Characterizing downstream healthcare resource utilization and costs based on prior utilization patterns of immediate-release hydrocodone.

OBJECTIVE: To assess downstream healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among immediate release (IR) hydrocodone patients by days' supply and average doses/month in the prior 6 months. METHODS: Retrospective analysis using healthcare claims from Truven MarketScan commercial, Medicare supplemental, and Medicaid multistate databases was performed. Patients prescribed IR hydrocodone during the 6-month baseline (July-December 2011), and with continuous enrollment during baseline and the 12-month follow-up (2012) were selected. HRU and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs (2014 US dollars) were assessed at follow-up. Descriptive analyses and multivariate regressions were conducted to compare HRU and costs at follow-up by days' supply (<60 vs ≥60 days) and average doses per month (≤60 vs >60 doses/month) of IR hydrocodone at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 1,698,845 commercial, 264,038 Medicare, and 151,063 Medicaid IR hydrocodone patients were identified. During follow-up, commercial patients with prior ≥60 days' supply were more likely to have an inpatient admission (13.2% vs 7.5%), outpatient hospital visit (69.1% vs 57.0%), office visit (97.6% vs 91.0%), emergency room (ER) visit (28.1% vs 21.4%), and had higher PPPM total costs ($1494 vs $842) than the <60 days' supply sub-group (all p < 0.05). Among commercial patients the adjusted odds ratio for prior ≥60 days' supply of IR hydrocodone vs prior <60 days' supply was 1.62 (inpatient), 1.33 (outpatient), 2.58 (office visit) and 1.48 (ER) (all p-values <0.05). Adjusted all-cause total costs were higher ($1245 vs $851, p <0.05) among commercial patients with longer days' supply than those with shorter days' supply. Trends were similar with ≤60 vs >60 doses per month sub-groups and across all plan types. CONCLUSION: Increased days' supply and higher doses/month of IR hydrocodone in the prior 6 months may help to predict levels of HRU and costs in the following year, providing an opportunity to identify patients in order to implement interventions to improve their quality of care.

The economic rationale for adherence in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, adherence to prescribed medications has been reported to be as low as 60%, meaning that many patients may not be following the treatment plan that has been prescribed for them. The importance of treatment adherence is intuitive: better adherence would promote better outcomes. Data show this to be the case: for every 25% increase in medication adherence, a patient's glycated hemoglobin (A1C) is reduced by 0.34%. Unfortunately, only a little more than half of patients with diabetes achieve an A1C target below 7%. Poor therapeutic adherence affects diabetes-related costs. Patients who are nonadherent are far more likely to require hospitalization and to incur significantly higher healthcare costs. The lesser costs of lower medication utilization in nonadherent patients are more than compensated for by the increased costs arising from poorer glycemic control, as multiple studies employing large managed care databases have demonstrated. Improvements in outcomes and reductions in costs related to the management of diabetes require focused efforts toward facilitating treatment adherence, efforts that should be undertaken by third-party payers in addition to physicians and patients.