The Clinical and Economic Burden of Hyperkalemia on Medicare and Commercial Payers.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia (serum potassium >5.0 mEq/L) may be caused by reduced kidney function and drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and is often present in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: To quantify the burden of hyperkalemia in US Medicare fee-for-service and commercially insured populations using real-world claims data, focusing on prevalence, comorbidities, mortality, medical utilization, and cost. METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective claims data analysis was performed on patients with hyperkalemia using the 2014 Medicare 5% sample and the 2014 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter databases. The starting study samples required patient insurance eligibility during ≥1 months in 2014. The identification of hyperkalemia and other comorbidities required having ≥1 qualifying claims in 2014 with an appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code in any position. To address the differences between patients with and without hyperkalemia, CKD subsamples were analyzed separately. Mortality rates were calculated in the Medicare sample population only. The claims were grouped into major service categories; the allowed costs reflected all costs incurred by each cohort divided by the total number of member months for that cohort. RESULTS: The prevalence of hyperkalemia in the Medicare and commercially insured samples was 2.3% and 0.09%, respectively. Hyperkalemia was associated with multiple comorbidities, most notably CKD. The prevalence of CKD in the Medicare and the commercially insured members with hyperkalemia was 64.8% and 31.8%, respectively. After adjusting for CKD severity, the annual mortality rate for Medicare patients with CKD and hyperkalemia was 24.9% versus 10.4% in patients with CKD without hyperkalemia. The allowed costs in patients with CKD and hyperkalemia in the Medicare and commercially insured cohorts were more than twice those in patients with CKD without hyperkalemia. Inpatient care accounted for >50% of costs in patients with CKD and hyperkalemia. CONCLUSION: Hyperkalemia is associated with substantial clinical and economic burden among US commercially insured and Medicare populations.

Cardiovascular event incidence and cost in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Medicare claims-based actuarial analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic burden of cardiovascular events in Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This claims-based actuarial analysis queried 2013 and 2014 Medicare 5% samples, defining a denominator of fee-for-service beneficiaries. Average per patient per month allowed cost ($PPPM) was calculated for T2DM, demographically adjusted non-T2DM, and denominator. Per member per month allowed cost ($PMPM) was calculated by dividing total population cost by member months in the denominator. Costs of five pre-specified cardiovascular events were calculated as a contribution to denominator $PMPM, as contribution to $PPPM in T2DM, and as incremental cost. RESULTS: During the study period, 22.1% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries had T2DM; of these, 9.68% experienced a cardiovascular event or cardiovascular-related death. T2DM cost represented 37.9% of total allowed $PMPM for the denominator. Average total allowed $PPPM for a T2DM beneficiary was $1,834, compared with $850 for a non-T2DM beneficiary (2.2-times higher). Annual rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina admission, heart failure admission, and coronary revascularization in T2DM were 3.3-, 2.4-, 3.2-, 4.0-, and 2.8-times higher than in non-T2DM, and utilization of health services was also greater in T2DM. Cardiovascular events in T2DM accounted for 50% of denominator cardiovascular event cost; 3.6% of denominator population $PMPM was attributable to cardiovascular events in T2DM. Risk-adjusted incremental cardiovascular event cost represented 18.1% of $PPPM in T2DM or 6.9% of $PMPM in the denominator population. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular events in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with T2DM contribute substantially to Medicare cardiovascular events, resource utilization, and cost.

Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of breast cancer at early stages is associated with better clinical and survival outcomes. How the costs of care vary depending on the stage at which breast cancer was diagnosed has not been thoroughly examined. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the stage-dependent average per capita cost of breast cancer treatment for a commercially insured population of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of claims data was based on a population selected from the Truven Healthcare MarketScan commercial claims database. The study comprised women aged 18 to 64 years with breast cancer who had ≥2 claims in 2010 that were ≥30 days apart and included an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code for breast cancer (174.xx, 233.0) in any position of the claim. Two years of postdiagnosis claims data were analyzed by stage at diagnosis (ie, 0, I/II, III, and IV). RESULTS: In total, 8360 women met the criteria for study inclusion (stage 0, N = 2300; stage I/II, N = 4425; stage III, N = 1134; and stage IV, N = 501). The costs were higher for patients whose cancer was more advanced at diagnosis, for all cumulative 6-month periods (months 0-6, 0-12, 0-18, and 0-24). The average costs per patient allowed by the insurance company in the year after diagnosis were $60,637, $82,121, $129,387, and $134,682 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The average costs allowed per patient in the 24 months after the index diagnosis were $71,909, $97,066, $159,442, and $182,655 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The cost difference based on the stage at diagnosis was largely driven by the cost of chemotherapy and noncancer treatments. CONCLUSION: Treating advanced- versus early-stage breast cancer is associated with significant increases in incremental costs. Knowledge of the relevant stage-specific cost data provides support for strengthening programs, such as breast cancer screening, that are designed to shift breast cancer diagnosis to earlier disease stages.

Longitudinal Commercial Claims-Based Cost Analysis of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes. The screening of patients with diabetes to detect retinopathy is recommended by several professional guidelines but is an underutilized service. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the frequency of retinopathy screening and the cost of care in adult patients with diabetes. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan commercial databases (2000-2013) were used to identify the diabetic population aged 18 to 64 years for the performance of a 2001-2013 annual trend analysis of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a 10-year longitudinal analysis of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the trend analysis, the prevalence of diabetes, screening rate, and allowed cost per member per month (PMPM) were calculated. In the longitudinal analysis, data from 4 index years (2001-2004) of patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were combined, and the costs were adjusted to be comparable to the 2004 index year cohort, using the annual diabetes population cost trends calculated in the trend analysis. The longitudinal population was segmented into the number of years of diabetic retinopathy screening (ie, 0, 1-4, 5-7, and 8-10), and the relationship between the years of screening and the PMPM allowed costs was analyzed. The difference in mean incremental cost between years 1 and 10 in each of the 4 cohorts was compared after adjusting for explanatory variables. RESULTS: In the trend analysis, between 2001 and 2013, the prevalence of diabetes increased from 3.93% to 5.08%, retinal screening increased from 26.27% to 29.58%, and the average total unadjusted allowed cost of care for each patient with diabetes increased from $822 to $1395 PMPM. In the longitudinal analysis, the difference between the screening cohorts' mean incremental cost increase was $185 between the 0- and 1-4-year cohorts (P <.003) and $202 between the 0- and 5-7-year cohorts (P <.023). The cost differences between the other cohorts, including $217 between the 0- and 8-10-year cohorts (P <.066), were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, the annual retinopathy screening rate for patients with diabetes has remained low since 2001, and has been well below the guideline-recommended screening levels. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean increase in healthcare expenditures over a 10-year period after diagnosis is not statistically different among those with various retinopathy screening rates, although the increase in healthcare spending is lower for patients with diabetes who were not screened for retinopathy compared with patients who did get screened.

The value of colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening of adults aged 50 to 64.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of life-years saved due to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy for the population aged 50 to 64 years. The cost perspective is that of a private (commercial) insurer, while the value perspective includes survival past age 65 years, when most of the US population is insured by Medicare. We focused on colonoscopy because it is not only diagnostic but also therapeutic; because positive results on other screening tests generally are followed up with colonoscopy; and to build on previous study results that colonoscopy is ultimately more cost-effective than other screening, even considering its expense. STUDY DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation. METHODS: Using a large multi-state cancer registry, a large national administrative claims database, and a model of CRC development based on published clinical literature, we estimated the impact of screening with colonoscopy on incidence of CRC, aggregate cost of colonoscopies and CRC, and life-years saved. RESULTS: Assuming 2013 commercial reimbursement rates for screening and treatment, we found that increasing screening adherence from 50% to 100% would cost about $3 per member per month (2013 US$) and reduce CRC treatment costs by about $1 per member per month. The cost per life-year saved is approximately $12,000, an amount that is much lower than for cervical or breast cancer screening and comparable to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that commercial insurers and employers should promote CRC screening as a high-value service. Promoting such screening through high-quality, low-cost providers would be an exemplar of efficient system innovation.

National burden of preventable adverse drug events associated with inpatient injectable medications: healthcare and medical professional liability costs.

BACKGROUND: Harmful medication errors, or preventable adverse drug events (ADEs), are a prominent quality and cost issue in healthcare. Injectable medications are important therapeutic agents, but they are associated with a greater potential for serious harm than oral medications. The national burden of preventable ADEs associated with inpatient injectable medications and the associated medical professional liability (MPL) costs have not been previously described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic burden of preventable ADEs related to inpatient injectable medications in the United States. METHODS: Medical error data (MedMarx 2009-2011) were utilized to derive the distribution of errors by injectable medication types. Hospital data (Premier 2010-2011) identified the numbers and the types of injections per hospitalization. US payer claims (2009-2010 MarketScan Commercial and Medicare 5% Sample) were used to calculate the incremental cost of ADEs by payer and by diagnosis-related group (DRG). The incremental cost of ADEs was defined as inclusive of the time of inpatient admission and the following 4 months. Actuarial calculations, assumptions based on published literature, and DRG proportions from 17 state discharge databases were used to derive the probability of preventable ADEs per hospitalization and their annual costs. MPL costs were assessed from state- and national-level industry reports, premium rates, and from closed claims databases between 1990 and 2011. The 2010 American Hospital Association database was used for hospital-level statistics. All costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars. RESULTS: Based on this medication-level analysis of reported harmful errors and the frequency of inpatient administrations with actuarial projections, we estimate that preventable ADEs associated with injectable medications impact 1.2 million hospitalizations annually. Using a matched cohort analysis of healthcare claims as a basis for evaluating incremental costs, we estimate that inpatient preventable ADEs associated with injectable medications increase the annual US payer costs by $2.7 billion to $5.1 billion, averaging $600,000 in extra costs per hospital. Across categories of injectable drugs, insulin had the highest risk per administration for a preventable ADE, although errors in the higher-volume categories of anti-infective, narcotic/analgesic, anticoagulant/thrombolytic and anxiolytic/sedative injectable medications harmed more patients. Our analysis of liability claims estimates that MPL associated with injectable medications totals $300 million to $610 million annually, with an average cost of $72,000 per US hospital. CONCLUSION: The incremental healthcare and MPL costs of preventable ADEs resulting from inpatient injectable medications are substantial. The data in this study strongly support the clinical and business cases of investing in efforts to prevent errors related to injectable medications.

Ethics in practice: managed care and the changing health care environment: medicine as a profession managed care ethics working group statement.

Cost pressures and changes in the health care environment pose ethical challenges and hard choices for patients, physicians, policymakers, and society. In 2000 and 2001, the American College of Physicians, with the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Ethics Program, convened a working group of stakeholders--patients, physicians, and managed care representatives, along with medical ethicists--to develop a statement of ethics for managed care. The group explored the impact of a changing health care environment on patient-physician relationships and how to best apply the principles of professionalism in this environment. The statement that emerged offers guidance on preserving the patient-clinician relationship, patient rights and responsibilities, confidentiality and privacy, resource allocation and stewardship, the obligation of health plans to foster an ethical environment for the delivery of care, and the clinician's responsibility to individual patients, the community, and the public health, among other issues.