Care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening in dually enrolled Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare commonly experience downstream services as part of a care cascade after an initial low-value service. Our objective was to characterize the frequency and cost of low-value cervical cancer screening and subsequent care cascades among Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used VA and Medicare administrative data from fiscal years 2015 to 2019. The study cohort was comprised of female Veterans aged >65 years and at low risk of cervical cancer who were dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. Within this cohort, we compared differences in the rates and costs of cascade services related to low-value cervical cancer screening for Veterans who received and did not receive screening in FY2018, adjusting for baseline patient- and facility-level covariates using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among 20,972 cohort-eligible Veterans, 494 (2.4%) underwent low-value cervical cancer screening with 301 (60.9%) initial screens occurring in VA and 193 (39%) occurring in Medicare. Veterans who were screened experienced an additional 26.7 (95% CI, 16.4-37.0) cascade services per 100 Veterans compared to those who were not screened, contributing to $2919.4 (95% CI, -265 to 6104.7) per 100 Veterans in excess costs. Care cascades consisted predominantly of subsequent cervical cancer screening procedures and related outpatient visits with low rates of invasive procedures and occurred in both VA and Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare commonly receive related downstream tests and visits as part of care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening. Our findings demonstrate that to fully capture the extent to which individuals are subject to low-value care, it is important to examine downstream care stemming from initial low-value services across all systems from which individuals receive care.

Prevalence and Cost of Care Cascades Following Low-Value Preoperative Electrocardiogram and Chest Radiograph Within the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care cascades, defined as the receipt of downstream health services potentially related to a low-value service, can result in harm to patients and wasteful healthcare spending, yet have not been characterized within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). OBJECTIVE: To examine if the receipt of low-value preoperative testing is associated with greater utilization and costs of potentially related downstream health services in Veterans undergoing low or intermediate-risk surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VHA administrative data from fiscal years 2017-2018 comparing Veterans who underwent low-value preoperative electrocardiogram (EKG) or chest radiograph (CXR) with those who did not. PARTICIPANTS: National cohort of Veterans at low risk of cardiopulmonary disease undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgery. MAIN MEASURES: Difference in rate of receipt and attributed cost of potential cascade services in Veterans who underwent low-value preoperative testing compared to those who did not KEY RESULTS: Among 635,824 Veterans undergoing low-risk procedures, 7.8% underwent preoperative EKG. Veterans who underwent a preoperative EKG experienced an additional 52.4 (95% CI 47.7-57.2) cascade services per 100 Veterans, resulting in $138.28 (95% CI 126.19-150.37) per Veteran in excess costs. Among 739,005 Veterans undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgery, 3.9% underwent preoperative CXR. These Veterans experienced an additional 61.9 (95% CI 57.8-66.1) cascade services per 100 Veterans, resulting in $152.08 (95% CI $146.66-157.51) per Veteran in excess costs. For both cohorts, care cascades consisted largely of repeat tests, follow-up imaging, and follow-up visits, with low rates invasive services. CONCLUSIONS: Among a national cohort of Veterans undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgeries, low-value care cascades following two routine low-value preoperative tests are common, resulting in greater unnecessary care and costs beyond the initial low-value service. These findings may guide de-implementation policies within VHA and other integrated healthcare systems that target those services whose downstream effects are most prevalent and costly.

Assessment of Care Cascades Following Low-Value Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Veterans Dually Enrolled in the US Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Systems.

Importance: Older US veterans commonly receive health care outside of the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) through Medicare, which may increase receipt of low-value care and subsequent care cascades. Objective: To characterize the frequency, cost, and source of low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and subsequent care cascades among veterans dually enrolled in the VHA and Medicare and to determine whether receiving a PSA test through the VHA vs Medicare is associated with more downstream services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used VHA and Medicare administrative data from fiscal years (FYs) 2017 to 2018. The study cohort consisted of male US veterans dually enrolled in the VHA and Medicare who were aged 75 years or older without a history of prostate cancer, elevated PSA, prostatectomy, radiation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, or a urology visit. Data were analyzed from December 15, 2020, to October 20, 2022. Exposures: Receipt of low-value PSA testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in the use and cost of cascade services occurring 6 months after receipt of a low-value PSA test were assessed for veterans who underwent low-value PSA testing in the VHA and Medicare compared with those who did not, adjusted for patient- and facility-level covariates. Results: This study included 300 393 male US veterans at risk of undergoing low-value PSA testing. They had a mean (SD) age of 82.6 (5.6) years, and the majority (264 411 [88.0%]) were non-Hispanic White. Of these veterans, 36 459 (12.1%) received a low-value PSA test through the VHA, which was associated with 31.2 (95% CI, 29.2 to 33.2) additional cascade services per 100 veterans and an additional $24.5 (95% CI, $20.8 to $28.1) per veteran compared with the control group. In the same cohort, 17 981 veterans (5.9%) received a PSA test through Medicare, which was associated with 39.3 (95% CI, 37.2 to 41.3) additional cascade services per 100 veterans and an additional $35.9 (95% CI, $31.7 to $40.1) per veteran compared with the control group. When compared directly, veterans who received a PSA test through Medicare experienced 9.9 (95% CI, 9.7 to 10.1) additional cascade services per 100 veterans compared with those who underwent testing within the VHA. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that US veterans dually enrolled in the VHA and Medicare commonly experienced low-value PSA testing and subsequent care cascades through both systems in FYs 2017 and 2018. Care cascades occurred more frequently through Medicare compared with the VHA. These findings suggest that low-value PSA testing has substantial downstream implications for patients and may be especially challenging to measure when care occurs in multiple health care systems.

Use and Cost of Low-Value Health Services Delivered or Paid for by the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: Within the Veterans Health Administration (VA), the use and cost of low-value services delivered by VA facilities or increasingly by VA Community Care (VACC) programs have not been comprehensively quantified. Objective: To quantify veterans' overall use and cost of low-value services, including VA-delivered care and VA-purchased community care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed a national population of VA-enrolled veterans. Data on enrollment, sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and health care services delivered by VA facilities or paid for by the VA through VACC programs were compiled for fiscal year 2018 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Data analysis was conducted from April 2020 to January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: VA administrative data were applied using an established low-value service metric to quantify the use of 29 potentially low-value tests and procedures delivered in VA facilities and by VACC programs across 6 domains: cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing and procedures, and other procedures. Sensitive and specific criteria were used to determine the low-value service counts per 100 veterans overall, by domain, and by individual service; count and percentage of each low-value service delivered by each setting; and estimated cost of each service. Results: Among 5.2 million enrolled veterans, the mean (SD) age was 62.5 (16.0) years, 91.7% were male, 68.0% were non-Hispanic White, and 32.3% received any service through VACC. By specific criteria, 19.6 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA facilities or by VACC programs, involving 13.6% of veterans at a total cost of $205.8 million. Overall, the most frequently delivered low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 75 years or older (5.9 per 100 veterans); this was also the service with the greatest proportion delivered by VA facilities (98.9%). The costliest low-value services were spinal injections for low back pain ($43.9 million; 21.4% of low-value care spending) and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease ($36.8 million; 17.9% of spending). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that among veterans enrolled in the VA, more than 1 in 10 have received a low-value service from VA facilities or VACC programs, with approximately $200 million in associated costs. Such information on the use and costs of low-value services are essential to guide the VA's efforts to reduce delivery and spending on such care.

Latent Class Analysis of Prescribing Behavior of Primary Care Physicians in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, opioids, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and antibiotics are frequently prescribed inappropriately by primary care physicians (PCPs), without sufficient consideration of alternative options or adverse effects. We hypothesized that distinct groups of PCPs could be identified based on their propensity to prescribe these medications. OBJECTIVE: To identify PCP groups based on their propensity to prescribe benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, and patient and PCP characteristics associated with identified prescribing patterns. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VA data and latent class regression analyses to identify prescribing patterns among PCPs and examine the association of patient and PCP characteristics with class membership. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2524 full-time PCPs and their patient panels (n = 2,939,636 patients), from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: We categorized PCPs based on prescribing volume quartiles for the four drug classes, based on total days' supply dispensed of each medication by the PCP to their patients (expressed as days' supply per 1000 panel patient-days). We used latent class analysis to group PCPs based on prescribing and used multinomial logistic regression to examine patient and PCP characteristics associated with latent class membership. KEY RESULTS: PCPs were categorized into four groups (latent classes): low intensity (23% of cohort), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity PPI (36%), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity opioid (20%), and high intensity (21%). PCPs in the high-intensity group were predominantly in the highest quartile of prescribers for all four drugs (68% in the highest quartile for benzodiazepine, 86% opioids, 64% PPIs, 62% antibiotics). High-intensity PCPs (vs. low intensity) were substantially less likely to be female (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.42) or practice in the northeast versus other census regions (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: VA PCPs can be classified into four clearly differentiated groups based on their prescribing of benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, suggesting an underlying typology of prescribing. High-intensity PCPs were more likely to be male.

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators. Method: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the -2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail. Results: Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics.Plain Language Summary: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's -2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. METHODS: Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. RESULTS: Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Identifying sociodemographic profiles of veterans at risk for high-dose opioid prescribing using classification and regression trees.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic profiles of patients prescribed high-dose opioids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING/PATIENTS: Veterans dually-enrolled in Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Part D, with ≥1 opioid pre-scription in 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We identified five patient-level demographic characteristics and 12 community variables re-flective of region, socioeconomic deprivation, safety, and internet connectivity. Our outcome was the proportion of vet-erans receiving >120 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for ≥90 consecutive days, a Pharmacy Quality Alliance measure of chronic high-dose opioid prescribing. We used classification and regression tree (CART) methods to identify risk of chronic high-dose opioid prescribing for sociodemographic subgroups. RESULTS: Overall, 17,271 (3.3 percent) of 525,716 dually enrolled veterans were prescribed chronic high-dose opioids. CART analyses identified 35 subgroups using four sociodemographic and five community-level measures, with high-dose opioid prescribing ranging from 0.28 percent to 12.1 percent. The subgroup (n = 16,302) with highest frequency of the outcome included veterans who were with disability, age 18-64 years, white or other race, and lived in the Western Census region. The subgroup (n = 14,835) with the lowest frequency of the outcome included veterans who were with-out disability, did not receive Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, were >85 years old, and lived in communities within the second and sixth to tenth deciles of community public assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Using CART analyses with sociodemographic and community-level variables only, we identified sub-groups of veterans with a 43-fold difference in chronic high-dose opioid prescriptions. Interactions among disability, age, race/ethnicity, and region should be considered when identifying high-risk subgroups in large populations.

Primary care physicians' perspectives on Veterans who obtain prescription opioids from multiple healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs') perceptions of the reasons patients receive opioid medications from both VA and non-VA healthcare systems. DESIGN: Qualitative. SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two VA PCPs who prescribed opioids to at least 15 patients and who practiced in Massachusetts, Illinois, or Pennsylvania. METHODS: Thirty-minute, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2016, addressing topics regarding PCPs' experiences and perspectives on patients who use both VA and non-VA healthcare systems to obtain prescription opioids. The analysis focused on two questions: attributes that PCPs believe characterize dual-use patients and reasons that PCPs believe patients obtain opioids from both VA and non-VA sources. RESULTS: PCPs identified multiple attributes of, and reasons for, patients obtaining opioid medications from both VA and non-VA healthcare systems, including pain issues, opioid misuse, having healthcare managed through multiple healthcare systems, and transferring care between systems. More than half of the PCPs identified addiction and diversion as key attributes and reasons why patients obtain prescription opioids from multiple sources. PCPs also identified several behavioral and psychological factors as attributes of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs within the VA have varying perceptions of patients obtaining opioid medications from multiple healthcare systems, with pain complaints and opioid misuse as the primary themes. This knowledge about PCPs' perceptions can be incorporated into interventions to better manage pain and prescription opioid use by VA patients.

Use of a medication-based risk adjustment index to predict mortality among veterans dually-enrolled in VA and medicare.

BACKGROUND: There is systemic undercoding of medical comorbidities within administrative claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This leads to bias when applying claims-based risk adjustment indices to compare outcomes between VA and non-VA settings. Our objective was to compare the accuracy of a medication-based risk adjustment index (RxRisk-VM) to diagnostic claims-based indices for predicting mortality. METHODS: We modified the RxRisk-V index (RxRisk-VM) by incorporating VA and Medicare pharmacy and durable medical equipment claims in Veterans dually-enrolled in VA and Medicare in 2012. Using the concordance (C) statistic, we compared its accuracy in predicting 1 and 3-year all-cause mortality to the following models: demographics only, demographics plus prescription count, or demographics plus a diagnostic claims-based risk index (e.g., Charlson, Elixhauser, or Gagne). We also compared models containing demographics, RxRisk-VM, and a claims-based index. RESULTS: In our cohort of 271,184 dually-enrolled Veterans (mean age = 70.5 years, 96.1% male, 81.7% non-Hispanic white), RxRisk-VM (C = 0.773) exhibited greater accuracy in predicting 1-year mortality than demographics only (C = 0.716) or prescription counts (C = 0.744), but was less accurate than the Charlson (C = 0.794), Elixhauser (C = 0.80), or Gagne (C = 0.810) indices (all P < 0.001). Combining RxRisk-VM with claims-based indices enhanced its accuracy over each index alone (all models C ≥ 0.81). Relative model performance was similar for 3-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The RxRisk-VM index exhibited a high level of, but slightly less, accuracy in predicting mortality in comparison to claims-based risk indices. IMPLICATIONS: Its application may enhance the accuracy of studies examining VA and non-VA care and enable risk adjustment when diagnostic claims are not available or biased. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Dual Receipt of Prescription Opioids From the Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D and Prescription Opioid Overdose Death Among Veterans: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Background: More than half of enrollees in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are also covered by Medicare and can choose to receive their prescriptions from VA or from Medicare-participating providers. Such dual-system care may lead to unsafe opioid use if providers in these 2 systems do not coordinate care or if prescription use is not tracked between systems. Objective: To evaluate the association between dual-system opioid prescribing and death from prescription opioid overdose. Design: Nested case-control study. Setting: VA and Medicare Part D. Participants: Case and control patients were identified from all veterans enrolled in both VA and Part D who filled at least 1 opioid prescription from either system. The 215 case patients who died of a prescription opioid overdose in 2012 or 2013 were matched (up to 1:4) with 833 living control patients on the basis of date of death (that is, index date), using age, sex, race/ethnicity, disability, enrollment in Medicaid or low-income subsidies, managed care enrollment, region and rurality of residence, and a medication-based measure of comorbid conditions. Measurements: The exposure was the source of opioid prescriptions within 6 months of the index date, categorized as VA only, Part D only, or VA and Part D (that is, dual use). The outcome was unintentional or undetermined-intent death from prescription opioid overdose, identified from the National Death Index. The association between this outcome and source of opioid prescriptions was estimated using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, marital status, prescription drug monitoring programs, and use of other medications. Results: Among case patients, the mean age was 57.3 years (SD, 9.1), 194 (90%) were male, and 181 (84%) were non-Hispanic white. Overall, 60 case patients (28%) and 117 control patients (14%) received dual opioid prescriptions. Dual users had significantly higher odds of death from prescription opioid overdose than those who received opioids from VA only (odds ratio [OR], 3.53 [95% CI, 2.17 to 5.75]; P < 0.001) or Part D only (OR, 1.83 [CI, 1.20 to 2.77]; P = 0.005). Limitation: Data are from 2012 to 2013 and cannot capture prescriptions obtained outside the VA or Medicare Part D systems. Conclusion: Among veterans enrolled in VA and Part D, dual use of opioid prescriptions was independently associated with death from prescription opioid overdose. This risk factor for fatal overdose among veterans underscores the importance of care coordination across health care systems to improve opioid prescribing safety. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Patterns of opioid prescriptions received prior to unintentional prescription opioid overdose death among Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed prescription opioid supply preceding death in individuals dying from unintentional prescription opioid overdoses, or described the characteristics of these individuals, particularly among Veterans. OBJECTIVES: To describe the history of prescription opioid supply preceding prescription opioid overdose death among Veterans. METHODS: In a national cohort of Veterans who filled ≥1 opioid prescriptions from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) or Medicare Part D during 2008-2013, we identified deaths from unintentional or undetermined-intent prescription opioid overdoses in 2012-2013. We captured opioid prescriptions using both linked VA and Part D data, and VA data only. RESULTS: Among 1181 decedents, 643 (54.4%) had prescription opioid supply on the day of death, and 735 (62.2%) within 30 days based on linked data, compared to 40.1% and 46.7%, respectively, using VA data alone. Decedents with prescription opioid supply were significantly older and less likely to have alcohol or illicit drugs as co-occurring substances involved in the overdose. Using linked data, 241 (20.4%) decedents lacked prescription opioid supply within a year of death. CONCLUSIONS: Many VA patients who die from prescription opioid overdose receive opioid prescriptions outside VA or not at all. It is important to supplement VA with non-VA data to more accurately measure prescription opioid exposure and improve opioid medication safety.

