Project description:ImportanceIncreasing use of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including among women at low or average risk of breast cancer, raises concerns about resulting mammary and extramammary cascades (downstream services and new diagnoses) of uncertain value.ObjectiveTo estimate rates of cascade events (ie, laboratory tests, imaging tests, procedures, visits, hospitalizations, and new diagnoses) and associated spending following screening breast MRI vs mammography among commercially insured US women.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 2016 to 2018 data from the MarketScan research database (IBM Corporation), which includes claims and administrative data from large US employers and commercial payers. Participants included commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years without prior breast cancer who received an index bilateral screening breast MRI or mammogram between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. We used propensity scores based on sociodemographic, clinical, and utilization variables to match MRI recipients to mammogram recipients in each month of index service use. Data were analyzed from October 8, 2020, to October 28, 2021.ExposuresBreast MRI vs mammography.Main outcomes and measuresMammary and extramammary cascade event rates and associated total and patient out-of-pocket spending in the 6 months following the index test.ResultsIn this study, 9208 women receiving breast MRI were matched with 9208 women receiving mammography (mean [SD] age, 51.4 [6.7] years). Compared with mammogram recipients, breast MRI recipients had 39.0 additional mammary cascade events per 100 women (95% CI, 33.7-44.2), including 5.0 additional imaging tests (95% CI, 3.8-6.2), 17.3 additional procedures (95% CI, 15.5-19.0), 13.0 additional visits (95% CI, 9.4-17.2), 0.34 additional hospitalizations (95% CI, 0.18-0.50), and 3.0 additional new diagnoses (95% CI, 2.5-3.6). For extramammary cascades, breast MRI recipients had 19.6 additional events per 100 women (95% CI, 8.6-30.7) including 15.8 additional visits (95% CI, 10.2-21.4) and no statistically significant differences in other events. Breast MRI recipients had higher total spending for mammary events ($564 more per woman; 95% CI, $532-$596), extramammary events ($42 more per woman; 95% CI, $16-$69), and overall ($1404 more per woman; 95% CI, $1172-$1636). They also had higher overall out-of-pocket spending ($31 more per woman; 95% CI, $6-$55).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of commercially insured women, breast MRI was associated with more mammary and extramammary cascade events and spending relative to mammography. These findings can inform cost-benefit assessments and coverage policies to ensure breast MRI is reserved for patients for whom benefits outweigh harms.

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: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:ImportanceImproving access to naloxone is a critical component of the nation's strategy to curb fatal overdoses in the opioid crisis. Standing or protocol orders, prescriptive authority laws, and immunity provisions have been passed by states to expand access, but less attention has been given to potential financial barriers to naloxone access.ObjectiveTo assess trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for naloxone and examine variation in OOP costs by drug brand and payer.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study analyzed US naloxone claims data from Symphony Health and associated OOP costs for individuals filling naloxone prescriptions by drug brand and payer between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2021, to April 12, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were trends in annual number of naloxone claims (overall, by payer, and by drug brand) and mean annual OOP costs per claim (overall, by payer, and by drug brand).ResultsOf 719 612 naloxone claims (172 894 generic naloxone, 501 568 Narcan, and 45 150 Evzio) for 2010 through 2018, the number of naloxone claims among insured patients began rapidly increasing after 2014; at the same time, the mean OOP cost of naloxone increased dramatically among the uninsured population. Comparing 2014 with 2018, the mean OOP cost of naloxone decreased by 26% among those with insurance but increased by 506% among uninsured patients. For the uninsured population, the impediment of cost was even larger for certain brands of the drug. In 2016, the mean OOP cost for Evzio among uninsured patients rose to $2136.37 (a 2429% increase relative to 2015) compared with the mean cost of generic naloxone, $72.88, and the cost of Narcan in its first year, $87.95. Throughout the period, the mean OOP costs paid by uninsured patients were higher for Evzio at $1089.17 (95% CI, $884.17-$1294.17) compared with $73.62 (95% CI, $69.24-$78.00) for Narcan and $67.99 (95% CI, $61.42-$74.56) for generic naloxone.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study, the findings indicated that the OOP cost of naloxone had been an increasingly substantial barrier to naloxone access for uninsured patients, potentially limiting use among this population, which constituted approximately 20% of adults with opioid use disorder.

Dataset Information

Out-of-Pocket Costs of Diagnostic Breast Imaging Services After Screening Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women From 2010 to 2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets