-
The American Journal of Managed Care Sep 2021To compare Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) performance on quality, health, and cost outcomes in peer-reviewed literature published since 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To compare Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) performance on quality, health, and cost outcomes in peer-reviewed literature published since 2010.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of peer-reviewed papers published between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2020.
METHODS
To identify relevant research papers, we searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, and ProQuest. We excluded any studies that did not meet several inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were independently reviewed by 1 author and several trained research assistants. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We also reviewed the bibliographies of included studies and consulted subject matter experts to identify additional papers.For each eligible study, we extracted the first author, year published, study design, data sources, study years, sample sizes, relevant measures, and study quality. To ensure consistent and complete data extraction, each article was reviewed by 2 reviewers. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies including 208 analyses were included. All included studies were observational. Two-thirds of studies were of high methodological quality for observational studies, and 49% addressed selection bias. Analyses compared quality of care (41%), health outcomes (44%), and spending (15%). Overall, 65% of analyses found a statistically significant relationship: 52% favored MA and 13% favored TM.
CONCLUSIONS
More than half of recent analyses comparing MA and TM find that MA delivers significantly better quality of care, better health outcomes, and lower costs compared with TM.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Medicare Part C; United States
PubMed: 34533909
DOI: 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88641 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.
Topics: Aged; Controlled Before-After Studies; Drug Prescriptions; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Medication Therapy Management; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Polypharmacy; Quality Improvement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30175841
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008165.pub4 -
Journal of the American Medical... Oct 2022Home health care agencies (HHAs) are skilled care providers for Medicare home health beneficiaries in the United States. Rural HHAs face different challenges from their... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Home health care agencies (HHAs) are skilled care providers for Medicare home health beneficiaries in the United States. Rural HHAs face different challenges from their urban counterparts in delivering care (eg, longer distances to travel to patient homes leading to higher fuel/travel costs and fewer number of visits in a day, impacting the quality of home health care for rural beneficiaries). We review evidence on differences in care outcomes provided by urban and rural HHAs.
DESIGN
Systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality appraisal.
SETTING
Care provided by urban and rural HHAs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search for English-language peer-reviewed articles after 2010 on differences in urban and rural care provided by U.S. HHAs. We screened 876 studies, conducted full-text abstraction and NOS quality review on 36 articles and excluded 2 for poor study quality.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included; 7 focused on patient-level analyses and 5 were HHA-level. Nine studies were cross-sectional and 3 used cohorts. Urban and rural differences were measured primarily using a binary variable. All studies controlled for agency-level characteristics, and two-thirds also controlled for patient characteristics. Rural beneficiaries, compared with urban, had lower home health care utilization (4 of 5 studies) and fewer visits for physical therapy and/or rehabilitation (3 of 5 studies). Rural agencies had lower quality of HHA services (3 of 4 studies). Rural patients, compared with urban, visited the emergency room more often (2 of 2 studies) and were more likely to be hospitalized (2 of 2 studies), whereas urban patients with heart failure were more likely to have 30-day preventable hospitalizations (1 study).
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This review highlights similar urban/rural disparities in home health care quality and utilization as identified in previous decades. Variables used to measure the access to and quality of care by HHAs varied, so consensus was limited. Articles that used more granular measures of rurality (rather than binary measures) revealed additional differences. These findings point to the need for consistent and refined measures of rurality in studies examining urban and rural differences in care from HHAs.
Topics: Aged; Home Care Agencies; Home Care Services; Hospitalization; Humans; Medicare; Rural Population; United States
PubMed: 36108785
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.08.011 -
Health Affairs (Project Hope) Jun 2023During the past two decades in the United States, all major payer types-commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and multipayer coalitions-have introduced value-based purchasing...
During the past two decades in the United States, all major payer types-commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and multipayer coalitions-have introduced value-based purchasing (VBP) contracts to reward providers for improving health care quality while reducing spending. This systematic review qualitatively characterized the financial and nonfinancial features of VBP programs and examined how such features combine to create a level of program intensity that relates to desired quality and spending outcomes. Higher-intensity VBP programs are more frequently associated with desired quality processes, utilization measures, and spending reductions than lower-intensity programs. Thus, although there may be reasons for payers and providers to opt for lower-intensity programs (for example, to increase voluntary participation), these choices apparently have consequences for spending and quality outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Humans; United States; Medicare; Value-Based Purchasing; Medicaid; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 37276480
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.01455 -
PLoS Medicine Jan 2020The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US...
BACKGROUND
The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.
Topics: Economics; Health Care Costs; Healthcare Financing; Humans; Single-Payer System; United States
PubMed: 31940342
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013 -
Drugs & Aging Sep 2013In the largest overhaul to Medicare since its creation in 1965, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 established Part D in 2006 to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the largest overhaul to Medicare since its creation in 1965, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 established Part D in 2006 to improve access to essential medication among disabled and older Americans. Despite previous evidence of a positive impact on the general Medicare population, Part D's overall effects on long-term care (LTC) are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature regarding Part D's impact on the LTC context, specifically costs to LTC residents, providers and payers; prescription drug coverage and utilization; and clinical and administrative outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
Four electronic databases [PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Business Fulltext Elite and Science Citation Index Expanded], selected US government and non-profit websites, and bibliographies were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies characterizing Part D in the LTC context. Searches were limited to studies that may have been published between 1 January 2006 (date of Part D implementation) and 8 January 2013.
STUDY SELECTION
Systematic searches identified 1,624 publications for a three-stage (title, abstract and full-text) review. Included publications were in English language; based in the US; assessed Part D-related outcomes; and included or were directly relevant to LTC residents or settings. News articles, reviews, opinion pieces, letters or commentaries; case reports or case series; simulation or modeling studies; and summaries that did not report original data were excluded.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
A standardized form was used to abstract study type, study design, LTC setting, sources of data, method of data collection, time periods assessed, unit of observation, outcomes and results. Methodological quality was assessed using modified criteria specific to quantitative and qualitative studies.
RESULTS
Eleven quantitative and eight qualitative studies met inclusion criteria. In the seven years since its implementation, Part D decreased out-of-pocket costs among enrolled nursing home residents and potentially increased costs borne by LTC facilities. Coverage of prescription drugs frequently used by older adults was adequate, except for certain drugs and alternative formulations of importance to LTC residents. The use of medications that raise safety concerns was decreased, but overall drug utilization may have been unaffected. Although there was uncertain impact on clinical outcomes, quantitative studies demonstrated evidence of unintended health consequences. Qualitative studies consistently revealed increased administrative burden among providers.
LIMITATIONS
Empirical evidence of Part D's LTC impact was sparse. Due to limitations in available types of data, quantitative studies were generically lacking in methodological rigor. Qualitative studies suffered from lack of clarity of reporting. As future studies use clinical Medicare data, study quality is expected to improve.
CONCLUSION
Although LTC-specific policies continue to evolve, it appears that the prescription drug benefit may require further modifications to more effectively provide for LTC residents' unique medication needs and improve their health outcomes. Adjustments may be needed for Part D to be more compatible with LTC prescription drug delivery processes.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Long-Term Care; Medicare Part D; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prescription Drugs; United States
PubMed: 23729166
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-013-0096-6 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2017To identify and assess studies published over a 10 year period up to February 2016 which measure adherence or persistence with statins, to summarize their methods,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and assess studies published over a 10 year period up to February 2016 which measure adherence or persistence with statins, to summarize their methods, strengths and weaknesses and to summarize evidence linking statin adherence/persistence with risk of cardiovascular events.
METHODS
Electronic databases and abstracts from four major cardiovascular disease conferences were searched from January 2005 to February 2016. The study selection process was performed by two reviewers working independently. Studies were included if they reported data regarding patient adherence or persistence with statins in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia, using any type of study design or length of follow-up. One reviewer extracted the study data and assessed study quality, which was checked by a second reviewer independently. Given the heterogeneity between the included studies a narrative critique and summary is presented.
RESULTS
We report on 84 real world studies which aimed to assess adherence or persistence with statins. The majority of studies concluded that good adherence/persistence was associated with reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality. In two studies high intensity statin regimens were associated with poorer patient adherence when compared to low intensity statins. Adherence and persistence with statin therapy also has an impact on hospitalization costs and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) related costs.
CONCLUSIONS
Adherence and persistence are associated with a reduction in CVD events and mortality. There was limited evidence to suggest that high intensity statin regimens are associated with poorer treatment adherence when compared to lower intensity regimens. Hence, more robust studies are required to establish this association. As recommended by the 2013 ACC/AHA, 2016 ESC and several other clinical guidelines, clinicians and pharmacy managers should regularly monitor statin therapy adherence.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hypercholesterolemia; Medication Adherence; Medication Therapy Management; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28076703
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1281109 -
Medical Care Jun 2013Current health care reform efforts are focused on reorganizing health care systems to reduce waste in the US health care system. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current health care reform efforts are focused on reorganizing health care systems to reduce waste in the US health care system.
