County and Physician Variation in Benzodiazepine Prescribing to Medicare Beneficiaries by Primary Care Physicians in the USA.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Maust DT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6258632 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
County and Physician Variation in Benzodiazepine Prescribing to Medicare Beneficiaries by Primary Care Physicians in the USA.
Maust Donovan T DT Lin Lewei A LA Blow Frederic C FC Marcus Steven C SC
Journal of general internal medicine 20180924 12
<h4>Background</h4>Physicians widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZD) despite well-recognized harms.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine county and provider characteristics that predict high-intensity BZD prescribing by primary care physicians (PCPs) to Medicare beneficiaries.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional analysis of the 2015 Medicare Part D Public Use Files (PUF).<h4>Subjects</h4>n = 122,054 PCPs who prescribed 37.3 billion medication days.<h4>Main measures</h4>Primary outcome was intensity of BZD pr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Use of opioids during and shortly after an acute hospitalization is warranted in some clinical settings. However, given the potential of opioids for short-term adverse events and long-term physiologic tolerance, it is important to understand the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge, hospital variation, and patient and hospital factors associated with opioid prescribing, which is currently unknown in the United States.To estimate the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among Medicare beneficiaries without an opioid prescription claim 60 days prior to hospitalization; to document hospital variation in prescribing; and to analyze patient and hospital factors associated with prescribing, including hospital average performance on pain-related Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures.Analysis of pharmacy claims of a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2011 without an opioid prescription claim in the 60 days before hospitalization.Our main outcome was a new opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge. We estimated a multivariable linear probability model of patient factors associated with new opioid use and described hospital variation in adjusted rates of new opioid use. In multivariable linear regression analysis, we also analyzed hospital factors associated with average adjusted new opioid use at the hospital level, including the percentage of each hospital's patients who reported that their pain during hospitalization was always well controlled in the 2011 HCAHPS surveys.Among 623?957 hospitalizations, 92?882 (14.9%) were associated with a new opioid claim. Among those hospitalizations with an associated opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge, 32?731 (42.5%) of 77?092 were associated with an opioid claim after 90 days postdischarge. Across 2512 hospitals, the average adjusted rate of new opioid use within 7 days of hospitalization was 15.1% (interquartile range, 12.3%-17.4%; interdecile range, 10.5%-20.0%). A hospital's adjusted rate of new opioid use was modestly positively associated with the percentage of its inpatients reporting that their pain was always well managed (increase from 25th to the 75th percentile in the HCAHPS measure was associated with an absolute increase in new opioid use of 0.89 percentage points or a relative increase of 6.0%; P?<?.001).New opioid use after hospitalization is common among Medicare beneficiaries, with substantial variation across hospitals and a large proportion of patients using a prescription opioid 90 days after hospitalization. The degree to which observed hospital variation in short- and longer-term opioid use reflects variation in inappropriate prescribing at hospital discharge is unknown.
| S-EPMC4955877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Evidence is lacking on the consequences of high rates of inpatient consultation. Objective:To examine outcomes and resource use of patients cared for by hospitalists who use more inpatient consultation than their colleagues. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective cohort study of medical admissions to hospitalists among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries was conducted. Hospitalist consultation tendency was identified from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014; admissions were calculated in 2013; and outcomes were measured in 2014. Data were analyzed from January 31, 2017, to May 9, 2019. A total of 711 654 admissions with patients receiving care from 14 584 hospitalists at 737 hospitals were included. Exposure:Admission to high-consulting hospitalists, considered to be those who were in the top 25% of the distribution of consulting frequency at their own hospital (adjusted for patient case mix). Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes included length of stay, Medicare Part B inpatient charges, discharge destination, all-cause 7- and 30-day readmissions, 90-day outpatient specialist visits, and 30-day mortality. Results:The 711 654 hospital admissions included 408 489 women (57.4%); mean (SD) age of the population was 80 (8.5) years. Length of stay of patients cared for by high-consulting hospitalists was longer compared with other hospitalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). The admissions resulted in a mean of $137.91 (95% CI, $118.89-$156.93) more in Medicare Part B charges and were less likely to end with the patient going home (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) compared with patients cared for by other hospitalists in the cohort. Patients cared for by high-consulting hospitalists also were 7% more likely than patients cared for by other hospitalists to see an outpatient specialist at 90 days (aOR 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09), with no significant differences in 30-day mortality (aOR 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98-1.03) or readmissions (7-day readmissions: aOR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; 30-day readmissions: aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance:Hospitalists who obtain consultations more than their colleagues at the same institution were associated with greater use of health care resources without apparent mortality benefit. Further investigation should identify whether reducing high rates of consultation can reduce resource use without harming patients.
| S-EPMC7043199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOpioid and benzodiazepine co-prescribing is associated with a substantial increase in opioid overdose deaths. In this study, we examine the prescribing trends of substitutes of opioids and benzodiazepines alone or in combination, compared with opioids and benzodiazepines.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingData were collected using a 20% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2018.Participants4.1-4.3 million enrollees each year from 2013 to 2018.InterventionNone.Primary outcomeWe employ a generalised linear mixed models to calculate ORs for opioid use, benzodiazepine or Z-drug (benzos/Z-drugs) use, opioid/benzos/Z-drugs 30-day use, gabapentinoid use and (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)) use, adjusted for the repeated measure of patient. We then created two models to calculate the ORs for each year and comparing to 2013.ResultsOpioid and benzos/Z-drugs use decreased by 2018 (aOR 0.626; 95% CI 0.622 to 0.630) comparing to 2013. We demonstrate a 36.3% and 9.9% increase rate of gabapentinoid and SSRI/SNRI use, respectively. Furthermore, combined gabapentinoid and SSRI/SNRI use increased in 2018 (aOR 1.422; 95% CI 1.412 to 1.431).ConclusionLittle is known about the prescribing pattern and trend of opioid and benzodiazepine alternatives as analgesics. There is a modest shift from prescribing opioid and benzos/Z-drugs (alone or in combination) towards prescribing non-opioid analgesics-gabapentinoids with and without non-benzos/Z-drugs that are indicated for anxiety. It is unclear if this trend towards opioid/benzos/Z-drugs alternatives is associated with fewer drug overdose death, better control of pain and comorbid anxiety, and improved quality of life.
| S-EPMC8603279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine patient, community, and insurance plan predictors of high-risk prescribing in the elderly Medicare Advantage population.Study designCohort study.MethodsUsing a sample of 203 Medicare Advantage plans from the 2006-2008 Health Outcomes Survey, we compared patient, community, and insurance plan characteristics of 77,247 respondents with and without new Medicare Part D claims for high-risk medications from June 2006 to May 2007.ResultsOf the Medicare Advantage enrollee respondents, 15.6% received a new prescription for a high-risk medication during 12 months of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, new users of high-risk medications were more likely to be women (OR = 1.35; 95% CI,1.28-1.42), and they reported poorer general health (Physical Component Summary score 37.3 vs 40.4, P <.05) than did individuals who never received a high-risk prescription. Being aged ≥ 85 years was protective against receipt of a high-risk medication (OR relative to persons aged 65-69 years = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75). Incidence of high-risk prescribing varied by census division, with a 2-fold difference between regions with the lowest and highest rates (9% in New England vs 18% in the West South Central region). Muscle relaxants, antihistamines, and opiates accounted for over 71% of new dispensing of high-risk medications. Approximately 67% of new users of high-risk medications received only 1 dispensing.ConclusionsHigh-risk prescribing varies widely by geography and drug class in the Medicare Advantage population. Women, persons with poorer self-reported health, and those residing in the Southern regions of the United States more frequently receive high-risk medications. Variations may highlight areas for targeted interventions to reduce high-risk prescribing to the elderly.
| S-EPMC5402891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study is designed to assess the cost of services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by nurse practitioners (NPs) billing under their own National Provider Identification number as compared to primary care physicians (PCMDs).Data sourceMedicare Part A (inpatient) and Part B (office visit) claims for 2009-2010.Study designRetrospective cohort design using propensity score weighted regression.Data extraction methodsBeneficiaries cared for by a random sample of NPs and primary care physicians.Principal findingsAfter adjusting for demographic characteristics, geography, comorbidities, and the propensity to see an NP, Medicare evaluation and management payments for beneficiaries assigned to an NP were $207, or 29 percent, less than PCMD assigned beneficiaries. The same pattern was observed for inpatient and total office visit paid amounts, with 11 and 18 percent less for NP assigned beneficiaries, respectively. Results are similar for the work component of relative value units as well.ConclusionsThis study provides new evidence of the lower cost of care for beneficiaries managed by NPs, as compared to those managed by PCMDs across inpatient and office-based settings. Results suggest that increasing access to NP primary care will not increase costs for the Medicare program and may be cost saving.
| S-EPMC4946030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceContemporary national clinical practice guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line anticoagulant strategy over warfarin for most indications, especially among older individuals with an elevated bleeding risk.ObjectiveTo evaluate anticoagulant prescribing and DOAC uptake by US clinicians in the Medicare population.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included all US clinicians with more than 10 Medicare oral anticoagulant prescription claims, who were included in the national Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data (2013-2018). Data analyses were conducted between October 2020 and October 2021.ExposuresDOAC prescription in 2013.Main outcomes and measuresClinicians were categorized based on 2013 prescribing as solely prescribing warfarin, DOAC, or both, and their temporal trajectories of proportionate DOAC use were examined.ResultsThe analysis included 325 666 unique clinicians with more than 10 oral anticoagulant prescriptions between 2013 and 2018 (26 620 [8.2%] cardiologists, 85 563 [26.3%] internal medicine physicians, 84 369 [25.9%] family medicine physicians, and 81 161 [24.9%] advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants). In 2013, among 91 837 prescribers, 54 501 (59.3%) prescribed only warfarin, 1918 (2.1%) prescribed only a DOAC, and 35 418 (38.6%) prescribed both. During the study period, the number of clinicians prescribing DOACs increased, but 19% continued to prescribe only warfarin in 2018. While 359 cardiologists prescribing anticoagulants (1.6%) were warfarin-only prescribers, 10 414 (20.0%) and 6296 (12.6%) of family and internal medicine physicians also prescribed only warfarin, respectively. Clinicians prescribing only warfarin in 2013 had lower proportionate DOAC use throughout the study compared with 2013 DOAC prescribers, which represents a median (IQR) of 41.9% (20.3%-61.9%) of their anticoagulant prescriptions in 2018 vs 67.0% (49.9%-82.8%) for DOAC prescribers.Conclusions and relevanceDespite the increase in DOAC use among Medicare beneficiaries, many clinicians in this study continued to use warfarin as their predominant or only anticoagulant instead of DOACs. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of these medications to realize their potential benefits for patients.
| S-EPMC8649845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepines and antipsychotics are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice. There is minimal evidence to guide prescribing in this population, and little is known about how prescribing varies across hospice agencies.ObjectiveExamine patient- and hospice agency-level characteristics associated with incident prescribing of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics in hospice.DesignRetrospective cohort study of a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries newly enrolled in hospice.ParticipantsMedicare hospice beneficiaries ≥ 65 years old between 2014 and 2016, restricted to those without benzodiazepine (N = 169,688) or antipsychotic (N = 190,441) prescription fills in the 6 months before hospice enrollment.Main measuresThe primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) prescribing of a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic. A series of multilevel Cox regression models with random intercepts for hospice agency were fit to examine the association of incident benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescribing with patient and hospice agency characteristics.Key resultsA total of 91,728 (54.1%) and 58,175 (30.5%) hospice beneficiaries were newly prescribed an incident benzodiazepine or antipsychotic. The prescribing rate of the hospice agency was the strongest predictor of incident prescribing: Compared to patients in bottom-quartile benzodiazepine-prescribing agencies, those in top-quartile agencies were 10.7 times more likely to be prescribed an incident benzodiazepine (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 10.7, 95% CI 10.1-11.3). For incident antipsychotic prescribing, patients in top-quartile agencies were 51.7 times more likely to receive an antipsychotic (AHR 51.7, 95% CI 44.3-60.4) compared to those in the bottom quartile. Results remained consistent accounting for comfort kit prescribing.ConclusionsThe pattern of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic prescribing of a hospice agency strongly predicts whether a hospice enrollee is prescribed these medications, exceeding every other patient-level factor. While the appropriate level of prescribing in hospice is unclear, this variation may reflect a strong local prescribing culture across individual hospice agencies.
| S-EPMC9640505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Radon is an inert gas formed from the decay of naturally-occurring materials in the earth's crust. It infiltrates into homes from soil, water, and construction materials. Its decay products are radionuclides, which attach to ambient particles. Residential radon is one of the leading risk factors for lung cancer. The scarce evidence for associations with other mortality causes originates mostly from occupational studies. METHODS:In a cohort study with 14?years of follow-up (2000-2013), we evaluated the association between chronic radon exposure and all-cause mortality, and explored whether there are subpopulations who are more vulnerable to radon effects. We included 87,296,195 person-years of follow-up from all Medicare beneficiaries in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern U.S. states. We examined the association between the logarithm of county-averaged radon (ln(Rn)) and mortality and assessed effect modification by chronic conditions. RESULTS:An interquartile range increase in the ln(Rn) was associated with a 2·62% increase (95% CI 2·52%; 2·73%) in mortality, independent of PM2.5 exposure. Larger mortality risks were observed among individuals with respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, with the highest associations observed among those with diabetes (4·98% increase), heart failure (4·58% increase), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4·49% increase). CONCLUSION:We found an increased risk for all-cause mortality associated with increased radon exposure. The risk was enhanced among susceptible individuals with chronic conditions. We believe this is the first cohort study to identify populations at higher risk for non-malignant health consequences of radon exposure. Due to the limitations in exposure assessment and availability of individual confounders, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
| S-EPMC6679989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To understand the impact of changes in physician market structure on clinical outcomes and health care utilization. DATA SOURCES:2005-2012 Medicare fee-for-service claims and enrollment data. STUDY DESIGN:We consider the effect of cardiology market structure on utilization and health outcomes for four patient populations. We estimate the risk-adjusted impact of competition using multivariate regression models. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The study finds that an increase in consolidation leads to statistically and economically significant increases in negative health outcomes. For example, we find that moving from a zip code at the 25th percentile of cardiology market concentration to one at the 75th percentile would be associated with 5 to 7 percent increases in risk-adjusted mortality for three of the sample populations. We also found higher expenditures in more concentrated markets. For example, moving from a zip code at the 25th percentile of cardiology market concentration to one at the 75th would be associated with 7 to 11 percent increases in expenditures, depending on sample population. CONCLUSIONS:Our estimates indicate that increases in cardiology market concentration are associated with worse health outcomes and higher health care expenditures. Some effects may be attributed to vertical as well as horizontal changes.
| S-EPMC6153168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough recent research suggests that primary care provided by nurse practitioners costs less than primary care provided by physicians, little is known about underlying drivers of these cost differences.Research objectiveIdentify the drivers of cost differences between Medicare beneficiaries attributed to primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs) and primary care physicians (PCMDs).Study designCross-sectional cost decomposition analysis using 2009-2010 Medicare administrative claims for beneficiaries attributed to PCNPs and PCMDs with risk stratification to control for beneficiary severity. Cost differences between PCNPs and PCMDs were decomposed into payment, service volume, and service mix within low-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk strata.ResultsOverall, the average PCMD cost of care is 34% higher than PCNP care in the low-risk stratum, and 28% and 21% higher in the medium-risk and high-risk stratum. In the low-risk stratum, the difference is comprised of 24% service volume, 6% payment, and 4% service mix. In the high-risk stratum, the difference is composed of 7% service volume, 9% payment, and 4% service mix. The cost difference between PCNP and PCMD attributed beneficiaries is persistent and significant, but narrows as risk increases. Across the strata, PCNPs use fewer and less expensive services than PCMDs. In the low-risk stratum, PCNPs use markedly fewer services than PCMDs.ConclusionsThere are differences in the costs of primary care of Medicare beneficiaries provided by nurse practitioners and MDs. Especially in low-risk populations, the lower cost of PCNP provided care is primarily driven by lower service volume.
| S-EPMC7899223 | biostudies-literature