LIS patients. Non-LIS patients were less likely than LIS patients to have a TKI claim within 6 months of diagnosis (45.3% vs 66.9%; P < .001) and those initiating a TKI took twice as long to fill it (mean = 50.9 vs 23.7 days; P < .001). Cox regressions controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and plan characteristics confirmed descriptive findings (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: High cost sharing was associated with reduced and/or delayed initiation of TKIs. We discuss policy strategies to reduce current financial barriers that adversely impact access to critical therapies under Medicare Part D.

Specialty Tier-Level Cost Sharing and Biologic Agent Use in the Medicare Part D Initial Coverage Period Among Beneficiaries With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between specialty tier-level cost sharing and use of biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during Medicare Part D's initial coverage period (ICP). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using 2007-2010 5% sample Medicare files to examine RA patients with use of a Part D RA biologic agent in the prior year. Patients without low-income subsidies (non-LIS group), who faced specialty tier-level cost sharing, were compared to a control group of low-income subsidy patients (LIS group), who faced nominal out-of-pocket costs in the ICP. Outcomes included use of a Part D or Part B RA biologic agent during the ICP and presence of a ≥30-day continuous gap in treatment among Part D biologic agent users in the ICP. Risk-adjusted outcomes were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and Part D plan characteristics. RESULTS: On average, a 30-day Part D biologic agent supply cost the non-LIS group $484 out of pocket (29.9% cost sharing) versus $5 (0.3% cost sharing) for the LIS group. The non-LIS group was less likely to fill Part D biologic agents (61.2% versus 72.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.46-0.72]; P < 0.001), more than twice as likely to receive Part B biologic agents (9.9% versus 4.4%, OR 2.41 [95% CI 1.61-3.60]; P < 0.001), and less likely to use any biologic agent (70.1% versus 76.9%, OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.55-0.88]; P = 0.002). The non-LIS subgroup filling Part D biologic agents had approximately twice the odds of a gap in both Part D biologic agent and any biologic agent availability. CONCLUSION: Specialty tier-level cost sharing was associated with interruptions in RA biologic agent treatment among Medicare patients.