OBJECTIVE
To compare rates of overuse in different health care systems and examine whether certain systems of care or insurers have lower rates of overuse of health care services.
DATA SOURCES
Articles published in MEDLINE between 1978, the year of publication of the first framework to measure quality, and June 21, 2012.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies compared rates of overuse of procedures, diagnostic tests, or medications in at least 2 systems of care.
DATA EXTRACTION
Four reviewers screened titles; 2 reviewers screened abstracts and full articles and extracted data.
RESULTS
We identified 7 studies which compared rates of overuse of 5 services across multiple different health care settings. National rates of inappropriate coronary angiography were similar in Medicare HMOs and Medicare FFS (13% vs. 13%, P=0.33) and in a state-based study comparing 15 hospitals in New York and 4 hospitals in a Massachusetts-managed care plan (4% vs. 6%, P>0.1). Rates of carotid endarterectomy in New York State were similar in Medicare HMOs and Medicare FFS plans (8.4% vs. 8.6%, P=0.55) but nonrecommended use of antibiotics for the treatment of upper respiratory infection was higher in a managed care organization than a FFS private plan (31% vs. 21%, P=0.02). Rates of inappropriate myocardial perfusion imaging were similar in VA and private settings (22% vs. 16.6%, P=0.24), but rates of inappropriate surveillance endoscopy in the management of gastric ulcers were higher in the VA compared with private settings (37.4% vs. 20.4%-23.3%, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence is limited but there is no consistent evidence that any 1 system of care has been more effective at minimizing the overuse of health care services. More research is necessary to inform current health care reform efforts directed at reducing overuse.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Fee-for-Service Plans; Health Care Reform; Health Maintenance Organizations; Health Services Misuse; Humans; Medicare; United States; United States Department of Veterans Affairs
PubMed: 23552430
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828dbafe -
International Journal of Dermatology Aug 2023Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are chronic inflammatory skin conditions, each affecting about 2-3% of the United States adult population. Phototherapy, such as... (Review)
Review
Systematic review and estimated cost-efficacy of biologics compared with narrowband ultraviolet B light for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are chronic inflammatory skin conditions, each affecting about 2-3% of the United States adult population. Phototherapy, such as narrowband ultraviolet-B (NB-UVB) therapy have been employed for the treatment of both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis for decades. More recently, systemic biologics have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), representing a great advancement in dermatology. No comprehensive study to date has compared the cost efficacy of phototherapy compared to FDA-approved biologics for the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. We pursued a systematic review of the literature for studies assessing efficacy of NB-UVB or biologics with endpoints including the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). Thirty-four studies including 55 treatment regimens and 5,123 patients were included in the analysis. Phototherapy costs were estimated with Medicare fee schedules for phototherapy-related current procedural terminology code (CPT), and biologic costs were estimated with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Total costs to achieve PASI 75 or EASI 75 in each study were standardized to a single month, the "adjusted cost," and exploited to a year, the "effective yearly cost," allowing direct cost-efficacy comparison despite different durations of treatment described in studies. The psoriasis analysis found NB-UVB to be the most cost-effective therapy, with an adjusted monthly cost of $1714.00 per PASI 75. Infliximab was the least expensive biologic, with an adjusted monthly cost of $2076.00 to $2502.00 per PASI 75. For atopic dermatitis, no NB-UVB studies utilized EASI 75 as their outcome measure, hindering the ability to directly compare cost effectiveness for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. However, all NB-UVB studies depicted a reduced treatment cost per treatment period compared to studies assessing biologics, although this comparison does not account for efficacy. The results depict NB-UVB to be the most cost effective for the treatment of psoriasis and the least expensive per treatment period for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. However, certain factors need to be taken into account. Biologics may be more effective for more severe disease, do not require multiple weekly clinic visits, and the ease for patient compliance may lead some to favor biologic therapy. This study is necessary to allow physicians, patients, and health systems to make informed decisions regarding cost-efficacy for a variety of treatment options.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Biological Products; Dermatitis, Atopic; Medicare; Psoriasis; Treatment Outcome; Ultraviolet Therapy; United States
PubMed: 37066447
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16677