Search

OBJECTIVE The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease–related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year, followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1,000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. RESULTS HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months [95% CI 0.4, 1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months [0.5, 5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months [1.2, 6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to control subjects at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare acute care utilization and costs following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Comparing post-bariatric emergency department (ED) and inpatient care use patterns could assist with procedure choice and provide insights about complication risk. METHODS: We used a national insurance claims database to identify adults undergoing SG and RYGB between 2008 and 2016. Patients were matched on age, gender, calendar-time, diabetes, and baseline acute care use. We used adjusted Cox proportional hazards to compare acute care utilization and two-part logistic regression models to compare annual associated costs (odds of any cost, and odds of high costs, defined as ≥80(th) percentile), between SG and RYGB, overall and within several clinical categories. RESULTS: The matched cohort included 4263 SG and 4520 RYGB patients. Up to 4 years after surgery, SG patients had slightly lower risk of ED visits (aHR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85,0.96) and inpatient stays (aHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73,0.88), especially for events associated with digestive-system diagnoses (ED aHR: 0.68; 95% CI:0.62,0.75; inpatient aHR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.53,0.72). SG patients also had lower odds of high ED and high total acute costs (e.g., year-1 acute costs aOR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66,0.90) in early follow-up. However, observed cost differences decreased by years 3 and 4 (e.g., year-4 acute care costs aOR 1.10; 95% CI: 0.92,1.31). CONCLUSIONS: SG may have fewer complications requiring emergency care and hospitalization, especially as related to digestive system disease. However, any acute care cost advantages of SG may wane over time.

Employers are increasingly purchasing "preventive drug list" (PDL) insurance plans that make cardiometabolic medications $0. PDL designs improve adherence, but effects on health outcomes are unknown. We analyzed 2004-2017 commercial health insurance claims using a large, national data set. The intervention group included 12,853 commercially-insured diabetes patients aged 12-64 years who experienced employer-mandated PDL switches; the control group included 12,989 matched counterparts whose employers offered no PDL. We defined the index date as the day the intervention group received the PDL, and matched controls had a contemporaneous index date. Both groups had a 1-year baseline and 1-year follow-up study period. We measured monthly rates of aggregated acute preventable diabetes complication episodes (e.g, hyperglycemic coma, angina, and pneumonia) presenting to (1) the outpatient setting or (2) the emergency department, observation, or inpatient settings ("high acuity") . We constructed cumulative interrupted time series plots of these two measures and conducted segmented regression analysis and marginal effects estimation. Low-income members were a subgroup of interest. Annual outpatient and high-acuity complication episodes decreased by -13.5% (-15.2%, -11.7%) and -13.9% (-15.3%, -12.5%) , respectively, in the PDL group relative to controls. Low-income PDL members also experienced decreased outpatient (-27.2% [-32.1%, -22.4%]) and high-acuity complication episodes (-4.4% [-6.5%, -2.4%]) . This rigorous, quasi-experimental study is the first to demonstrate that a value-based medication benefit is associated with improved health outcomes and reduced disparities. Employer adoption of PDLs thus represents a relatively expedient approach to improving health and equity, and our results support a strategy of incentivizing such targeted cost sharing reductions for vulnerable diabetes populations. Disclosure J.Wharam: None. F.Zhang: Research Support; GlaxoSmithKline plc. M.Lakoma: None. L.F.Garabedian: None. S.Argetsinger: None. D.Ross-degnan: None. Funding CDC and NIDDK

Objective: The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease-related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. Research Design and Methods: This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims dataset to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (<$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. Results: HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months, 95% confidence interval: [0.4-1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months, [0.5-5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months, [1.2-6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to controls at follow up. Conclusions: People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

e13628 Background: Precision medicine has changed treatment practices for patients with cancer. Clinical guidelines recommend tumor marker testing for many types of cancer given its benefits. Studies have demonstrated that tumor marker testing increases use of appropriate targeted therapies which is associated with improved survival, particularly among patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. In March 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) for next-generation sequencing to facilitate tumor marker testing. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to assess tumor marker testing among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 03/01/2016 through 02/28/2020. Data were obtained from the Virtual Data Warehouses of 6 United States (US) healthcare systems in the Cancer Research Network, a well-established distributed data network for cancer research. Together these systems provide care to a diverse population of over 5.5 million people in the US. The index date was the first observed cancer diagnosis date recorded in the tumor registry during the study period. Subgroup analyses included those with lung, breast, colorectal, or prostate cancers, or those with advanced, metastatic or recurrent cancer. This is part of a larger project that aims to advance methods for scalable and rigorous evaluation of outcomes of coverage policies for genetic tests. Results: We report results from one health system (03/01/2016-3/31/2018) including Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years and ≥ 90 enrollment days after the index date. Among 2,277 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, mean (SD) age was 74 (6.8) years, 1,065 (46.8%) were women, 199 (9.9%) had a tumor marker test within 90 days of the index date, and 1072 (47.1%) started a cancer drug therapy within 90 days of the index date. Among Medicare beneficiaries with lung (n=352), breast (n=361) colorectal (n=135) and prostate (n=326) cancers, proportions of patients having tumor marker tests ranged from 2.2% to 12.8% within 90 days of the index date. Among 572 Medicare beneficiaries with advanced, metastatic or recurrent cancer, 59 (10.3%) had a tumor marker test within 90 days of the index date. Conclusions: The relatively low tumor marker testing rate among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in this health system is consistent with the literature. Analyses are underway to examine changes in tumor marker testing among Medicare beneficiaries after the implementation of the 2018 Medicare NCD.

Studies comparing contemporary bariatric surgical types could facilitate procedure selection for patients interested in reducing their frequency of health care visits and reliance on prescription drugs.To compare the association of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with ambulatory health care costs and use for as long as 4 years after surgery.This comparative effectiveness study, which included patients undergoing bariatric surgery who were aged 18 to 64 years with at least 24 months of enrollment data before surgery and 12 months of enrollment data after surgery, used a retrospective interrupted time series with a comparison group. Data represent insurance claims dated January 2006 to June 2017, with analyses completed in September 2021. Data were collected from US commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database. Cohorts were matched on characteristics including baseline body mass index category, diabetes status, baseline ambulatory care costs, region of the United States, and year of surgery.SG or RYGB, based on procedure codes.Annual ambulatory health care costs, and subtypes of cost and use including prescriptions, office visits, laboratory encounters, and radiology.Matched cohorts included 3049 patients who underwent SG and 3251 patients who underwent RYGB, with a mean (SD) age of 45.2 (10.0) years; 4820 (77%) were women. Full follow-up was 37% for SG (514 patients) and 38% for RYGB (643 patients) among those eligible for 4-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between SG and RYGB in total ambulatory costs, office visit costs, or radiology costs in all follow-up years. Patients who underwent SG had significantly higher prescription costs than those who underwent RYGB bypass in year 4 ($852.8 per patient per year; 95% CI: $395.6-$1310.0 per patient per year) with more cardiometabolic medication fills in each year (eg, year 4: 42.5%; 95% CI, 13.7%-71.2%). In contrast, early after surgery, patients who underwent SG had relatively fewer specialist visits (eg, year 1: -7.2%; 95% CI, -14.3% to -0.2%) and lower laboratory costs (eg, year 1: -$118.9 per patient per year; 95% CI, -$220.2 to -$17.5 per patient per year).Despite clinical studies showing greater weight loss and comorbidity improvement with RYGB vs SG, this study found no difference in total ambulatory costs for as long as 4 years after SG and RYGB. These findings may reflect the trade-off between greater improvements in cardiometabolic health and additional surgery-related care among patients undergoing RYGB. Studies with longer follow-up time could determine whether greater sustained weight loss from RYGB eventually results in lower costs compared with SG.

This cohort study compares the risk of operative and nonoperative interventions up to 4 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs vertical sleeve gastrectomy in patient groups matched on US region, year of surgery, body mass index category, and type 2 diabetes status., Key Points Question Do patients have greater risk of subsequent operative intervention after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG)? Findings Among 13 027 patients in this cohort study, compared with matched counterparts undergoing RYGB, patients undergoing VSG had lower overall risk of subsequent operative and nonoperative interventions, including biliary procedures, abdominal wall hernia repair, other abdominal operations, and endoscopy, up to 4 years after surgery. Meaning Patients deciding between RYGB and VSG should consider not only the clinical effectiveness of these 2 procedures but also the risk for subsequent operative and nonoperative interventions., Importance There are few nationwide studies comparing the risk of reintervention after contemporary bariatric procedures. Objective To compare the risk of intervention after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) vs vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used a nationwide US commercial insurance claims database. Adults aged 18 to 64 years who underwent a first RYGB or VSG procedure between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017, were matched on US region, year of surgery, most recent presurgery body mass index (BMI) category (based on diagnosis codes), and baseline type 2 diabetes. The prematch pool included 4496 patients undergoing RYGB and 8627 patients undergoing VSG, and the final weighted matched sample included 4476 patients undergoing RYGB and 8551 patients undergoing VSG. Exposures Bariatric surgery procedure type (RYGB vs VSG). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was any abdominal operative intervention after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included the following subtypes of operative intervention: biliary procedures, abdominal wall hernia repair, bariatric conversion or revision, and other abdominal operations. Nonoperative outcomes included endoscopy and enteral access. Time to first event was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Results Among 13 027 patients, the mean (SD) age was 44.4 (10.3) years, and 74.1% were female; 13.7% had a preoperative BMI between 30 and 39.9, 45.8% had a preoperative BMI between 40 and 49.9, and 24.2% had a preoperative BMI of at least 50. Patients were followed up for up to 4 years after surgery (median, 1.6 years; interquartile range, 0.7-3.2 years), with 41.9% having at least 2 years of follow-up and 16.3% having at least 4 years of follow-up. Patients undergoing VSG were less likely to have any subsequent operative intervention than matched patients undergoing RYGB (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89) and similarly were less likely to undergo biliary procedures (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.90), abdominal wall hernia repair (aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), other abdominal operations (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82), and endoscopy (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.49-0.59) or have enteral access placed (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86). Patients undergoing VSG were more likely to undergo bariatric conversion or revision (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.19-2.80). Conclusions and Relevance In this nationwide study, patients undergoing VSG appeared to be less likely than matched patients undergoing RYGB to experience subsequent abdominal operative interventions, except for bariatric conversion or revision procedures. Patients considering bariatric surgery should be aware of the increased risk of subsequent procedures associated with RYGB vs VSG as part of shared decision-making around procedure choice.