Patterns of Opioid Prescribing among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries with Pain and Cardiopulmonary Conditions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Feder SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7840305 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.
| S-EPMC11365002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn response to the opioid epidemic, policies aiming to reduce opioid prescribing, misuse, and abuse may have the unintended consequence of restricting access to necessary opioid therapy for cancer-related pain. It is unknown how opioid prescribing patterns have changed among generalists and oncologists during this era.ObjectiveTo examine trends in opioid prescription rates for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2013 to 2017 among oncologists and generalists.Design, setting, and participantsThis repeated cross-sectional study of generalist physicians (internal medicine, family medicine, geriatric medicine, general practice) and oncology specialists (medical oncology, hematology-oncology, and radiation oncology) analyzed the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D prescriber files from 2013 to 2017.ExposuresGeneralist vs oncology specialty.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included physician-level rates of both opioid and long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Poisson regression was used to estimate annual predicted outcome rates and incidence rate ratios, adjusting for prescriber characteristics and state fixed effects.ResultsWe analyzed the prescribing patterns of 251 820 generalists and 14 210 oncologists. From 2013 to 2017, the annual adjusted predicted mean rate of opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries decreased from 68.2 to 49.7 among generalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.73) and from 77.8 to 58.8 among oncologists (aIRR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.77). The rate of long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries also decreased from 8.0 to 5.4 for generalists (aIRR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68) and from 18.6 to 13.3 for oncologists (aIRR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74).Conclusions and relevanceWe found large declines in opioid prescription rates for Medicare beneficiaries by generalists and oncologists from 2013 to 2017. Opioid policy and advocacy appear to have been effective in reducing the extent of opioid prescribing in the Medicare population. Similar declines between generalists and oncologists raise concern that access to cancer pain management may have been inadvertently restricted. How much of the decrease in prescribing by oncologists is appropriate vs inappropriate deserves further investigation.
| S-EPMC7260690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Although there are many pharmacologic alternatives to opioids, it is unclear whether the structure of Medicare Part D formularies discourages use of the alternatives. Objectives:To quantify the coverage of opioid alternatives and prevalence of prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and tier placement for these drugs, and test whether these formulary exclusions and restrictions are associated with increased opioid prescribing to older adults at the county level. Design, Setting, and Participants:County fixed-effect models were estimated using a panel of counties across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia over calendar years 2015 and 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1 to September 23, 2019. The sample included 2721 counties in 2015 and 2671 counties in 2016 with sufficient data on Medicare Part D formulary design and opioid prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures:County-level opioid prescribing rate (number of opioid claims divided by the number of overall claims) and counts of excluded opioid alternatives and opioid alternatives with prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and high-tier placements. Results:A total of 30 nonopioid analgesics were examined across 28 997 Medicare plans in 2015 and 30 390 plans in 2016. Medicare plans did not cover a mean of 7% of these drugs (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-23%). Among covered nonopioids, prior authorization and step therapy were uncommon, with fewer than 5% affected by prior authorization and 0% by step therapy. However, 13% of covered nonopioids had quantity limits (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-31%) and 22% were in high-cost tiers (interquartile range, 38%; lower to upper limit, 0%-50%). Increases in the number of nonopioids excluded on Medicare plans in a county were associated with increased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 2.2%-3.7%; P = .004). Conversely, increases in the number of opioids not covered on Medicare plans in a county was found to be associated with decreased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 0.8%-1.5%; P = .02). None of the utilization management strategies (prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits) examined or high-cost tier placements of nonopioids were associated with increased opioid prescribing. Conclusions and Relevance:Lack of Medicare coverage for pharmacologic alternatives to opioids may be associated with increased opioid prescribing.
| S-EPMC7052746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Approximately 34% of all Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan in 2019. Quantitative evidence suggests that MA beneficiaries have low rates of switching plans, but that beneficiaries who are hospitalized or use postacute nursing home care are disproportionately more likely to exit their plan. This research sought to explore how MA enrollees choose plans and the factors involved in their decision to keep their current plan or switch plans. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews focusing on expectations and experiences preenrollment and postenrollment among MA beneficiaries. Overall, the beneficiaries interviewed reported being highly satisfied with their plans. After selecting a plan, there was little incentive to revisit their choice since they viewed their plan as "good enough." Confusion, health status, cost and benefits also contributed to many seniors keeping or switching their plans. These seniors were reluctant to switch plans unless they experienced a major health event.
| S-EPMC7903586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States has been fueled by prescription opioids. Increases in opioid-related deaths and complications mandate clinicians in all fields to scrutinize their prescribing patterns. Objective:To characterize the current status and potential complications of opioid prescribing practices among dermatologists for Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional study used Medicare Part D prescriber data to evaluate opioid prescriptions by dermatologists from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The number of prescribers, opioid claims, beneficiaries, and days supplied as well as the type of opioid and geographic location of prescribers were extracted and analyzed. The top 1% of dermatologists prescribing opioids were identified and compared with a random sample of the same size among the remaining dermatologists based on sex, geographic location, type of practice, and time in practice. A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the outcome of opioid prescribing practices on the exposed population. Main Outcome and Measures:Practice characteristics, epidemiologic factors, and consequences of opioids prescribed by dermatologists. Results:Of the 12 537 dermatologists in the study, 5305 (42.3%) prescribed no opioid claims, 5408 (43.1%) prescribed 1 to 10 opioid claims, and 1824 (14.5%) prescribed more than 10 opioid claims. Among dermatologists prescribing at least 10 opioid claims, a mean of 1.0 opioid claims was given to each beneficiary, with a supply lasting a mean of 4.4 days. A total of 108 dermatologists (93.9%) in the top 1% of opioid prescribers (n = 115) work in a surgical practice. Estimates suggest that opioids prescribed by dermatologists could annually lead to 3877 to 7602 beneficiaries continuing to use opioids at 1 year and 1825 to 4209 continuing to use opioids at 3 years. A total of 9882 to 22 806 beneficiaries could experience gastrointestinal tract or central nervous system adverse effects and 588 to 999 could experience fractures. Conclusions and Relevance:Opioid prescribing among dermatologists is limited and concentrated in the surgical setting, but it may be associated with a substantial number of adverse events that serve as a reminder to emphasize nonopioid pain medications in the postoperative setting.
| S-EPMC5885843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies show that digoxin use is declining but is still prevalent. Recent data on digoxin prescription and characteristics of digoxin prescribers are unknown, which can help understand its contemporary use.MethodsUsing Medicare Part D data from 2013 to 2019, we studied the change in number and proportion of digoxin prescriptions and digoxin prescribers, overall and by specialty. Using logistic regression, we identified prescriber characteristics associated with digoxin prescription.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2019, total digoxin prescriptions (4.6 to 1.8 million) and proportion of digoxin prescribers decreased (9.1% to 4.3% overall; 26.6% to 11.8% among General Medicine prescribers and 65.4% to 48.9% among Cardiology). Of digoxin prescribers from 2013 practicing in 2019 (91.2% remained active), 59.1% did not prescribe digoxin at all, 31.7% reduced, and 9.2% maintained or increased prescriptions. The proportion of all digoxin prescriptions that were prescribed by General Medicine prescribers declined from 59.7% to 48.2% and increased for Cardiology (29% to 38.5%). Among new prescribers in 2019 (N = 85,508), only 1.9% prescribed digoxin. Digoxin prescribers when compared to non-digoxin prescribers were more likely male, graduated from medical school earlier, were located in the Midwest or South, and belonged to Cardiology (all P < .001).ConclusionsDigoxin prescriptions continue to decline with over half of 2013 prescribers no longer prescribing digoxin in 2019. This may be a result of the increasing availability of newer heart failure therapies. The decline in digoxin prescription was greater among general medicine physicians than cardiologists, suggesting a change in digoxin use to a medication prescribed increasingly by specialists.
| S-EPMC10783702 | biostudies-literature
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:BACKGROUND:This paper concerns public health crises today-the problem of opioid prescription access and related abuse. Inspired by Case and Deaton's seminal work on increasing mortality among white Americans with lower education, this paper explores the relationship between opioid prescribing and local economic factors. OBJECTIVE:We examined the association between county-level socioeconomic factors (median household income, unemployment rate, Gini index) and opioid prescribing. SUBJECTS:We used the complete 2014 Medicare enrollment and part D drug prescription data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to study opioid prescriptions of disabled Medicare beneficiaries without record of cancer treatment, palliative care, or end-of-life care. MEASURES AND RESEARCH DESIGN:We summarized the demographic and geographic variation, and investigated how the local economic environment, measured by county median household income, unemployment rate, Gini index, and urban-rural classification correlated with various measures of individual opioid prescriptions. Measures included number of filled opioid prescriptions, total days' supply, average morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day, and annual total MME dosage. To assess the robustness of the results, we controlled for individual and other county characteristics, used multiple estimation methods including linear least squares, logistic regression, and Tobit regression. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:Lower county median household income, higher unemployment rates, and less income inequality were consistently associated with more and higher MME opioid prescriptions among disabled Medicare beneficiaries. Geographically, we found that the urban-rural divide was not gradual and that beneficiaries in large central metro counties were less likely to have an opioid prescription than those living in other areas.
| S-EPMC6300050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLow-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresLow-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries.ResultsAmong a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.
| S-EPMC9463603 | biostudies-literature