Search

Background: Little is known about drug cost communications of Medicare Part D beneficiaries with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The purpose of this study is to assess Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes' levels of communication with physicians regarding prescription drug costs; the perceived importance of these communications; levels of prescription drug switching due to cost; and self-reported cost-related medication non-adherence. Methods: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey (58% response rate) of 1,458 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap in 2006; adjusted percentages of patients with communication issues were obtained from multivariate regression analyses adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Results: Fewer than half of patients reported discussing the cost of medications with their physicians, while over 75% reported that such communications were important. Forty-eight percent reported their physician had switched to a less expensive medication due to costs. Minorities, females, and older adults had significantly lower levels of communication with their physicians regarding drug costs than white, male, and younger patients respectively. Patients with < $25 K annual household income were more likely than higher income patients to have talked about prescription drug costs with doctors, and to report cost-related non-adherence (27% vs. 17%, p < .001). Conclusions: Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap have low levels of communication with physicians about drug costs, despite the high perceived importance of such communication. Understanding patient and plan-level characteristics differences in communication and use of cost-cutting strategies can inform interventions to help patients manage prescription drug costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients face increasing insurance restrictions on prescription drugs, including generic-only coverage. There are no generic inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), which are a mainstay of asthma therapy, and patients pay the full price for these drugs under generic-only policies. We examined changes in ICS use following the introduction of generic-only coverage in a Medicare Advantage population from 2003-2004. Methods: Subjects were age 65+, with asthma, prior ICS use, and no chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (n = 1,802). In 2004, 74.0% switched from having a $30 brand-copayment plan to a generic-only coverage plan (restricted coverage); 26% had $15-25 brand copayments in 2003-2004 (unrestricted coverage). Using linear difference-in-difference models, we examined annual changes in ICS use (measured by days-of-supply dispensed). There was a lower-cost ICS available within the study setting and we also examined changes in drug choice (higher- vs. lower-cost ICS). In multivariable models we adjusted for socio-demographic, clinical, and asthma characteristics. Results: In 2003 subjects had an average of 188 days of ICS supply. Restricted compared with unrestricted coverage was associated with reductions in ICS use from 2003-2004 (-15.5 days-of-supply, 95% confidence interval (CI): -25.0 to -6.0). Among patients using higher-cost ICS drugs in 2003 (n = 662), more restricted versus unrestricted coverage subjects switched to the lower-cost ICS in 2004 (39.8% vs. 10.3%). Restricted coverage was not associated with decreased ICS use (2003-2004) among patients who switched to the lower-cost ICS (18.7 days-of-supply, CI: -27.5 to 65.0), but was among patients who did not switch (-38.6 days-of-supply, CI: -57.0 to -20.3). In addition, restricted coverage was associated with decreases in ICS use among patients with both higher- and lower-risk asthma (-15.0 days-of-supply, CI: - 41.4 to 11.44; and -15.6 days-of-supply, CI: -25.8 to -5.3, respectively). Conclusion: In this elderly population, patients reduced their already low ICS use in response to losing drug coverage. Switching to the lower-cost ICS mitigated reductions in use among patients who previously used higher-cost drugs. Additional work is needed to assess barriers to switching ICS drugs and the clinical effects of these drug use changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about drug cost communications of Medicare Part D beneficiaries with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The purpose of this study is to assess Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes' levels of communication with physicians regarding prescription drug costs; the perceived importance of these communications; levels of prescription drug switching due to cost; and self-reported cost-related medication non-adherence.Methods: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey (58% response rate) of 1,458 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap in 2006; adjusted percentages of patients with communication issues were obtained from multivariate regression analyses adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics.Results: Fewer than half of patients reported discussing the cost of medications with their physicians, while over 75% reported that such communications were important. Forty-eight percent reported their physician had switched to a less expensive medication due to costs. Minorities, females, and older adults had significantly lower levels of communication with their physicians regarding drug costs than white, male, and younger patients respectively. Patients with < $25 K annual household income were more likely than higher income patients to have talked about prescription drug costs with doctors, and to report cost-related non-adherence (27% vs. 17%, p < .001).Conclusions: Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap have low levels of communication with physicians about drug costs, despite the high perceived importance of such communication. Understanding patient and plan-level characteristics differences in communication and use of cost-cutting strategies can inform interventions to help patients manage prescription drug costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are a critical source of care for medically underserved populations and often serve as medical homes for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). Many FQHCs provide mental health services and could facilitate access to mental health treatment within and outside of FQHCs. This study compared mental health care utilization and acute care events for adult Medicaid enrollees with SMI who receive care at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) vs. other settings., Methods: This study used the 2015-2016 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database to examine outpatient mental health care and acute care events for 32,330 Medicaid adults, ages 18-64 and with major depressive, bipolar, or schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), who resided in FQHC service areas and received care from FQHCs vs. other settings in 2015. Multivariable linear regressions assessed associations between receiving care at FQHCs and outpatient mental health visits, psychotropic medication fills, and acute care events in 2016., Results: There were 8,887 (27.5%) adults in the study population (N = 32,330) who had at least one FQHC visit in 2015. Those who received care at FQHCs were more likely to have outpatient mental health visits (73.3% vs. 71.2%) and psychotropic medication fills (73.2% vs. 69.0%, both p < .05), including antidepressants among those with depressive disorders and antipsychotics among those with SSD. They were more likely to have ED visits (74.0% vs. 68.7%), but less likely to be hospitalized (27.8% vs. 31.9%, both p < .05). However, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of having an acute psychiatric hospitalization (9.5% vs. 9.8%, p = .35)., Conclusions: Among Medicaid enrollees with SMIs who had access to care at FQHCs, those receiving care at FQHCs were more likely to have outpatient mental health visits and psychotropic medication fills, with lower rates of hospitalization, suggesting potentially improved quality of outpatient care. Higher ED visit rates among those receiving care at FQHCs warrant additional investigation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Implementation research generally assumes established evidence-based practices and prior piloting of implementation strategies, which may not be feasible during a public health emergency. We describe the use of a simulation model of the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies to inform a stakeholder-engaged process of rapidly designing a tailored intervention and implementation strategy for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in group homes in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial., Methods: We used a validated dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission and disease in late 2020/early 2021 to determine the most effective strategies to mitigate infections among Massachusetts group home staff and residents. Model inputs were informed by data from stakeholders, public records, and published literature. We assessed different prevention strategies, iterated over time with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders and pandemic evolution, including varying symptom screening, testing frequency, isolation, contact-time, use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination. Model outcomes included new infections in group home residents, new infections in group home staff, and resident hospital days. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results of the simulations informed a stakeholder-engaged process to select components of a tailored best practice intervention and implementation strategy., Results: The largest projected decrease in infections was with initial vaccination, with minimal benefit for additional routine testing. The initial level of actual vaccination in the group homes was estimated to reduce resident infections by 72.4% and staff infections by 55.9% over the 90-day time horizon. Increasing resident and staff vaccination uptake to a target goal of 90% further decreased resident infections by 45.2% and staff infections by 51.3%. Subsequent simulated removal of masking led to a 6.5% increase in infections among residents and 3.2% among staff. The simulation model results were presented to multidisciplinary stakeholders and policymakers to inform the "Tailored Best Practice" package for the hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial., Conclusions: Vaccination and decreasing vaccine hesitancy among staff were predicted to have the greatest impact in mitigating COVID-19 risk in vulnerable populations of group home residents and staff. Simulation modeling was effective in rapidly informing the selection of the prevention and implementation strategy in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Future implementation may benefit from this approach when rapid deployment is necessary in the absence of data on tailored interventions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04726371., (© 2024. The Author(s).)