Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health-Related Outcomes in Crohn's Disease: Results From the National Health and Wellness Survey.

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the entire gastrointestinal tract that is associated with significant humanistic, clinical, and economic burdens. Few studies have assessed the association between CD severity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and medical costs; even fewer have examined differences in disease outcomes among patients of various racial/ethnic groups. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, sociodemographic data, PROs, and economic outcomes for participants with self-reported CD were collected from the National Health and Wellness Survey (2018-2020). Multivariable analyses were used to assess the association of CD severity and race/ethnicity with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), HCRU, and medical costs. Results: Analyses included 1077 participants with CD (818 non-Hispanic White, 109 non-Hispanic Black, and 150 Hispanic). Participants with self-reported moderate/severe CD reported significantly worse HRQoL and WPAI, greater HCRU, and higher medical costs than those with self-reported mild CD. Non-Hispanic Black participants reported better HRQoL and fewer healthcare provider visits than non-Hispanic White participants. There were no significant differences in PROs between non-Hispanic White and Hispanic groups. Interactions between race/ethnicity and CD severity emerged for some, but not all groups: Specifically, non-Hispanic Black participants with moderate/severe CD reported greater absenteeism and more gastroenterologist visits than non-Hispanic Black participants with mild CD. Conclusions: Participants with moderate/severe CD reported worse PROs, greater HCRU, and higher medical costs than those with mild CD. Additionally, racial/ethnic differences were found across several HCRU and economic outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand factors contributing to burden among patients with varying CD severity across racial/ethnic groups.

Associations between pharmacy choice and influenza vaccination: Mail order vs community pharmacy users.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of vaccines, US adult vaccination rates remain low. This is especially true for the influenza vaccine, which is recommended annually and widely available. The accessibility of community pharmacies as convenient places to receive influenza vaccines has been shown to increase uptake. However, use of mail order pharmacies may reduce in-person pharmacist encounters and reduce the likelihood that users receive annual influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the type of pharmacy a patient uses and their likelihood of receiving an influenza vaccine. METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study used the 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to observe noninstitutionalized US adult pharmacy users. Pharmacy type was dichotomized into community use only vs any mail order pharmacy use. Multivariable weighted logistic regression was used to identify associations between the type of pharmacy used and influenza vaccination, adjusting for sociodemographic, health status, and health care access and utilization confounders. All analyses were stratified by age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The aged younger than 65 years and aged 65 years and older samples had 8,074 and 4,037 respondents who represented 95,930,349 and 40,163,276 weighted observations, respectively. Compared with community pharmacy users, mail order users were more likely to be aged 65 and older, be White, have high income, and have a usual source of care (P < 0.0001). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for influenza vaccination were significantly lower among community pharmacy users than mail order users among individuals aged younger than 65 years (AOR=0.71; 95% CI = 0.580.87) but was not significant among those aged 65 years and older (AOR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.69-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy users aged younger than 65 years are less likely to receive the influenza vaccine than their mail order pharmacy user counterparts. These counterintuitive results could be caused by residual confounding due to differences in factors that influence pharmacy use type and vaccination likelihood. Further exploration is needed to account for differences between these populations that independently drive vaccination choice. DISCLOSURES: Dr Burbage was a fellow in the Real World Evidence, Population Health and Quality Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in collaboration with University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy and Pharmacy Quality Alliance, and supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time of this study. She is now employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr Parikh is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Campbell was employed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of the study. He is now employed by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Ramachandran has received an unrelated research contract with Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Gatwood has received vaccine-related research grants from Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to this project and consulting fees for a vaccine-related expert panel with Merck & Co. unrelated to this manuscript and is an advisory board member with Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Urick was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the time of this writing and is currently employed by Prime Therapeutics. He has received community pharmacy-related consulting fees from Cardinal Health and Pharmacy Quality Solutions unrelated to this work. Dr Ozawa has a research grant from Merck & Co. unrelated to this project. This project did not receive funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Pharmacists as accessible health care providers: quantifying the opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are well positioned to improve patient access to care, which may assist value-based care programs in reaching patients. While pharmacy accessibility is broadly acknowledged, much of the research supporting accessibility claims is poor quality. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accessibility of pharmacists in comparison with physicians or qualified health care professionals (QHP) in a commercially insured population. METHODS: IBM MarketScan claims data from 2018 were used for this cross-sectional study. Beneficiaries included in the primary analysis were aged 18-64 years, enrolled with pharmacy benefits in 2018 for 12 months, and had at least 1 valid prescription drug claim or evaluation and management (E&M) code in 2018. Unique pharmacy visits were defined using a 6-day fill window for prescription fill dates, while visits to physicians or other QHP were defined as unique service dates tied to an E&M code. We assessed differences in visit frequency for the full sample, those with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), and "superutilizers" (top 5% based on total cost of care). Our statistical approach included descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon sign rank test. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, 11,720,958 beneficiaries were included in the full sample. The MCC cohort contained 13.8% of the total sample (mean [SD] age: 50.8 [10.8]; 908,880 [56.1%] female). Finally, the superutilizers were 57.3% female with an average age of 48.4 years and comprised 5.3% of the total sample. The median number of pharmacy and physician or QHP visits for the full sample were 5 and 3 (P < 0.0001), yielding a pharmacy to physician or QHP visit ratio of 1.7:1. The MCC cohort had a median of 13 pharmacy visits and 7 physician or QHP visits (ratio 1.9:1; P < 0.0001), and the superutilizers had a median of 14 pharmacy visits and 9 physician or QHP visits (ratio 1.6:1; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients visit their community pharmacies almost twice as often as they visit their physicians or other QHP. Study findings emphasize the accessibility of community pharmacists and highlight the role of community pharmacists in improving patient engagement in all care programs, including value-based care programs. DISCLOSURES: The database infrastructure used for this project was funded by the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Gillings School of Global Public Health; the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, UNC; the CER Strategic Initiative of UNC's Clinical Translational Science Award (UL1TR001111); and the UNC School of Medicine. All authors are employed by the UNC School of Pharmacy. Urick declares consulting fees from Cardinal Health. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Portions of this work were previously presented at the AMCP 2021 Virtual, April 12-16, 2021.