Effects of Real-time Prescription Benefit Recommendations on Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Rising drug costs contribute to medication nonadherence and adverse health outcomes. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) systems present prescribers with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates and recommend lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives at the point of prescribing. Objective: To investigate whether RTPB recommendations lead to reduced patient out-of-pocket costs for medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized trial, medical practices in a large, urban academic health system were randomly assigned to RTPB recommendations from January 13 to July 31, 2021. Participants were adult patients receiving outpatient prescriptions during the study period. The analysis was limited to prescriptions for which RTPB could recommend an available alternative. Electronic health record data were used to analyze the intervention's effects on prescribing. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2021, to June 8, 2022. Interventions: When a prescription was initiated in the electronic health record, the RTPB system recommended available lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives for a different medication, length of prescription, and/or choice of pharmacy. The prescriber could select either the initiated order or one of the recommended options. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient out-of-pocket cost for a prescription. Secondary outcomes were whether a mail-order prescription and a 90-day supply were ordered. Results: Of 867 757 outpatient prescriptions at randomized practices, 36 419 (4.2%) met the inclusion criteria of having an available alternative. Out-of-pocket costs were $39.90 for a 30-day supply in the intervention group and $67.80 for a 30-day supply in the control group. The intervention led to an adjusted 11.2%; (95% CI, -15.7% to -6.4%) reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Mail-order pharmacy use was 9.6% and 7.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted 1.9 percentage point increase; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0). Rates of 90-day supply were not different. In high-cost drug classes, the intervention reduced out-of-pocket costs by 38.9%; 95% CI, -47.6% to -28.7%. Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that RTPB recommendations led to lower patient out-of-pocket costs, with the largest savings occurring for high-cost medications. However, RTPB recommendations were made for only a small percentage of prescriptions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04940988; American Economic Association Registry: AEARCTR-0006909.

Early Palliative Care for Patients With Brain Metastases Decreases Inpatient Admissions and Need for Imaging Studies.

BACKGROUND: Early encounters with palliative care (PC) can influence health-care utilization, clinical outcome, and cost. AIM: To study the effect of timing of PC encounters on brain metastasis patients at an academic medical center. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All patients diagnosed with brain metastases from January 2013 to August 2015 at a single institution with inpatient and/or outpatient PC records available for review (N = 145). DESIGN: Early PC was defined as having a PC encounter within 8 weeks of diagnosis with brain metastases; late PC was defined as having PC after 8 weeks of diagnosis. Propensity score matched cohorts of early (n = 46) and late (n = 46) PC patients were compared to control for differences in age, gender, and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) at diagnosis. Details of the palliative encounter, patient outcomes, and health-care utilization were collected. RESULTS: Early PC versus late PC patients had no differences in baseline KPS, age, or gender. Early PC patients had significantly fewer number of inpatient visits per patient (1.5 vs 2.9; P = .004), emergency department visits (1.2 vs 2.1; P = .006), positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies (1.2 vs 2.7, P = .005), magnetic resonance imaging scans (5.8 vs 8.1; P = .03), and radiosurgery procedures (0.6 vs 1.3; P < .001). There were no differences in overall survival (median 8.2 vs 11.2 months; P = .2). Following inpatient admissions, early PC patients were more likely to be discharged home (59% vs 35%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Timely PC consultations are advisable in this patient population and can reduce health-care utilization.

Early Lessons on Bundled Payment at an Academic Medical Center.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. METHODS: This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category. RESULTS: We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique. DISCUSSION: Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.