Dataset Information

Compared to commercially insured patients, Medicare advantage patients adopt newer diabetes drugs more slowly and adhere to them less.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To compare rates of use and adherence for newer versus older second-line diabetes drug classes in commercially insured, Medicare Advantage and dual-eligible (covered by both Medicare and Medicaid) patients.

Materials and methods

Longitudinal cohort study using insurance claims data from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 to identify patients with a first prescription, after metformin, of a second-line diabetes drug (eg sulphonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, thiazolidinedione, SGLT-2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist) and to estimate their adherence to that drug class. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to examine the association between insurance type and use of each drug class, and between insurance type and adherence to each drug class.

Results

The study population included 96,663 patients. Trends in drug use differed by insurance type. For example, sulphonylurea use declined among the commercially insured (from 46% to 39%, p < .001) but not among Medicare Advantage or dual-eligible patients. Patterns of adherence also differed between insurance groups. For example, compared to commercial insurance, Medicare Advantage was associated with higher adherence to sulphonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.21-1.43)) but lower adherence to SGLT-2 inhibitors (OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33-0.56)).

Conclusions

This study finds differences in utilization and adherence for diabetes drugs across insurance types. Older medications such as sulphonylureas appear to be more used and better adhered to among Medicare Advantage recipients, while the opposite is true for newer medication classes. These findings suggest a need to personalize selection of diabetes drugs according to insurance status, particularly when adherence needs optimization.

SUBMITTER: Flory JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe trends in the rate and daily dose of opioids used among commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from 2007 to 2016.DesignRetrospective cohort study of administrative claims data.SettingNational database of medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States.Participants48 million individuals with any period of insurance coverage between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, including commercial beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged 65 years and over, and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries under age 65 years (eligible owing to permanent disability).Main endpointsProportion of beneficiaries with any opioid prescription per quarter, average daily dose in milligram morphine equivalents (MME), and proportion of opioid use episodes that represented long term use.ResultsAcross all years of the study, annual opioid use prevalence was 14% for commercial beneficiaries, 26% for aged Medicare beneficiaries, and 52% for disabled Medicare beneficiaries. In the commercial beneficiary group, quarterly prevalence of opioid use changed little, starting and ending the study period at 6%; the average daily dose of 17 MME remained unchanged since 2011. For aged Medicare beneficiaries, quarterly use prevalence was also relatively stable, ranging from 11% at the beginning of the study period to 14% at the end. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries had the highest rates of opioid use, the highest rate of long term use, and the largest average daily doses. In this group, both quarterly use rates (39%) and average daily dose (56 MME) were higher at the end of 2016 than the low points observed in 2007 for each endpoint (26% prevalence and 53 MME).ConclusionsOpioid use rates were high during the study period of 2007-16, with the highest rates in disabled Medicare beneficiaries versus aged Medicare beneficiaries and commercial beneficiaries. Opioid use and average daily dose have not substantially declined from their peaks, despite increased attention to opioid abuse and awareness of their risks.

Project description:BackgroundHospital readmission is common among patients with diabetes. Some readmissions, particularly for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, may be avoidable with better care transitions and post-discharge management.ObjectiveTo ascertain the most common reasons and risk factors for readmission among adults with diabetes, with specific consideration of severe dysglycemia.DesignRetrospective analysis of data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, an administrative data set of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries across the U.S.ParticipantsAdults ≥18 years of age with diabetes, discharged from a hospital between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 (N = 342,186).Main measuresPrincipal diagnoses and risk factors for 30-day unplanned readmissions, subset as being for severe dysglycemia vs. all other causes.Key resultsWe analyzed 594,146 index hospitalizations among adults with diabetes: mean age 68.2 years (SD, 13.0), 52.9% female, and 67.8% white. The all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 10.8%. Heart failure was the most common cause for index hospitalization (5.5%) and readmission (8.9%). Severe dysglycemia accounted for 2.6% of index hospitalizations (48.1% hyperglycemia, 50.4% hypoglycemia, 1.5% unspecified) and 2.5% of readmissions (38.3% hyperglycemia, 61.0% hypoglycemia, 0.7% unspecified). Younger patient age, severe dysglycemia at index or prior hospitalization, and the Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) were the strongest risk factors predisposing patients to severe dysglycemia vs. other readmissions. Prior episodes of severe dysglycemia and the DCSI were also independent risk factors for other-cause readmissions, irrespective of the cause of the index hospitalization.ConclusionsAdults with diabetes are hospitalized and readmitted for a wide range of health conditions, and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia remain common, with high rates of recurrence. Severe dysglycemia is most likely to occur among younger patients with multiple diabetes complications and prior history of such events.

Project description:BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.MethodsUsing retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.ResultsIn 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.ConclusionsThe use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Project description:Background/objectivesBenzodiazepines (BZDs) are widely prescribed to older adults. Although prescribing has declined in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Medicare introduced BZD coverage in 2013. It is unknown whether declines in the VA have been widespread among older adults in the United States.DesignObservational study in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, commercial insurance, and the VA.SettingUnited States, 2013-2017.ParticipantsAdults aged 55 and older in traditional Medicare (234,290,693 person-months), commercial insurance (337,827,125 person-months), and the VA (256,590,369 person-months).Measurements(1) Change in BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing modeled by Poisson regression over time; and (2) standardized ratios of BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing, using Medicare as the reference.ResultsFrom April 2013 to December 2017, the monthly percentage of adults aged 55 and older who received BZDs fell from 10.4% to 9.3% in Medicare, 6.6% to 6.5% in commercial insurance, and 5.7% to 3.0% in the VA. Monthly BZD-opioid co-prescribing over the same time fell from 4.0% to 3.0% in Medicare, 2.3% to 2.0% in commercial, and 2.2% to .6% for the VA. Age- and sex-adjusted rates of decline for BZD and BZD-opioid co-prescribing were statistically significant for all systems. Annual BZD rate reductions were .98 (Medicare), .99 (commercial), and .87 (VA; P < .001 for all); co-prescribing rate reductions were .95, .99, and .75 (P < .001 for all). Using standardized ratios accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics, both prescribing and co-prescribing were lowest for the VA relative to Medicare (standardized BZD ratio = .40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .39-.40; standardized BZD-opioid co-prescribing ratio = .35; 95% CI = .35-.35). Prescribing in commercial insurance was also lower (BZD = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65; BZD-opioid co-prescribing = .65; 95% CI = .65-.65).ConclusionBZD prescribing has declined much more to older adults receiving care through the VA than Medicare or commercial insurance. Other systems may learn from strategies implemented in the VA.

Project description:ObjectivesWith the approval of new non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is anticipated that their introduction may change NVAF treatment patterns; however, there is limited supporting real-world evidence. This study investigated guideline-recommended oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment and persistence in newly diagnosed patients with NVAF to understand demographic and clinical characteristics.DesignRetrospective observational administrative claims study in the USA.SettingPatients with NVAF with ?1?pharmacy claim for OAC (warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban) and no atrial fibrillation diagnosis within 12 months prior to the first claim were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between 1 November 2010 and 30 November 2013.Participants45?092 patients with NVAF were included.OutcomesThe proportion of OAC-treated patients was stratified by CHADS2 score. Treatment persistence was measured from OAC initiation to discontinuation, end of eligibility or end of study period (30 November 2014), whichever occurred first.ResultsAlmost half of the patients (41.1%) received an OAC. The proportion treated differed slightly in baseline stroke risk (CHADS2<2: 39.8%; CHADS2=2?or 3: 42.4%; and CHADS2>3: 40.3%: p<0.001). Treated patients were slightly younger (70±12.2 vs 71±14.3 years; p<0.001), more likely male (59.7% vs 52.5%; p<0.001) and had a slightly elevated stroke risk (CHADS2: 2.03±1.3 vs 1.98±1.4; p<0.001) and a lower bleeding risk (HEMORR2HAGES: 2.55±1.8 vs 2.80±1.9; p<0.001) relative to untreated patients. Overall, patients with higher CHADS2 scores had higher HEMORR2HAGES scores. The mean follow-up was 2.25 years (2.25±0.85) and 72.7% of patients discontinued OACs; nearly 25% within 3 months and 55% within 12 months. The mean time to discontinuation was 255±249 days.ConclusionsThe proportion of patients with NVAF who received OAC treatment was lower than previously reported and differed slightly by stroke risk. Patients with an elevated stroke risk had a higher bleeding risk, suggesting that clinicians may incorporate both in the treatment decision.

Project description:BackgroundMuch of the literature about the costs of metastatic pancreatic cancer is focused on the Medicare population, but the cost in the commercially insured population is not well-documented. Differences in treatment patterns between commercially insured and Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer can provide insights into healthcare utilization and the total cost of care.ObjectiveTo compare the total cost of care for commercially insured versus Medicare patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who are receiving National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended treatment regimens.MethodsWe identified 3904 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 56 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision diagnosis codes in claims data in the 2014-2018 MarketScan commercial database and 28,063 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 73 years) with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the 2014-2017 Medicare Parts A, B, and D 100% research identifiable data files. We calculated the total cost of care and resource utilization by NCCN-recommended (category 1) treatment regimen, including 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX); gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; gemcitabine monotherapy; and liposomal irinotecan. All patients had ≥2 claims with a pancreatic cancer diagnosis more than 30 days apart and ≥1 subsequent claims with a secondary malignancy diagnosis for metastatic disease.ResultsThe mean total cost of care was 186% higher in the commercially insured cohort than in the Medicare cohort. Excluding gemcitabine monotherapy, the total cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was similar between the regimens used in each cohort, ranging from $95,426 to $116,325 in the commercial insurance group and from $39,777 to $40,390 in the Medicare group. The components of hospital-based inpatient and outpatient costs varied between similar regimens in both cohorts. The inpatient admission patterns of patients' regimens were consistent across the 2 cohorts, with patients receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or liposomal irinotecan having the lowest overall number of admissions in each cohort.ConclusionsThe treatment patterns varied across the regimens but were largely consistent between the commercially insured and the Medicare patients who received the same regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer; the ratio of total cost of care was 3:1 (commercially insured to Medicare). The total costs of care were similar across the regimens in each cohort, but the components of the total cost varied. These results can inform clinical guidelines and pathways for pancreatic cancer therapy as new evidence and treatment options emerge, and in the context of increasing value-based care models.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States is undergoing a crippling opioid epidemic, spurred in part by overuse of prescription opioids by adults 25 to 64 years of age. Of concern are long-duration and high-dose initial prescriptions, which place the patients and their friends and relatives at heightened risk for long-term opioid use, misuse, overdose, and death.MethodsWe estimated the incidence of initial opioid prescriptions in each month between July 2012 and December 2017 using administrative-claims data from across the United States (accessed through Blue Cross-Blue Shield [BCBS] Axis); monthly incidence was estimated as the percentage of enrollees who received an initial opioid prescription among those who had not used opioids (i.e., no opioid prescription or a diagnosis of opioid use disorder in the 6 months before a given month). We then estimated the percentage of enrollees initiating opioid therapy who received a long-duration or high-dose initial opioid prescription in each month during this period. We also calculated the number of providers who initiated opioid therapy in any patient who had not used opioids in each month and examined monthly trends in the duration and dose of initial opioid prescriptions in prescriber and patient subgroups. Our study sample included 63,817,512 enrollees who had not used opioids (mean, 15,897,673 per month).ResultsThe monthly incidence of initial opioid prescriptions among enrollees who had not used opioids declined by 54%, from 1.63% in July 2012 to 0.75% in December 2017. This decline was accompanied by a decreasing number of providers (from 114,043 in July 2012 to 80,462 in December 2017) who initiated opioid therapy in any patient who had not used opioids. Nonetheless, among the shrinking subgroup of physicians who initiated opioid therapy in such patients, high-risk prescribing (i.e., prescriptions for more than a 3-day supply or for a dose of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or higher) persisted at a monthly rate of 115,378 prescriptions per 15,897,673 enrollees who had not used opioids.ConclusionsAs the opioid crisis progressed between July 2012 and December 2017, many providers stopped initiating opioid therapy. Although the number of initial opioid prescriptions declined, a subgroup of providers continued to write high-risk initial opioid prescriptions. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and a gift from Owen and Linda Robinson.).

Project description:Importance:In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, Medicare enrollees may be steered by their health plan to specific hospitals. Little is known about the quality of hospitals that serve MA enrollees. Objective:To compare the quality of hospitals that admit MA enrollees with the quality of those that admit traditional Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012 to 2016 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare quality of care, as measured by the star rating given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and readmission rates, in hospitals that serve MA enrollees and traditional Medicare enrollees using multinomial logit models. Participants were 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries admitted to 2994 acute care hospitals across the United States in 2016. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and August 2019. Exposures:The exposure was MA enrollment. Adjusters included demographic and clinical characteristics and zip code fixed effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital Compare star ratings and quintiles of performance in 30-day readmission rates. Results:The sample included 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016 (54.3% female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [13.2] years). Of 12?190?270 total hospitalizations, 1?211?293 traditional Medicare and 494?352 MA patients were admitted to 718 low-readmission hospitals and 1?205?586 traditional Medicare and 526?955 MA patients were admitted to 597 high-readmission hospitals. Accounting for observed patient characteristics, MA enrollees less often entered either low- or high-quality hospitals and were more often admitted to average-quality hospitals. For nonemergent hospitalizations, MA enrollees were 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-2.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a low-readmissions hospital, 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.6-5.6 percentage points) more likely to enter an average-readmissions hospital, and 3.2 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9-3.5 percentage points) less likely to enter a high-readmissions hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. Patients with MA were also 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less likely to enter a 1- to 2-star hospital, 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9-5.9 percentage points) more likely to enter a 3-star hospital, and 2.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a 4- to 5-star hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. The differences were less pronounced for emergency admissions. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that enrollees in MA plans were more likely to be admitted to average-quality hospitals instead of either high- or low-quality hospitals, suggesting that MA plans may be steering their enrollees to specific hospitals.