Search

BackgroundSub-optimal HbA1c control is a driver of disparities in diabetes outcomes among Hispanic patients. Differences in medication adherence may underlie racial/ethnic differences in HbA1c level.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between medication adherence and disparities in HbA1c level among Hispanic patients, relative to other racial/ethnic groups, obtaining care in the University of California Health System (UC Health).DesignThis study used clinical, administrative, and prescription dispensing data (January-December 2021) derived from the electronic health records of 5 Academic Medical Centers in UC Health, and linear regression models (LRMs) to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between medication adherence, race/ethnicity, and HbA1c level. Adjusted LRMs were run with and without the measure of medication adherence to assess this relationship.ParticipantsPatients with a UC Health primary care physician (PCP), with ≥ 1 PCP visit within the last 3 years, ages 18-75, reporting Asian, Hispanic, or White race/ethnicity, and who had ≥ 2 encounters with an ICD diagnosis of diabetes or had a prescription for a diabetes medication within the last 2 years, as of 12/31/21 (N = 27, 542; Asian = 6253, Hispanic = 7216, White = 14,073).Main measuresOur measure of medication adherence was the proportion of days covered (PDC) for diabetes medications in 2021. Our outcome was the most recent HbA1c value.Key resultsIn the LRM excluding the PDC, Hispanic ethnicity was positively associated with HbA1c level (β = 0.31, p =

BackgroundUniversity of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a “chart closure” hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart. ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes. MethodsWe defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program. ResultsWe identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P

INTRODUCTION: The University of California (UC) implemented the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) to address diabetes and obesity risk. This project examined the reach and effectiveness of this university-based DPP delivery approach. METHODS: This project compared 12-month weight change among three groups of UC beneficiaries with overweight/obesity: (1) those who received invitation letters and enrolled in UC DPP, (2) those mailed invitation letters but did not enroll, and (3) those who were not mailed letters and did not enroll (controls). Using 2012-2022 EHR, administrative and DPP cohort data, an interrupted time series was conducted in 2022-2023 to compare group differences in rate of weight change. RESULTS: Among 6,231 beneficiaries (132 UC DPP aware enrollees, 1,750 DPP aware non-enrollees, 4,349 controls), UC DPP enrollees were older (mean age 49), mostly women (76%), and more diverse (33% Asian, 8% Black, 20% Hispanic, 4% Multi/Other). Over 12 months of follow-up, UC DPP enrollee postenrollment rate of weight loss was -0.68 lbs./month. UC DPP enrollees had significantly greater weight change from pre- to post-enrollment than DPP aware non-enrollees (adjusted Δ-1.02 vs. Δ-0.07 lbs./month, difference= -0.95, p

Objective: Examine the impact of a primary care-embedded clinical pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) on hemoglobin A1C and blood pressure control, relative to usual care, among patients with Type 2 diabetes (TD2) and Medicaid, in a large healthcare system. Methods: We used data extracted from the Electronic Health Records system and a Difference-In-Differences study design with a 2:1 propensity-matched comparison group to evaluate the impact of UCMyRx on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure among patients with TD2 and Medicaid, relative to usual care. Results: Having at least one UCMyRx clinical pharmacist visit was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c; (-.27%, P-value= .03) but no impact on SBP. We do not find differential UCMyRx effects on HbA1c or SBP among the subpopulations with baseline HbA1C ≥9% or SBP ≥150 mmHg, respectively. In Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)-stratified analyses we found stronger UCMyRx effects on HbA1C (-.47%, P-value< .02) among the CCI tercile with the lowest comorbidity score (CC1 ≤ 5). Significant UCMyRx effects are only observed among the subpopulation of Medicaid beneficiaries without Medicare (-.35%, P-value= .02). Conclusions: The UCMyRx intervention is a useful strategy for improving HbA1c control among patients with TD2 and Medicaid.

BACKGROUND: The University of Californias Diabetes Prevention Program (UC DPP) Initiative was implemented across all 10 UC campuses in 2018. The COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying mandates required swift changes to program delivery, including pivoting from in-person to virtual delivery (i.e., Zoom). Our goal was to assess multilevel constituent perceptions of the use of a virtual platform to deliver UC DPP due to COVID-19 mandates. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 68 UC DPP participants, coordinators, and leaders to examine the use of virtual platform delivery on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) of UC DPP. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis and emergent themes were categorized using domains corresponding to RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: Among UC DPP participants (n = 42), virtual delivery primarily impacted perceptions of UC DPP effectiveness and implementation. Some participants perceived program effectiveness to be negatively impacted, given their preference for in-person sessions, which they felt provided more engagement, peer support, and accountability. Implementation challenges included problems with virtual format (e.g., Zoom fatigue); however, several benefits were also noted (e.g., increased flexibility, maintenance of DPP connections during campus closures). UC DPP coordinators (n = 18) perceived virtual delivery as positively impacting UC DPP reach, since virtual platforms provided access for some who could not participate in-person, and negatively impacting effectiveness due to reduced engagement and lower peer support. UC leaders (n = 8) perceived that use of the virtual format had a positive impact on reach (e.g., increased availability, accessibility) and negatively impacted effectiveness (e.g., less intensive interactions on a virtual platform). Across constituent levels, the use of a virtual platform had little to no impact on perceptions of adoption and maintenance of UC DPP. CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the reach, effectiveness, and implementation of UC DPP using a virtual platform varied across constituents, although all groups noted a potential negative impact on overall program effectiveness. Unanticipated program adaptations, including virtual delivery, present potential benefits as well as perceived drawbacks, primarily across the effectiveness domain. Understanding differential constituent perceptions of the impact of virtual delivery can help maximize RE-AIM and inform future UC DPP delivery strategies.

ObjectiveWe conducted a cluster-randomized, shared decision-making (SDM) trial offering lifestyle change, metformin, or both options, to adults at risk for diabetes in a primary care network (n = 20 practices).Research design and methodsWe used propensity score matching to identify control patients and used electronic health record data to compare weight loss at 24 and 36 months of follow-up and diabetes incidence at 36 months of follow-up.ResultsIn adjusted post hoc analyses, SDM participants (n = 489) maintained modestly greater 24-month weight loss of -3.1 lb and 36-month weight loss of -2.7 lb versus controls (n = 1,430, both comparisons P < 0.001). SDM participants who chose both lifestyle change and metformin sustained weight loss at 36 months of -4.1 lb (P < 0.001 vs. controls). We found no differences in incident diabetes (15% of SDM participants, 14% of control participants; P = 0.64).ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies to demonstrate weight loss maintenance up to 36 months after diabetes prevention SDM.

ImportanceAmong patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), Hispanic individuals are more likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to develop diabetes-related complications.ObjectiveTo examine the association of a pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among Hispanic patients with T2D.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used electronic health record data and a difference-in-differences study design to evaluate the association of UCMyRx exposure with changes in HbA1c concentration and SBP among Hispanic patients with T2D, relative to usual care, at University of California, Los Angeles primary care clinics between February and April of 2023. The study population included patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision/International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis of T2D, self-reporting Hispanic ethnicity, age 18 years or older, with 1 or more visits with a UCMyRx pharmacist (treatment) or 2 or more visits, 2 or more years apart, during the study window (comparison). Additionally, patients had to have the following observations during the study window (March 2, 2013-December 31, 2018): (1) a HbA1c 8% or higher, anywhere between 365 days before and 14 days after the index date (date of the first UCMyRx visit or a randomly generated index date) and a follow-up HbA1c measure within 120 to 365 days after the index date (n = 396) and/or (2) a SBP 140 mm Hg or higher between 365 days before and 14 days after the index date, and a follow-up SBP measure within 120 to 450 days after the index date (n = 795).ExposurePharmacists review laboratory results/vital signs, perform medication reconciliation, and develop personally tailored interventions to address adherence barriers and increase guideline-concordant care.Main outcomes and measuresPre- to post-index date changes in HbA1c and SBP.ResultsOf the 931 unique patients with T2D analyzed, the mean (SD) age was 64 (14.1) years, and 552 (59.3%) were female. In adjusted analyses, having 1 or more UCMyRx visits was associated with a reduction in HbA1c concentration (β = -0.46%; 95% CI, -0.84% to -0.07%) but no change in SBP (β = -1.71 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.00 to 0.58 mm Hg).Conclusions and relevanceIn this quality improvement study of UCMyRx among Hispanic patients with T2D, a negative association was observed between UCMyRx exposure and HbA1c concentration but not SBP. Pharmacist-led intervention may be a strategy for improving outcomes among Hispanic patients with T2D.

BACKGROUND: The socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in hospital and emergency room utilization among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is partially driven by cost-related non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), a diabetes-specific health plan incorporating value-based insurance design principles on healthcare utilization among low-income adults with T2DM. DESIGN: To examine the impact of the DHP on healthcare utilization, we employed a difference-in-differences (DID) study design with a propensity-matched comparison group. We modeled count and dichotomous outcomes using Poisson and logit models, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort of adults (18-64) with T2DM, with an annual household income

Interventions to better coordinate care for high-need high-cost (HNHC) Medicaid patients frequently fail to demonstrate changes in hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) use. Many of these interventions are modeled after practice-level complex care management (CCM) programs. The authors hypothesized that a national CCM program may be effective for some subgroups of HNHC patients, and the overall null effect may obfuscate subgroup-level impact. They used a previously published typology defining 6 subgroups of high-cost Medicaid patients and evaluated program impact by subgroup. The analysis used an individual-level interrupted time series with a comparison group. Intervention subjects were high-cost adult Medicaid patients who enrolled in 1 of 2 national CCM programs implemented by UnitedHealthcare (UHC) (n = 39,687). The comparators were patients who met CCM program criteria but were ineligible due to current enrollment in another UHC/Optum led program (N = 26,359). The intervention was a CCM program developed by UHC/Optum to provide whole person care delivering standardized interventions to address medical, behavioral, and social needs for HNHC Medicaid patients, and the outcome was probability of hospitalization or ED use in a given month, estimated at 12 months postenrollment. A reduction in risk of ED utilization for 4 of 6 subgroups was found. A reduction in risk of hospitalization for 1 of 6 subgroups was also found. The authors conclude that standardized health plan led CCM programs demonstrate effectiveness for certain subgroups of HNHC patients in Medicaid. This effectiveness is principally in reducing ED risk and may extend to the risk of hospitalization for a small number of patients.

BackgroundPatients with early chronic kidney disease (CKD) or underlying risk factors are often unaware of their kidney test results, common causes of CKD, and ways to lower risk of disease onset/progression.ObjectiveTo test feasibility of a pharmacist-led intervention targeting patient education and risk factors in patients with early CKD and those at risk for CKD.Practice descriptionAmbulatory care pharmacists in community-based primary care clinics delivered kidney health education, ordered labs, and recommended medication adjustments.Practice innovationWe identified patients with a moderate rate of decline (≥2 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year) in estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) at-risk for CKD or early stage CKD. An interactive workbook was designed to teach patients about kidney test results and self-management of risk factors including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cigarette smoking, and chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.Evaluation methodsOutcomes included visit uptake, completion of annual albuminuria screening, and initiation of guideline-directed medications for CKD. Patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention for kidney health knowledge and perceptions regarding pharmacist-provided information.ResultsOur sample of 20 participants had a mean eGFR of 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the mean eGFR decline was -4.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year. There were 47 visits during the pilot period from February 2021 to October 2021. Thirteen patients were missing albuminuria screening within 12 months; 2 of 9 patients with resulting labs had new microalbuminuria and were started on renoprotective medications. Patients had improved understanding of their kidney function test results and most did not consider the information scary or confusing.ConclusionBarriers to enrollment included fewer participants with multiple risk factors for CKD. The pharmacists were able to engage patients in learning the importance of monitoring and self-management of kidney health. A collaborative practice agreement may enhance a similar intervention that includes initiation of renoprotective medications.

BackgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. Metformin and lifestyle change through a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) are equally effective in preventing diabetes in patients with a GDM history, so women can choose a strategy based on their preferences. This study aims to test whether shared decision making (SDM) can help women with a history of GDM increase adoption of evidence-based strategies and lose weight to lower their risk of incident diabetes in real-world settings.MethodsThis pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) will test the effectiveness of SDM for diabetes prevention among 310 overweight/obese women with a history of GDM and prediabetes from two large health care systems (n = 155 from UCLA Health and n = 155 from Intermountain Healthcare). The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who lose ≥5% body weight at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include uptake of DPP and/or metformin and other patient-reported outcomes such as patient activation and health-related quality of life. Rates of GDM in a subsequent pregnancy will be an exploratory outcome. A descriptive analysis of costs related to SDM implementation will also be conducted.ConclusionThis is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness of SDM on weight loss, lifestyle change and/or metformin use, and other patient-reported outcomes in participants with a GDM history at risk of developing diabetes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03766256. Registered on 6 December 2018.

ObjectiveTo test the impact of the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), a diabetes-specific insurance plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for diabetes-related medications and clinical visits, on adherence to oral hypoglycemic medications among low-income adults with Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM).Data sources and study settingCohort of adults (18-64) with T2DM, an annual household income Study designWe employed a linear regression Difference-In-Differences (DID) approach with a matched comparison group. To assess for differential DHP effects across adherent versus non-adherent patients, we ran a Difference-in-Difference-in-Differences (DDD) analysis by including an interaction term that included indicators for DHP exposure status and time, and low versus high baseline medication adherence.Data collectionThe analytic data set is limited to employer groups that purchased the DHP and standard benefit plans from UnitedHealthcare, had internal pharmacy contracts; complete pharmacy claims data, and sufficient medical claims and lab data to identify employees and their dependents with T2DM.Principal findingsOur DID analysis did not show improved medication adherence associated with employer DHP adoption. However, the DDD model suggested a difference between DHP-exposed and comparison beneficiaries when comparing the relative effect on individuals who were adherent versus non-adherent at baseline, as suggested by the significant three-way interaction term (10.2,p = 0.028). This effect was driven by the 8.2 percentage point increase in medication adherence for the DHP subsample that was non-adherent at baseline.ConclusionsThe DHP may benefit low-income patients with low baseline medication adherence. Value-based insurance design may be an important strategy for mitigating income disparities in T2DM outcomes.

BackgroundMany Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) translation efforts have been less effective for underresourced populations. In the cluster-randomized Prediabetes Informed Decision and Education (PRIDE) trial, which evaluated a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for diabetes prevention, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants lost less weight than non-Hispanic White participants at 12-month follow-up.ObjectiveTo explore perspectives about weight loss from PRIDE participants of different racial and ethnic groups.ParticipantsSample of participants with prediabetes who were randomized to the PRIDE intervention arm (n=24).ApproachWe conducted semi-structured interviews within three groups stratified by DPP participation and % weight loss at 12 months: (DPP+/WL+, enrolled in DPP and lost >5% weight; DPP+/WL-, enrolled in DPP and lost

BackgroundTo determine if requiring Dual Eligible Special Need Plans (D-SNPs) to receive approval from the National Committee of Quality Assurance and contract with state Medicaid agencies impacts healthcare utilization.MethodsWe use a Multiple Interrupted Time Series to examine the association of D-SNP regulations with dichotomized measures of emergency room (ER) and hospital utilization. Our treatment group is elderly D-SNP enrollees. Our comparison group is near-elderly (ages 60-64) beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid Managed Care plans (N = 360,405). We use segmented regression models to estimate changes in the time-trend and slope of the outcomes associated with D-SNP regulations, during the post-implementation (2012-2015) period, relative to the pre-implementation (2010-2011) period. Models include a treatment-status indicator, a monthly time-trend, indicators and splines for the post-period and the interactions between these variables. We conduct the following sensitivity analyses: (1) Re-estimating models stratified by state (2) Estimating models including interactions of D-SNP implementation variables with comorbidity count to assess for differential D-SNP regulation effects across comorbidity level. (3) Re-estimating the models stratifying by race/ethnicity and (4) Including a transition period (2012-2013) in the model.ResultsWe do not find any statistically significant changes in ER or hospital utilization associated with D-SNP regulation implementation in the broad D-SNP population or among specific racial/ethnic groups; however, we do find a reduction in hospitalizations associated with D-SNP regulations in New Jersey (DD level = - 3.37%; p = 0.02)/(DD slope = - 0.23%; p = 0.01) and among individuals with higher, relative to lower levels of co-morbidity (DDD slope = - 0.06%; p = 0.01).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that the impact of D-SNP regulations varies by state. Additionally, D-SNP regulations may be particularly effective in reducing hospital utilization among beneficiaries with high levels of co-morbidity.

BackgroundType 2 diabetes can negatively impact long term health outcomes, healthcare costs and quality of life. However, intensive lifestyle interventions, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), can significantly lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes among overweight adults with prediabetes. Unfortunately, the majority of adults in the US who are at risk of developing diabetes do not engage in DPP-based lifestyle change programs. Increased adoption of evidence-based obesity and diabetes prevention interventions, such as the DPP, may help large employers reduce health risks and improve health outcomes among employees. In 2018, the University of California Office of thePresident (UCOP) implemented the UC DPP Initiative, a novel, multi-component program to address diabetes and obesity prevention across the UC system.MethodsThe goal of our study is to conduct a multifaceted evaluation of the UC DPP Initiative using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Our evaluation will integrate unique and diverse UC data sources, including electronic health record (EHR) data, administrative claims, campus-based DPP cohort data, qualitative interviews and site visits. Our primary outcome of interest is the mean percent weight change among three groups of overweight/obese UC beneficiaries at risk for diabetes at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include mean percent weight change at 24-month follow-up, barriers and facilitators associated with implementatio, as well as  the degree of program adoption and maintenance.DiscussionOur study will help inform diabetes and obesity prevention efforts across the UC system. Findings from this evaluation will also be highly applicable to universities and large employers, as well as community organizers, healthcare organizations and insurers implementing the DPP and/or other health promotion interventions.

PURPOSE The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services to improve health for people nationwide. Here, we summarize current USPSTF methods, describe how methods are evolving to address preventive health equity, and define evidence gaps for future research. METHODS We summarize current USPSTF methods as well as ongoing methods development. RESULTS The USPSTF prioritizes topics on the basis of disease burden, extent of new evidence, and whether the service can be provided in primary care and going forward will increasingly consider health equity. Analytic frameworks specify the key questions and linkages connecting the preventive service to health outcomes. Contextual questions provide information on natural history, current practice, health outcomes in high-risk groups, and health equity. The USPSTF assigns a level of certainty to the estimate of net benefit of a preventive service (high, moderate, or low). The magnitude of net benefit is also judged (substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative). The USPSTF uses these assessments to assign a letter grade from A (recommend) to D (recommend against). I statements are issued when evidence is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS The USPSTF will continue to evolve its methods for simulation modeling and to use evidence to address conditions for which there are limited data for population groups who bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Additional pilot work is underway to better understand the relations of the social constructs of race, ethnicity, and gender with health outcomes to inform the development of a USPSTF health equity framework. Key words: preventive medicine; clinical practice guidelines; methodology; health equity https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2946, INTRODUCTION The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body formed in 1984 to make evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services including screening, behavioral counseling, and preventive drugs. The [...]

IntroductionWhile the Diabetes Prevention Program Study demonstrated that intensive lifestyle change and metformin both reduce type 2 diabetes incidence, there are little data on patient preferences in real-world, clinical settings.MethodsThe Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) study was a cluster-randomized trial of shared decision making (SDM) for diabetes prevention. In PRIDE, pharmacists engaged patients with prediabetes in SDM using a decision aid with information about both evidence-based options. We recorded which diabetes prevention option(s) participants chose after the SDM visit. We also evaluated logistic regression models examining predictors of choosing intensive lifestyle change ± metformin, compared to metformin or usual care, and predictors of choosing metformin ± intensive lifestyle change, compared to intensive lifestyle change or usual care.ResultsAmong PRIDE participants (n = 515), 55% chose intensive lifestyle change, 8.5% chose metformin, 15% chose both options, and 21.6% declined both options. Women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60, P = 0.023) had higher odds than men of choosing intensive lifestyle change. Patients >60 years old (OR = 0.50, P = 0.028) had lower odds than patients

ObjectivePatients with multiple medical conditions and complex social issues are at risk for high utilization and poor outcomes. The Connecting Provider to Home program deployed teams of a social worker and a community health worker (CHW) to support patients with social issues and access to primary care. Our objectives were to examine the impact of the program on utilization and satisfaction with care among older adults with complex social and medical issues.DesignRetrospective quasi-experimental observational study with matched comparator group.SettingCommunity-based program in Southern California.ParticipantsFour hundred twenty community dwelling adults.InterventionCommunity-based healthcare program delivered by a social worker and CHW team for older adults with complex medical and social needs.MeasurementsAcute hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits in the 12 months preceding and following enrollment in the pilot program. A "difference-in-difference" analysis using a matched comparator group was conducted. Comparator group data of patients receiving usual care were obtained. Surveys were conducted to assess patient satisfaction and experiences with the program.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 74 years, and the program demonstrated statistically significant reductions in acute hospitalizations and ED use compared with 700 comparator patients. Pre/post-acute hospitalizations and ED visits were reduced in the intervention group. The average per patient per year reduction in acute hospitalizations was -0.66, whereas the average per patient reduction in ED use was -0.57. Patients enrolled in the program reported high levels of satisfaction and rated the program favorably.ConclusionsA care model with a social worker and CHW can be linked to primary care to address patient social needs and potentially reduce utilization of healthcare services and enhance patient experiences with care.

BackgroundThe rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin.Methods and findingsUsing the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation.ConclusionsIndustry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.

ImportanceThe prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing among persons of childbearing age and pregnant persons. In 2015, almost half of all persons began pregnancy with overweight (24%) or obesity (24%). Reported rates of overweight and obesity are higher among Black, Alaska Native/American Indian, and Hispanic women and lower among White and Asian women. Excess weight at the beginning of pregnancy and excess gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes such as a large for gestational age infant, cesarean delivery, or preterm birth.ObjectiveThe USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy and to evaluate intermediate outcomes, including excess gestational weight gain. This is a new recommendation.PopulationPregnant adolescents and adults in primary care settings.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy have a moderate net benefit for pregnant persons.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer pregnant persons effective behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy. (B recommendation).

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

ImportanceThe prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing among persons of childbearing age and pregnant persons. In 2015, almost half of all persons began pregnancy with overweight (24%) or obesity (24%). Reported rates of overweight and obesity are higher among Black, Alaska Native/American Indian, and Hispanic women and lower among White and Asian women. Excess weight at the beginning of pregnancy and excess gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes such as a large for gestational age infant, cesarean delivery, or preterm birth.ObjectiveThe USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy and to evaluate intermediate outcomes, including excess gestational weight gain. This is a new recommendation.PopulationPregnant adolescents and adults in primary care settings.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy have a moderate net benefit for pregnant persons.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer pregnant persons effective behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy. (B recommendation).

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

ImportanceHypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.ObjectiveTo reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods.PopulationAdults 18 years or older without known hypertension.Evidence assessmentUsing a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).

ImportanceVitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment.PopulationCommunity-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).

BackgroundPharmacists are effective at improving control of cardiovascular risk factors, but it less clear whether these improvements translate into less emergency department (ED) use and fewer hospitalizations. The UCMyRx program embed pharmacists in primary care.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine if the integration of pharmacists into primary care was associated with lower ED and hospital use for patients with diabetes.DesignThis was a quasi-experimental study with a comparator group.SubjectsThe analytic sample included patients with diabetes with uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (A1C >9%, blood pressure >140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol >130 mg/dL) who had 1 or more visits in either a UCMyRx (648 patients, 14 practices) or usual care practice (1944 patients, 14 practices).MeasuresOur outcomes were ED and hospitalization rates as measured before and after the consultations between UCMyRx and usual care. Our predictor variable was the pharmacist consultation. Poisson generalized estimating equations model was used to estimate the adjusted predicted change in utilization before and after the pharmacist consultation. The Average Treatment Effect on the Treated was estimated.ResultsIn models adjusted, the adjusted mean predicted number of emergency department visits/month during the year before the consultation was 0.09 among UCMyRx patients. During the year after initiating the care with the pharmacists, this rate decreased to an adjusted mean monthly rate of 0.07, with an Average Treatment Effect on the Treated=0.021 (P=0.035), a predicted reduction of 21% in emergency department visits associated with the clinical pharmacist consults. There was a nonsignificant predicted 3.2% reduction in hospitalizations over time for patients in the UCMyRx program.ConclusionClinical pharmacists are an important addition to clinical care teams in primary care practices and significantly decreased utilization of the ED among patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

ImportanceVitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment.PopulationCommunity-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).

ImportanceHypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.ObjectiveTo reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods.PopulationAdults 18 years or older without known hypertension.Evidence assessmentUsing a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).

ImportanceAge-related sensorineural hearing loss is a common health problem among adults. Nearly 16% of US adults 18 years or older report difficulty hearing. The prevalence of perceived hearing loss increases with age. Hearing loss can adversely affect an individual's quality of life and ability to function independently and has been associated with increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, social isolation, and cognitive decline.ObjectiveTo update its 2012 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss.Evidence assessmentBecause of a lack of evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in asymptomatic older adults are uncertain and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in older adults. (I statement).

ImportanceLung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

ImportanceAge-related sensorineural hearing loss is a common health problem among adults. Nearly 16% of US adults 18 years or older report difficulty hearing. The prevalence of perceived hearing loss increases with age. Hearing loss can adversely affect an individual's quality of life and ability to function independently and has been associated with increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, social isolation, and cognitive decline.ObjectiveTo update its 2012 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss.Evidence assessmentBecause of a lack of evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in asymptomatic older adults are uncertain and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in older adults. (I statement).

ImportanceLung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

ImportanceCarotid artery stenosis is atherosclerotic disease that affects extracranial carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis refers to stenosis in persons without a history of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other neurologic symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. The prevalence of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is low in the general population but increases with age.ObjectiveTo determine if its 2014 recommendation should be reaffirmed, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence review. The reaffirmation update focused on the targeted key questions on the potential benefits and harms of screening and interventions, including revascularization procedures designed to improve carotid artery blood flow, in persons with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or other neurologic signs or symptoms referable to the carotid arteries.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF found no new substantial evidence that could change its recommendation and therefore concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis outweigh the benefits.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends against screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general adult population. (D recommendation).

ImportanceCarotid artery stenosis is atherosclerotic disease that affects extracranial carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis refers to stenosis in persons without a history of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other neurologic symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. The prevalence of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is low in the general population but increases with age.ObjectiveTo determine if its 2014 recommendation should be reaffirmed, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence review. The reaffirmation update focused on the targeted key questions on the potential benefits and harms of screening and interventions, including revascularization procedures designed to improve carotid artery blood flow, in persons with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or other neurologic signs or symptoms referable to the carotid arteries.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF found no new substantial evidence that could change its recommendation and therefore concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis outweigh the benefits.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends against screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general adult population. (D recommendation).

ImportanceTobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the US. In 2014, it was estimated that 480 000 deaths annually are attributed to cigarette smoking, including second hand smoke exposure. Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, miscarriage and congenital anomalies) and complications in the offspring (including sudden infant death syndrome and impaired lung function in childhood). In 2019, an estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8% of the adult population) used tobacco; 14.0% of the US adult population currently smoked cigarettes and 4.5% of the adult population used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Among pregnant US women who gave birth in 2016, 7.2% reported smoking cigarettes while pregnant.ObjectiveTo update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary care interventions on tobacco use cessation in adults, including pregnant persons.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant persons.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions and US Food and Drug Associated (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapy for tobacco smoking cessation, alone or combined, in nonpregnant adults who smoke is substantial. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions for tobacco smoking cessation on perinatal outcomes and smoking cessation in pregnant persons is substantial. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons is insufficient because few studies are available, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons, is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF has identified the lack of well-designed, randomized clinical trials on e-cigarettes that report smoking abstinence or adverse events as a critical gap in the evidence.RecommendationsThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to nonpregnant adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant persons about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant persons who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco cessation in pregnant persons. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians direct patients who use tobacco to other tobacco cessation interventions with proven effectiveness and established safety. (I statement).

Background/objectivesMedication discrepancies and adverse drug events are common following hospital discharge. This study evaluates whether a collaboration between community-based health coaches and primary care-based pharmacists was associated with a reduction in inpatient utilization following hospitalization.DesignRetrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.SettingUrban academic medical center and surrounding community.ParticipantsIntervention patients (n = 494) were adults aged 65 and older admitted to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Ronald Reagan Medical Center during the study period and who met study inclusion criteria. A matched-control group was composed of patients with similar demographic and clinical characteristics who were admitted to the study site during the study period but who received usual care (n = 2,470). A greedy algorithm approach was used to conduct the propensity score match.InterventionFollowing acute hospitalization, a health coach conducted a home visit and transmitted all medication-related information to a pharmacist based in a primary care practice. The pharmacist compared this information with the patient's electronic medical record medication list and consulted with the patient's primary care provider to optimize medication management.MeasurementsThirty-day readmissions (primary outcome), 60- and 90-day readmissions, and 30-day emergency department (ED) visits (secondary outcomes) to UCLA Health.ResultsAmong 494 patients who received the intervention, 307 (62.1%) were female with a mean age of 83.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 76-90 years). Among 2,470 matched-control patients, 1,541 (62.4%) were female with a mean age of 82.7 years (IQR = 74.9-89.5 years). For the propensity score match, standardized mean differences were below .1 for 23 of 25 variables, indicating good balance. Patients who received this intervention had a significantly lower predicted probability of being readmitted within 30 days compared with matched-control patients (10.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9-13.2) vs 21.4%; 95% CI = 19.8-23.0; P value < .001).ConclusionA home visit conducted by a health coach combined with a medication review by a primary care-based pharmacist may prevent subsequent inpatient utilization.

IntroductionTo examine the association of a novel disease-specific health plan, known as the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), with emergency room (ER) and hospital utilization among patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes.Research design and methodsQuasi-experimental design, with employer group as the unit of analysis, comparing changes in any ER and inpatient hospital utilization over a 3-year period. Inverse probability weighting was used to control for differences between employers purchasing DHP versus standard plans. Estimated differences in utilization are calculated as average treatment effects on the treated. We used employees and dependents from employer groups contracting with a large, national private insurer between 2009 and 2012. Eligibility and claims data from continuously covered employees and dependents with diabetes and pre-diabetes (n=74 058) were aggregated to the employer level. The analysis included 9 DHP employers (n=7004) and 183 control employers (n=67 054).ResultsDHP purchase was associated with 2.4 and 1.8 percentage points absolute reduction in mean rates of any ER utilization, representing 13% and 10% relative reductions at 1 and 2 years post-DHP (p=0.012 and p=0.046, respectively). There was no significant association between DHP purchase and hospital utilization.ConclusionEmployers purchasing diabetes-specific health benefit designs may experience lower rates of resource-intensive services such as ER utilization.

Background: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) showed that lifestyle change or metformin is equally efficacious in preventing diabetes in women who have had gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Few studies have investigated the relationship between education and willingness to engage in either intervention and between education and preferred decision-making style. Methods: Within a large health system, we surveyed insured women 18-64 years old with a history of GDM, identified through the electronic health record. We estimated preference for decision-making style and interest in DPP lifestyle change and/or metformin by educational level, using multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, race, and ethnicity. Results: Our sample (n = 264) was 36% Latino, 29% Asian, 28% non-Latino white, and 5% African American, with a mean age of 37 years. In terms of education, 31% had a postgraduate degree, 41% were college graduates, and 29% did not graduate from college. In multivariate analyses, willingness to engage in either intervention did not vary by education. Women who did not graduate from college were more likely to leave medical decisions to their provider (p = 0.004) compared to women with a college or postgraduate degree. However, regardless of education, over 80% of women preferred to make medical decisions themselves or jointly with their provider. Conclusions: Most women prefer to play an active role in their own medical decisions and have an interest in both evidence-based diabetes prevention strategies. This suggests that shared decision-making is appropriate for many women with a history of GDM and different levels of educational attainment.

ImportanceTobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the US. In 2014, it was estimated that 480 000 deaths annually are attributed to cigarette smoking, including second hand smoke exposure. Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, miscarriage and congenital anomalies) and complications in the offspring (including sudden infant death syndrome and impaired lung function in childhood). In 2019, an estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8% of the adult population) used tobacco; 14.0% of the US adult population currently smoked cigarettes and 4.5% of the adult population used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Among pregnant US women who gave birth in 2016, 7.2% reported smoking cigarettes while pregnant.ObjectiveTo update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary care interventions on tobacco use cessation in adults, including pregnant persons.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant persons.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions and US Food and Drug Associated (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapy for tobacco smoking cessation, alone or combined, in nonpregnant adults who smoke is substantial. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions for tobacco smoking cessation on perinatal outcomes and smoking cessation in pregnant persons is substantial. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons is insufficient because few studies are available, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons, is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF has identified the lack of well-designed, randomized clinical trials on e-cigarettes that report smoking abstinence or adverse events as a critical gap in the evidence.RecommendationsThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to nonpregnant adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant persons about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant persons who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco cessation in pregnant persons. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians direct patients who use tobacco to other tobacco cessation interventions with proven effectiveness and established safety. (I statement).

ImportanceAn estimated 862 000 persons in the US are living with chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Persons born in regions with a prevalence of HBV infection of 2% or greater, such as countries in Africa and Asia, the Pacific Islands, and parts of South America, often become infected at birth and account for up to 95% of newly reported chronic infections in the US. Other high-prevalence populations include persons who inject drugs; men who have sex with men; persons with HIV infection; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of persons with chronic HBV infection. Up to 60% of HBV-infected persons are unaware of their infection, and many remain asymptomatic until onset of cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of new randomized clinical trials and cohort studies published from 2014 to August 2019 that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening and antiviral therapy for preventing intermediate outcomes or health outcomes and the association between improvements in intermediate outcomes and health outcomes. New key questions focused on the yield of alternative HBV screening strategies and the accuracy of tools to identify persons at increased risk.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to asymptomatic, nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk for HBV infection, including those who were vaccinated before being screened for HBV infection.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation).

BackgroundHospital readmission rates decreased for myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia with implementation of the first phase of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). It is not established whether readmissions fell for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an HRRP condition added in 2014.ObjectiveWe sought to determine whether HRRP penalties influenced COPD readmissions among Medicare, Medicaid, or privately insured patients.DesignWe analyzed a retrospective cohort, evaluating readmissions across implementation periods for HRRP penalties ("pre-HRRP" January 2010-April 2011, "implementation" May 2011-September 2012, "partial penalty" October 2012-September 2014, and "full penalty" October 2014-December 2016).PatientsWe assessed discharged patients ≥ 40 years old with COPD versus those with HRRP Phase 1 conditions (AMI, CHF, and pneumonia) or non-HRRP residual diagnoses in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.InterventionsHRRP was announced and implemented during this period, forming a natural experiment.MeasurementsWe calculated differences-in-differences (DID) for 30-day COPD versus HRRP Phase 1 and non-HRRP readmissions.Key resultsCOPD discharges for 1.2 million Medicare enrollees were compared with 22 million non-HRRP and 3.4 million HRRP Phase 1 discharges. COPD readmissions decreased from 19 to 17% over the study. This reduction was significantly greater than non-HRRP conditions (DID - 0.41%), but not HRRP Phase 1 (DID + 0.02%). A parallel trend was observed in the privately insured, with significant reduction compared with non-HRRP (DID - 0.83%), but not HRRP Phase 1 conditions (DID - 0.45%). Non-significant reductions occurred in Medicaid (DID - 0.52% vs. non-HRRP and - 0.21% vs. Phase 1 conditions).ConclusionsIn Medicare, HRRP implementation was associated with reductions in COPD readmissions compared with non-HRRP controls but not versus other HRRP conditions. Parallel findings were observed in commercial insurance, but not in Medicaid. Condition-specific penalties may not reduce readmissions further than existing HRRP trends.

ImportanceAn estimated 862 000 persons in the US are living with chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Persons born in regions with a prevalence of HBV infection of 2% or greater, such as countries in Africa and Asia, the Pacific Islands, and parts of South America, often become infected at birth and account for up to 95% of newly reported chronic infections in the US. Other high-prevalence populations include persons who inject drugs; men who have sex with men; persons with HIV infection; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of persons with chronic HBV infection. Up to 60% of HBV-infected persons are unaware of their infection, and many remain asymptomatic until onset of cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of new randomized clinical trials and cohort studies published from 2014 to August 2019 that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening and antiviral therapy for preventing intermediate outcomes or health outcomes and the association between improvements in intermediate outcomes and health outcomes. New key questions focused on the yield of alternative HBV screening strategies and the accuracy of tools to identify persons at increased risk.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to asymptomatic, nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk for HBV infection, including those who were vaccinated before being screened for HBV infection.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation).

ImportanceCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in the US. Known modifiable risk factors for CVD include smoking, overweight and obesity, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or hypertension, dyslipidemia, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy diet. Adults who adhere to national guidelines for a healthy diet and physical activity have lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those who do not. All persons, regardless of their CVD risk status, benefit from healthy eating behaviors and appropriate physical activity.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for CVD prevention in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older with known hypertension or elevated blood pressure, those with dyslipidemia, or those who have mixed or multiple risk factors such as metabolic syndrome or an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% or greater. Adults with other known modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as abnormal blood glucose levels, obesity, and smoking are not included in this recommendation.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions have a moderate net benefit on CVD risk in adults at increased risk for CVD.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends offering or referring adults with CVD risk factors to behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity. (B recommendation).

ImportancePrevalence of hypertension (both primary and secondary) in children and adolescents in the US ranges from 3% to 4%. Primary hypertension in children and adolescents occurs primarily in children older than 13 years and has no known cause but is associated with several risk factors, including family history and higher body mass index. Secondary hypertension occurs primarily in younger children and is most commonly caused by genetic disorders, renal disease, endocrine disorders, or cardiovascular abnormalities.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, test accuracy, the effectiveness and harms of treatment, and the association between hypertension and markers of cardiovascular disease in childhood and adulthood.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years not known to have hypertension or who are asymptomatic.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes that the evidence to support screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents is insufficient and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents. (I statement).

BACKGROUND: Patient activation is associated with better outcomes in chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the psychometric properties of the 12-item Altarum Consumer Engagement™ Measure (ACE-12) in patients with prediabetes. PARTICIPANTS: ACE-12 was administered to patients in the Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education Study. MAIN MEASURES: We conducted an exploratory factor analysis followed by confirmatory factor analytic models. We evaluated item response categories using item characteristic curves. Construct validity was assessed by examining correlations of the ACE-12 scales with education, depressive symptoms, self-rated health, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, and weight loss. KEY RESULTS: Participants (n = 515) had a median age of 58; 56% were female; 17% Hispanic; 54% were non-White. The scree plot and Tucker and Lewis reliability coefficient (0.95) suggested three factors similar to the original scales. One item loaded on the navigation rather than the informed choice scale. Ordinal alpha coefficients for the original scales were commitment (0.75); informed choice (0.71); and navigation (0.54). ICCs indicated that one or more of the response categories for 5 of the 12 items were never most likely to be selected. Patients with lower education were less activated on the commitment (r = - 0.124, p = 0.004), choice (r = - 0.085, p = 0.009), and overall score (r = - 0.042, p = 0.011). Patients with depressive symptoms had lower commitment (r = - 0.313, p ≤ 0.001) and overall scores (r = - 0.172, p = 0.012). Patients with poorer health scored lower on the Commitment (r = - 0.308, p ≤ 0.001), Navigation (r = - 0.137, p ≤ 0.001), and overall score (r = - 0.279, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: The analyses provide some support for the psychometric properties of the ACE-12 in prediabetic patients. Future research evaluating this tool among patients with other chronic conditions are needed to determine whether Q1 (I spend a lot of time learning about health) should remain in the informed choice or be included in the navigation scale. Additional items may be needed to yield acceptable reliability for the navigation scale.

ImportanceCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in the US. Known modifiable risk factors for CVD include smoking, overweight and obesity, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or hypertension, dyslipidemia, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy diet. Adults who adhere to national guidelines for a healthy diet and physical activity have lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those who do not. All persons, regardless of their CVD risk status, benefit from healthy eating behaviors and appropriate physical activity.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for CVD prevention in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older with known hypertension or elevated blood pressure, those with dyslipidemia, or those who have mixed or multiple risk factors such as metabolic syndrome or an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% or greater. Adults with other known modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as abnormal blood glucose levels, obesity, and smoking are not included in this recommendation.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions have a moderate net benefit on CVD risk in adults at increased risk for CVD.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends offering or referring adults with CVD risk factors to behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity. (B recommendation).

ImportancePrevalence of hypertension (both primary and secondary) in children and adolescents in the US ranges from 3% to 4%. Primary hypertension in children and adolescents occurs primarily in children older than 13 years and has no known cause but is associated with several risk factors, including family history and higher body mass index. Secondary hypertension occurs primarily in younger children and is most commonly caused by genetic disorders, renal disease, endocrine disorders, or cardiovascular abnormalities.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, test accuracy, the effectiveness and harms of treatment, and the association between hypertension and markers of cardiovascular disease in childhood and adulthood.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years not known to have hypertension or who are asymptomatic.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes that the evidence to support screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents is insufficient and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents. (I statement).