Receipt of Overlapping Opioid and Benzodiazepine Prescriptions Among Veterans Dually Enrolled in Medicare Part D and the Department of Veterans Affairs: A Cross-sectional Study.

Background: Overlapping use of opioids and benzodiazepines is associated with increased risk for overdose. Veterans receiving medications concurrently from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare may be at higher risk for such overlap. Objective: To assess the association between dual use of VA and Medicare drug benefits and receipt of overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: VA and Medicare. Participants: All veterans enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D who filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 2013 (n = 368 891). Measurements: Outcomes were the proportion of patients with a Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) measure of opioid-benzodiazepine overlap (≥2 filled prescriptions for benzodiazepines with ≥30 days of overlap with opioids) and the proportion of patients with high-dose opioid-benzodiazepine overlap (≥30 days of overlap with a daily opioid dose >120 morphine milligram equivalents). Augmented inverse probability weighting regression was used to compare these measures by prescription drug source: VA only, Medicare only, or VA and Medicare (dual use). Results: Of 368 891 eligible veterans, 18.3% received prescriptions from the VA only, 30.3% from Medicare only, and 51.4% from both VA and Medicare. The proportion with PQA opioid-benzodiazepine overlap was larger for the dual-use group than the VA-only group (23.1% vs. 17.3%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.30]) and Medicare-only group (23.1% vs. 16.5%; aRR, 1.12 [CI, 1.10 to 1.14]). The proportion with high-dose overlap was also larger for the dual-use group than the VA-only group (4.7% vs. 2.3%; aRR, 2.23 [CI, 2.10 to 2.36]) and Medicare-only group (4.7% vs. 2.9%; aRR, 1.06 [CI, 1.02 to 1.11]). Limitation: Data are from 2013 and cannot capture medications purchased without insurance; unmeasured confounding may remain in this cross-sectional study. Conclusion: Among a national cohort of veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare, receiving prescriptions from both sources was associated with greater risk for receiving potentially unsafe overlapping prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Physicians' Perspectives Regarding Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use Within the Department of Veterans Affairs: a Multi-State Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented robust strategies to monitor prescription opioid dispensing, but these strategies have not accounted for opioids prescribed by non-VA providers. State-based prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a potential tool to identify VA patients' receipt of opioids from non-VA prescribers, and recent legislation requires their use within VA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate VA physicians' perspectives and experiences regarding use of PDMPs to monitor Veterans' receipt of opioids from non-VA prescribers. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two VA primary care physicians who prescribed opioids to 15 or more Veterans in 2015. We sampled physicians from two states with PDMPs (Massachusetts and Illinois) and one without prescriber access to a PDMP at the time of the interviews (Pennsylvania). APPROACH: From February to August 2016, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews that addressed the following topics regarding PDMPs: overall experiences, barriers to optimal use, and facilitators to improve use. KEY RESULTS: VA physicians broadly supported use of PDMPs or desired access to one, while exhibiting varying patterns of PDMP use dictated by state laws and their clinical judgment. Physicians noted administrative burdens and incomplete or unavailable prescribing data as key barriers to PDMP use. To facilitate use, physicians endorsed (1) linking PDMPs with the VA electronic health record, (2) using templated notes to document PDMP use, and (3) delegating routine PDMP queries to ancillary staff. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the time and administrative burdens associated with their use, VA physicians in our study broadly supported PDMPs. The application of our findings to ongoing PDMP implementation efforts may strengthen PDMP use both within and outside VA and improve the safe prescribing of opioids.

Impact of Dual Use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D Drug Benefits on Potentially Unsafe Opioid Use.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and consequences of receiving prescription opioids from both the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D. METHODS: Among US veterans enrolled in both VA and Part D filling 1 or more opioid prescriptions in 2012 (n = 539 473), we calculated 3 opioid safety measures using morphine milligram equivalents (MME): (1) proportion receiving greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days, (2) mean days receiving greater than 100 MME, and (3) proportion receiving greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days. We compared these measures by opioid source. RESULTS: Overall, 135 643 (25.1%) veterans received opioids from VA only, 332 630 (61.7%) from Part D only, and 71 200 (13.2%) from both. The dual-use group was more likely than the VA-only group to receive greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days (34.3% vs 10.9%; adjusted risk ratio [ARR] = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9, 3.1), have more days with greater than 100 MME (42.5 vs 16.9 days; adjusted difference = 16.4 days; 95% CI = 15.7, 17.2), and to receive greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days (7.8% vs 3.1%; ARR = 2.2; 95% CI = 2.1, 2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D, dual use of opioids was associated with more than 2 to 3 times the risk of high-dose opioid exposure.

Overlapping buprenorphine, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescriptions among veterans dually enrolled in Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a key tool in the management of opioid use disorder, but there are growing concerns about abuse, diversion, and safety. These concerns are amplified for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), whose patients may receive care concurrently from multiple prescribers within and outside VA. To illustrate the extent of this challenge, we examined overlapping prescriptions for buprenorphine, opioids, and benzodiazepines among veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of all veterans dually enrolled in VA and Part D who filled an opioid prescription in 2012. We identified patients who received tablet or film buprenorphine products from either source. We calculated the proportion of buprenorphine recipients with any overlapping prescription (based on days supply) for a nonbuprenorphine opioid or benzodiazepine, focusing on veterans who received overlapping prescriptions from a different system than their buprenorphine prescription (Part D buprenorphine recipients receiving overlapping opioids or benzodiazepines from VA and vice versa). RESULTS: There were 1790 dually enrolled veterans with buprenorphine prescriptions, including 760 (43%) from VA and 1091 (61%) from Part D (61 veterans with buprenorphine from both systems were included in each group). Among VA buprenorphine recipients, 199 (26%) received an overlapping opioid prescription and 11 (1%) received an overlapping benzodiazepine prescription from Part D. Among Part D buprenorphine recipients, 208 (19%) received an overlapping opioid prescription and 178 (16%) received an overlapping benzodiazepine prescription from VA. Among VA and Part D buprenorphine recipients with cross-system opioid overlap, 25% (49/199) and 35% (72/208), respectively, had >90 days of overlap. CONCLUSIONS: Many buprenorphine recipients receive overlapping prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines from a different health care system than the one in which their buprenorphine was filled. These findings highlight a previously undocumented safety risk for veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare.