Medicare beneficiary panel characteristics associated with high Part D biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug prescribing for older adults among rheumatologists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate beneficiary panel characteristics associated with rheumatologists' prescribing of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) for older adults.In this retrospective observational study, we used Medicare Public Use Files (PUFs) to identify rheumatologists who met criteria for high-prescribing, defined as bDMARD prescription constituting ≥20% of their DMARD claims for beneficiaries ≥65 years of age. We first used descriptive analysis then multivariable regression model to test the association of high prescribing of bDMARDs with rheumatologists' panel size and beneficiary characteristics. In particular, we quantified the proportion of panel beneficiaries ≥75 years of age to assess how caring for an older panel correlate with prescribing of bDMARDs.We identified 3197 unique rheumatologists, of whom 405 (13%) met criteria for high prescribing of bDMARDs for Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age. The high-prescribers provided care to 12% of study older adults, and yet accounted for 21% of bDMARD prescriptions for them. High prescribing of bDMARDs was associated with smaller panel size, and their beneficiaries were more likely to be non-black, ≥75 years of age, non-dual eligible, have diagnosis of CHF, however, less likely to have CKD.Rheumatologists differ in their prescribing of bDMARDs for older adults, and those caring for more beneficiaries ≥75 years of age are more likely to be high-prescribers. Older adults are more prone to the side-effects of bDMARDs and further investigation is warranted to understand drivers of differential prescribing behaviors to optimize use of these high-risk and high-cost medications.
SUBMITTER: Lee J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078346 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan. METHODS:Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy. RESULTS:In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.
| S-EPMC7410899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare practice patterns and prescribing differences for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) between adult rheumatologists (ARs) and pediatric rheumatologists (PRs), the perceived educational needs, and factors that enhance or impede co-management.MethodsTwo parallel, cross-sectional surveys focusing on JIA were administered in 2009 to a random sample of 193 PRs and 500 ARs using the American College of Rheumatology membership file. Bivariate analysis was conducted for common items.ResultsThe response rate was 62.1% for ARs (n = 306) and 72.3% for PRs (n = 138). Only 23% of responding ARs (n = 69) reported caring for children with JIA. Of these, 94% strongly agreed/agreed feeling comfortable diagnosing JIA; however, only 76% felt comfortable treating JIA. Clinical vignettes highlighted several prescribing differences. Forty-eight percent of ARs and 31% of PRs felt medications to treat JIA did not have clear dosing guidelines. Though PRs initiated disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents earlier, treatments were similar after 3 months. To enhance co-management, 74% of pediatric respondents endorsed shared medical records.ConclusionNearly one-quarter of surveyed ARs care for children with JIA, with most limiting their practice to older children. There was more discomfort in treating JIA than diagnosing it, and there were significant prescribing differences. Both provider types identified the need for better dosing and treatment resources. Updated management guidelines along with exposure to pediatric rheumatology in fellowship could reduce treatment differences and enhance the care of children with JIA. Shared medical records and improvement in reimbursement may optimize co-management.
| S-EPMC5668199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo characterize the regional and national variation in prescribing patterns in the Medicare Part D program using dimensional reduction visualization methods.MethodsUsing publicly available Medicare Part D claims data, we identified and visualized regional and national provider prescribing profile variation with unsupervised clustering and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) dimensional reduction techniques. Additionally, we examined differences between regionally representative prescribing patterns for major metropolitan areas.ResultsDistributions of prescribing volume and medication diversity were highly skewed among over 800,000 Medicare Part D providers. Medical specialties had characteristic prescribing patterns. Although the number of Medicare providers in each state was highly correlated with the number of Medicare Part D enrollees, some states were enriched for providers with >?10,000 prescription claims annually. Dimension-reduction, hierarchical clustering and t-SNE visualization of drug- or drug-class prescribing patterns revealed that providers cluster strongly based on specialty and sub-specialty, with large regional variations in prescribing patterns. Major metropolitan areas had distinct prescribing patterns that tended to group by major geographical divisions.ConclusionsThis work demonstrates that unsupervised clustering, dimension-reduction and t-SNE visualization can be used to analyze and visualize variation in provider prescribing patterns on a national level across thousands of medications, revealing substantial prescribing variation both between and within specialties, regionally, and between major metropolitan areas. These methods offer an alternative system-wide and pattern-centric view of such data for hypothesis generation, visualization, and pattern identification.
| S-EPMC6245567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current recommendations advocate treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in all patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We analyzed short-term disease outcome in patients according to the consistency of DMARD use in a clinical rheumatology cohort.Patients in an RA registry (n = 617) were studied for DMARD use at semi-annual study time points during the first 18 months of follow-up and were divided into 4 groups according to the number of study time points with any DMARD use [0-1 study time points (n = 31), 2 study time points (n = 24), 3 study time points (n = 77), and 4 study time points (n = 485)]. The primary outcome analyses were performed at 24 months and included Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-CRP), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) change, Short Form Health Survey-12 physical and mental summary scores (SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS), EuroQol 5-Dimensional health index (EQ-5D), and radiographic progression. Unadjusted, adjusted, and analyses stratified for seropositivity and disease activity were performed. A secondary analysis investigated 36-month outcomes.No significant 24-month outcome differences could be found between the DMARD use categories. For seropositive patients, there was evidence of a linear trend for SF-12 PCS (p = 0.02) and EQ-5D (p = 0.01) with worse outcomes for inconsistent DMARD users. At 36 months, there was a linear trend for higher DAS28-CRP scores for inconsistent users (p < 0.01).Overall, we found poor correlation between inconsistent DMARD use and short-term disease outcome. However, outcome in the longer term could be negatively influenced by inconsistent DMARD use, as well as short-term outcome in seropositive patients.
| S-EPMC4843117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The U.S. Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates the reporting of payments or items of value received by physicians from drug, medical device, and biological agent manufacturers. The impact of these payments on physician prescribing has not been examined at large scale. METHODS:We linked public Medicare Part D prescribing data and Sunshine Act data for 2013. Physician payments were examined descriptively within specialties, and then for association with prescribing costs and patterns using regression models. Models were adjusted for potential physician-level confounding features, including sex, geographic region, and practice size. RESULTS:Among 725,169 individuals with Medicare prescribing data, 341,644 had documented payments in the OPP data (47.1%). Among all physicians receiving funds, mean payment was $1750 (SD $28336); median was $138 (IQR $48-$394). Across the 12 specialties examined, a dose-response relationship was observed in which greater payments were associated with greater prescribing costs per patient. In adjusted regression models, being in the top quintile of payment receipt was associated with incremental prescribing cost per patient ranging from $27 (general surgery) to $2931 (neurology). Similar associations were observed with proportion of branded prescriptions written. CONCLUSIONS:While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.
| S-EPMC4868346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe role of inflammation in OA is controversial and it is unclear whether suppressing inflammation with conventional or biologic DMARDs is effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare DMARDs with placebo in participants with symptomatic OA.MethodsDatabases (Medline, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), conference abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to end of November 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of DMARDs, including biologics, in symptomatic OA. Pain data at treatment peak time point were extracted and combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. Markers of inflammation and adverse events were extracted and reviewed. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using Cochrane's tool.ResultsEleven RCTs (1205 participants) were meta-analysed, including six for conventional DMARDs (757 participants) and five for biologics (448 participants). Overall, DMARDs were statistically superior to placebo [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.34], although the difference was not clinically significant (0.5 ES threshold). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in sub-analysis of high-quality trials (ES = 0.11, 95% CI : -0.06, 0.28), biologics (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.34) or conventional DMARDs (ES = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.54). No difference was found between erosive vs non-erosive hand OA, hand vs knee OA or anti-IL1 vs anti-TNF biologics.ConclusionDMARDs did not offer clinically significant pain relief above placebo in OA. This poor efficacy indicates that inflammation may not be a prime driver for OA pain.
| S-EPMC6199417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scanty information on clustering longitudinal real-world data is available in the medical literature about the adherence implementation phase in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To identify and characterize trajectories by analyzing the implementation phase of adherence to biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), we conducted a retrospective cohort drug-utilization study using Tuscan administrative databases. RA patients were identified by a validated algorithm, including the first biologic DMARD supply from 2010 to 2015, RA specialist visit in the year before or after the first supply date and RA diagnosis in the five years before or in the year after the first supply date. We observed users for three years or until death, neoplasia, or pregnancy. We evaluated adherence quarterly through the Medication Possession Ratio. Firstly, we identified adherence trajectories and described the baseline characteristics; then, we focused on the trajectory most populated to distinguish the related sub-trajectories. We identified 952 first ever-biologic DMARD users in RA (712 females, mean age 52.7 years old, standard deviation 18.8). The biologic DMARD mostly supplied was etanercept (387 users) followed by adalimumab (233). Among 935 users with at least 3 adherence values, we identified 49 fully-adherent users, 829 continuous users, and 57 early-discontinuing users. Significant differences were observed among the index drugs. After focusing on the continuous users, three sub-trajectories were identified: continuous-steady users (556), continuous-alternate users (207), and continuous-declining users (66). No relevant differences emerged at the baseline. The majority of first ever-biologic DMARD users showed a continuous adherence behavior in RA. The role of adherence potential predictors and the association with effectiveness and safety outcomes should be explored by further studies.
| S-EPMC8708974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBiologic disease modifying agents (bDMARDs) are an integral part of rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines but are associated with significant cost in the US. We present the trends in total spending and unit cost of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) as compared to bDMARDs in Medicare program.MethodsWe used the Medicare drug spending data for the year 2012-2017 covering all part B (fee-for-service) and part D drugs. Total spending was calculated by summing spending across various drug formulations and unit drug cost by dividing total spending by number of doses dispensed. We present the 6-year trends in total spending, total beneficiary count and unit costs of each of the commonly used cDMARDs and bDMARDs.ResultsBetween 2012 and 2017, the total spending on the cDMARDs increased 5-folds from $98 million to $579 million; this was fraction of total spending on bDMARDs which increased from $4.3 to $10.0 billion. This increase was driven largely by unit costs of drug rather than number of beneficiaries. There was a 6-fold increase in the unit cost of generic hydroxychloroquine followed by methotrexate and leflunomide. Amongst bDMARDs, adalimumab and etanercept unit cost increased by 2-folds. The increase was less pronounced for office-administered products.ConclusionsDespite the availability of several generic cDMARDs over decades, there were steep increases in the unit cost of these agents to "keep pace" with the increases in bDMARDs. As the number of elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients increases, policy interventions might be required to reduce the spending on both biologics and conventional DMARDs.
| S-EPMC7453205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.
| S-EPMC5732892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine opioid prescribing frequency and trends to Medicare Part D enrollees from 2013 to 2017 by medical specialty and provider type.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, specialty- and provider-level analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber data for opioid claims from 2013 to 2017. We analyzed opioid claims and prescribing trends for specialties accounting for ?1% of all opioid claims.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2017, pain management providers increased Medicare Part D opioid claims by 27.3% to 1,140 mean claims per provider in 2017; physical medicine and rehabilitation providers increased opioid claims 16.9% to 511 mean claims per provider in 2017. Every other medical specialty decreased opioid claims over this period, with emergency medicine (-19.9%) and orthopedic surgery (-16.0%) dropping opioid claims more than any specialty. Physicians overall decreased opioid claims per provider by -5.2%. Meanwhile, opioid claims among both dentists (+5.6%) and nonphysician providers (+10.2%) increased during this period.ConclusionsFrom 2013 to 2017, pain management and PMR increased opioid claims to Medicare Part D enrollees, whereas physicians in every other specialty decreased opioid prescribing. Dentists and nonphysician providers also increased opioid prescribing. Overall, opioid claims to Medicare Part D enrollees decreased and continue to drop at faster rates.
| S-EPMC7820360 | biostudies-literature