Dataset Information

Analysis of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection Claims Data in US Medicare Part B Beneficiaries From 2012 to 2015.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has grown exponentially with the introduction of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and most recently aflibercept. The cost associated with these medications has garnered significant national attention, warranting a granular analysis of their use. Objective:To analyze trends in anti-VEGF injections for US Medicare Part B beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants:This observational cohort study used 2012-2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Part B Provider Utilization Files to analyze trends in intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF medications among Medicare Part B beneficiaries and their health care professionals. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome measure was distribution of and change over time in the number of anti-VEGF injections performed for ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab. Results:A total of 2 574 124 intravitreal injections were performed by 3348 ophthalmologists in the outpatient setting for Medicare Part B beneficiaries during the 2015 calendar year; 100 ophthalmologists (3.0%) performed the highest volume of intravitreal injections. The total number of intravitreal injections administered in 2015 was 870 843 for aflibercept, 697 412 for ranibizumab, and 1 147 432 for bevacizumab. Ranibizumab injections decreased by 7.1% from 2012 to 2015 and bevacizumab injections decreased by 17.1%. From 2013 to 2015, aflibercept injections increased by 69.4%. The 100 ophthalmologists performing the highest volume of ranibizumab injections, as gauged by number of injections administered, accounted for 31.0% (95% CI, 30.994%-30.997%) of all ranibizumab injections nationally. The 100 ophthalmologists performing the highest volume of aflibercept injections accounted for 17.6% (95% CI, 17.638%-17.641%) of all aflibercept injections and the 100 ophthalmologists performing the highest volume of bevacizumab injections accounted for 19.6% (95% CI, 19.649%-19.653%) of all bevacizumab injections administered nationally to Medicare Part B beneficiaries. The highest number of injections per 1000 Medicare Part B beneficiaries occurred in Nebraska (aflibercept), Tennessee (ranibizumab), and South Dakota (bevacizumab). Conclusions and Relevance:A total of 3.0% of ophthalmologists account for 17.6% to 31.0% of the total number of anti-VEGF injections administered nationally in the Medicare Part B population. Overall, bevacizumab and ranibizumab injections have decreased, coinciding with a 69.4% increase in aflibercept injections.

SUBMITTER: Berkowitz ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6587152 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection Claims Data in US Medicare Part B Beneficiaries From 2012 to 2015.

Berkowitz Sean T ST Sternberg Paul P Feng Xiaoke X Chen Qingxia Q Patel Shriji S

JAMA ophthalmology 20190801 8

<h4>Importance</h4>The frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has grown exponentially with the introduction of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and most recently aflibercept. The cost associated with these medications has garnered significant national attention, warranting a granular analysis of their use.<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze trends in anti-VEGF injections for US Medicare Part B beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This observ ...[more]

PMID: 31219520

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the Medicare Part D coverage gap phase-out should reduce cost-related nonadherence (CRN) among seniors with diabetes, preferential generic prescribing may have already decreased CRN, while smaller numbers of patients using more costly branded oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medications remain vulnerable to CRN.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of cost sharing in the Part D standard (non-LIS) benefit on adherence to different OAD classes, comparing two classes dominated by inexpensive generic medications and two by more costly branded medications.Design and patientsRetrospective cohort study using dispensed prescription data for elderly non-LIS (N=81,047) and LIS (low-income subsidy) (N=150,359) beneficiaries using same class OAD(s) in 2008 and 2009. Logistic regression modeled non-LIS likelihood; LIS and non-LIS patients matched using propensity outcome (N=38,054). Logistic regression, controlling for demographic and health status characteristics, modeled effects of non-LIS coverage on 2009 OAD class adherence.Main measuresMain outcome measures were within-class OAD coverage year adherence, with patients considered adherent when days supplied to calendar days ratio at least 0.8.Key resultsNon-LIS patients had 0.52 and 0.57 times the odds of branded-only DPP-4 Inhibitor (N=1,812; 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.63; P<0.001) and Thiazolidinedione (TZD) (N=6,290; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.63; P<0.001) adherence. Most patients (N=32,510; 82 %) used OADs in primarily generic classes, where we found no significant (Biguanides; N=21,377) or small differences (Sulfonylureas/Glinides [N=19,240; OR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.86, 0.97; P=0.002]) in adherence odds. Crude adherence rates were sub-optimal when CRN was not a factor (Non-LIS/LIS: Biguanides: 65 %/65 %; Sulfonylureas/Glinides: 66 %/68 %; LIS: DPP-4 Inhibitors: 66 %; TZDs: 67 %).ConclusionsGap elimination would not affect generic, but should reduce branded OAD CRN. Branded copayments may continue to lead to CRN. Policy initiatives and benefit changes targeting both cost deterrents for patients with more complex disease and non-cost generic OAD underuse are recommended.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To provide contemporary estimates of the burdens (costs and mortality) associated with acute inpatient Medicare beneficiary admissions for sepsis. DESIGN:Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING:All U.S. acute care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS:All Medicare beneficiaries, 2012-2018, with an inpatient admission including one or more explicit sepsis codes. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Total inpatient hospital and skilled nursing facility admission counts, costs, and mortality over time. From calendar year (CY)2012-CY2018, the total number of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) beneficiaries with an inpatient hospital admission associated with an explicit sepsis code rose from 811,644 to 1,136,889. The total cost of inpatient hospital admission including an explicit sepsis code for those beneficiaries in those calendar years rose from $17,792,657,303 to $22,439,794,212. The total cost of skilled nursing facility care in the 90 days subsequent to an inpatient hospital discharge that included an explicit sepsis code for Medicare Part A/B rose from $3,931,616,160 to $5,623,862,486 over that same interval. Precise costs are not available for Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) patients. Using available federal data sources, we estimated the aggregate cost of inpatient admissions and skilled nursing facility admissions for Medicare Advantage patients to have risen from $6.0 to $13.4 billion over the CY2012-CY2018 interval. Combining data for fee-for-service beneficiaries and estimates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, we estimate the total inpatient admission sepsis cost and any subsequent skilled nursing facility admission for all (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) Medicare patients to have risen from $27.7 to $41.5 billion. Contemporary 6-month mortality rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a sepsis inpatient admission remain high: for septic shock, approximately 60%; for severe sepsis, approximately 36%; for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, approximately 31%; and for unspecified sepsis, approximately 27%. CONCLUSION:Sepsis remains common, costly to treat, and presages significant mortality for Medicare beneficiaries.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To distinguish characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who will have an acute inpatient admission for sepsis from those who have an inpatient admission without sepsis, and to describe their further trajectories during and subsequent to those inpatient admissions. DESIGN:Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING:All U.S. acute care hospitals, excepting federal hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS:Medicare beneficiaries, 2012-2018, with an inpatient hospital admission including one or more explicit sepsis codes. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Prevalent diagnoses in the year prior to the inpatient admission; healthcare contacts in the week prior to the inpatient admission; discharges, transfers, readmissions, and deaths (trajectories) for 6 months following discharge from the inpatient admission. Beneficiaries with no sepsis inpatient hospital admission for a year prior to an index hospital admission for sepsis were nearly indistinguishable by accumulated diagnostic codes from beneficiaries who had an index hospital admission without sepsis. Although the timing of healthcare services in the week prior to inpatient hospital admission was similar among beneficiaries who would be admitted for sepsis versus those whose inpatient admission did not include a sepsis code, the setting differed: beneficiaries destined for a sepsis admission were more likely to have received skilled nursing or unskilled nursing (e.g., nursing aide for activities of daily living) care. In contrast, comparing beneficiaries who had been free of any inpatient admission for an entire year and then required an inpatient admission, acute inpatient stays that included a sepsis code led to more than three times as many deaths within 1 week of discharge, with more admissions to skilled nursing facilities and fewer discharges to home. Comparing all beneficiaries who were admitted to a skilled nursing facility after an inpatient hospital admission, those who had sepsis coded during the index admission were more likely to die in the skilled nursing facility; more likely to be readmitted to an acute inpatient hospital and subsequently die in that setting; or if they survive to discharge from the skilled nursing facility, they are more likely to go next to a custodial nursing home. CONCLUSIONS:Although Medicare beneficiaries destined for an inpatient hospital admission with a sepsis code are nearly indistinguishable by other diagnostic codes from those whose admissions will not have a sepsis code, their healthcare trajectories following the admission are worse. This suggests that an inpatient stay that included a sepsis code not only identifies beneficiaries who were less resilient to infection but also signals increased risk for worsening health, for mortality, and for increased use of advanced healthcare services during and postdischarge along with an increased likelihood of an inpatient hospital readmission.

Project description:Evaluation of Medicare-Medicaid integration models' effects on patient-centered outcomes and costs requires multiple data sources and validated processes for linkage and reconciliation. To describe the opportunities and limitations of linking state-specific Medicaid and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative claims data to measure patient-centered outcomes for North Carolina dual-eligible beneficiaries. We developed systematic processes to (1) validate the beneficiary ID linkage using sex and date of birth in a beneficiary ID crosswalk, (2) verify dates of dual enrollment, and (3) reconcile Medicare-Medicaid claims data to support the development and use of patient-centered outcomes in linked data. North Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries with full Medicaid benefits and concurrent Medicare enrollment (FBDE) between 2014 and 2017. We identified need-based subgroups based on service use and eligibility program requirements. We calculated utilization and costs for Medicaid and Medicare, matched Medicaid claims to Medicare service categories where possible, and reported outcomes by the payer. Some services were covered only by Medicaid or Medicare, including Medicaid-only covered home and community-based services (HCBS). Of 498,030 potential dual enrollees, we verified the linkage and FBDE eligibility of 425,664 (85.5%) beneficiaries, including 281,174 adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare fee-for-service. The most common need-based subgroups were intensive behavioral health service users (26.2%) and HCBS users (10.8%) for adults under age 65, and HCBS users (20.6%) and nursing home residents (12.4%) for adults age 65 and over. Medicaid funded 42% and 49% of spending for adults under 65 and adults 65 and older, respectively. Adults under 65 had greater behavioral health service utilization but less skilled nursing facility, HCBS, and home health utilization compared with adults 65 and older. Linkage of Medicare-Medicaid data improves understanding of patient-centered outcomes among FBDE by combining Medicare-funded acute and ambulatory services with Medicaid-funded HCBS. Using linked Medicare-Medicaid data illustrates the diverse patient experience within FBDE beneficiaries, which is key to informing patient-centered outcomes, developing and evaluating integrated Medicare and Medicaid programs, and promoting health equity.

Dataset Information

Analysis of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection Claims Data in US Medicare Part B Beneficiaries From 2012 to 2015.

Publications

Analysis of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection Claims Data in US Medicare Part B Beneficiaries From 2012 to 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets