Search

ObjectivesAlthough Medicare has implemented incentives for health plans to reduce fall risk, the best way to identify older people at high risk of falling and to use screening results to target fall prevention services remains unknown. We evaluated 4 different strategies using a combination of administrative data and patient-reported information that health plans could easily obtain.Study designObservational study.MethodsWe used data from 1776 patients 75 years or older in 4 community-based primary care practices who screened positive for a fear of falling and/or a history of falls. For these patients, we predicted fall-related injuries in the 24 months after the date of screening using claims/encounter data. After controlling for age and gender, we predicted the number of fall-related injuries by adding Elixhauser comorbidity count, any claim for a fall-related injury during the 12 months prior to screening, and falls screening question responses in a sequential fashion using negative binomial regression models.ResultsBasic patient characteristics, including age and Elixhauser comorbidity count, were strong predictors of fall-related injury. Among falls screening questions, a positive response to, "Have you fallen 2 or more times in the past year?" was the most predictive of a fall-related injury (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25-1.94). Prior claim for a fall-related injury also independently predicted this type of injury (IRR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.89). The best model for predicting fall-related injuries combined all of these approaches.ConclusionsThe combination of administrative data and a simple screening item can be used by health plans to target patients at high risk for future fall-related injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Many elderly persons have drug benefits with coverage gaps, such as in Medicare Part D. Because beneficiaries who have such gaps must pay all drug costs, an accurate knowledge of gap thresholds and communication with providers about exceeding caps is important for elderly persons to manage out-of-pocket drug costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Health plan. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand three hundred eight health plan members aged 65 and older. The study was a 2002 cross-sectional survey of elderly persons with capped drug benefits in a managed care plan in one state. Participants were sampled so that half reached coverage caps and half did not. METHODS: Participants reported cap levels, communication with providers about exceeding caps, and decreased medication use due to cost. RESULTS: Of the 1,308 participants (65.4% response rate), 68.6% did not know their correct cap level. Rates were similar in those who exceeded caps (66.2%), reported difficulty paying for medications (63.9%), or decreased medication use (66%). For participants who exceeded caps, 59.1% did not know beforehand that they were close to exceeding caps and 50.2% did not tell providers afterward. In multivariate analyses accounting for demographics and health, the oldest participants (≥85 vs 65-74) were at greater risk for not knowing cap levels (odds ratio (OR)=2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.2-3.4) and not telling providers about exceeding caps (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.1-4.5). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients often did not know correct cap levels and did not tell providers about exceeding caps. Providers, plans, and policymakers should actively assess and improve Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of Part D coverage gaps. © 2009, The American Geriatrics Society.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether elderly patients with high drug expenditures want and receive providers' help in managing drug costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A Medicare managed care plan (>400,000 members) in one state in 2002. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand one hundred six seniors (62% response rate) sampled so that half exceeded caps on their drug benefits the previous year, and all had total drug expenditures in the top quartile of members in their cap level. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' preferences and experiences with providers discussing costs and participation in choosing medications. RESULTS: Two-thirds reported difficulty paying for medications, and one-fourth decreased medication use because of cost. Most wanted providers to ask about medication affordability (81%), consider cost (86%), offer choices (70%), and to persuade them or decide for them which medication to use (88%), but few said providers asked about affordability (17%), usually or always discussed prices (19%), or offered choices (45%), although nearly all said providers chose their medications (93%). Sixty-two percent had asked providers for help with drug costs, although 34% who used less medication because of cost or had difficulty paying for medications had not asked for help. CONCLUSION: Providers should be aware that elderly patients want their help in managing drug costs but do not always receive it or ask for help when they need it. Providers could improve communication by initiating conversations about cost and by asking patients about preferences when prescribing. © 2007, The American Geriatrics Society.

Background: Generic-only drug benefits are a way to provide some coverage, as opposed to no coverage. Objective: To examine how switching from brand name to generic-only drug coverage affected seniors' medication use and financial burden. Study Design: Data are from a 2002 cross-sectional survey conducted for a separate study on benefit caps. Participants belonged to a Medicare managed care plan in one state and had $2000 capped brand name benefits in 2001 but generic-only benefits in 2002. Methods: Participants reported their cost-cutting strategies before and after the change to generic-only coverage, the medications affected, and their financial burden. We conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses of cost-cutting strategies and financial burden before and after implementation of generic-only benefits. Results: Among 611 participants (63% response), rates of switching medications increased after discontinuation of brand name coverage (27% vs 8%, P < .001). Switches were from brand name drugs to generic equivalents (14%) (eg, Prozac to fluoxetine hydrochloride), to nonequivalent generics (26%) (eg, Paxil to fluoxetine), and to different brand name drugs (45%) (eg, Paxil to Zoloft). Ninety percent of brand name switches remained in the same therapeutic class (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). After discontinuation of brand name coverage, participants reported higher rates of decreased medication use (28% vs 17%) and greater difficulty paying for prescriptions (65% vs 37%) (P < .001 for both). Conclusions: Changing from brand name benefits to generic-only drug coverage led many participants to switch to less expensive medications but also decreased medication use and increased financial burden. Insurers need to actively help patients adjust to a discontinuation of brand name coverage.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit of eyeglasses and magnifiers in elderly patients with uncorrected refractive errors. DESIGN: A single-center, randomized, prospective, controlled trial (September 2001 to August 2003). SETTING: Los Angeles County, California. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-one community-dwelling persons aged 65 and older who had habitual distance visual acuity of 20/32 or worse and whose distant visual acuity, near visual acuity, or both could be improved with eyeglasses, a magnifier, or both by two lines of acuity or more. INTERVENTION: Sixty-six were randomized to receive a prescription and voucher for free eyeglasses, a magnifier, or both immediately, and 65 were randomized to receive a prescription and voucher after the 3-month follow-up visit (the control group). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was vision-specific functioning as measured using the 25-item National Eye Institute - Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Secondary outcomes were distance and near visual acuity and overall functioning as measured using the Rosow-Breslau function questionnaire. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis of 3-month follow-up data, participants who received the eyeglasses prescription and voucher immediately had greater improvement in NEI-VFQ composite scores than the control group (P

OBJECTIVE. To evaluate whether adjusting the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) low birth weight (LBW) measure for maternal risk factors is feasible and improves its validity as a quality indicator. DATA SOURCE: The Washington State Birth Event Record Data for calendar years 1989 and 1990, including birth certificate data matched with mothers' and infants' hospital discharge records, with 5,837 records of singlet on infants identified as LBW (< 2,500 g) and a 25 percent sample ( n = 31,570) of the normal-weight births (

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the issues in developing a clinical predictor of cesarean delivery that could be used to adjust reported cesarean rates for case mix, and (2) to compare its performance to other, simpler predictors using clinical and statistical criteria. DATA SOURCES: Singleton births greater than 2,500 grams in Washington State in 1989 and 1990 for whom mothers and infant hospital discharge records could be matched to birth certificate data. DESIGN: Statistical analysis of retrospective merged hospital and birth certificate data, which were used to develop variables and models to predict the probability that any particular delivery would be a cesarean. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Merged data led to better predictor variables than those based on one source. A simple four-category hierarchical classification into births with prior cesarean, breech but no prior cesarean, first birth, and other explains 30 percent of the variance in individual cesarean rates. The full clinical model fit the data well and explained 37 percent of the variance. Multiparas without serious complications comprised 35 percent of the mothers and averaged less than 2 percent cesareans. A hospital's predicted cesarean rate depends strongly on the proportion of its births that are first births. CONCLUSION: Government and private agencies have reported cesarean rates as measures of hospital performance. Depending on data and resources available, both simple and complex measures of case mix can be used to adjust reported rates. These adjustments should not include all variables related to the rates. Proper adjustments may not alter hospital rankings greatly, but they will improve the validity and acceptability of the reports.