-
The American Journal of Managed Care Aug 2019We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the direct healthcare costs of treating older adults with diagnosed Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD)...
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the direct healthcare costs of treating older adults with diagnosed Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) within private Medicare managed care plans.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of all studies published in English reporting original empirical analyses of direct costs for older adults with ADRD in Medicare managed care.
METHODS
All papers indexed in PubMed or Web of Science reporting ADRD costs within Medicare managed care plans from 1983 through 2018 were identified and reviewed.
RESULTS
Despite the growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, only 9 papers report the costs of care for individuals with ADRD within these plans, and only 1 study reports data less than 10 years old. This limited literature reports wide ranges for ADRD-attributable costs, with estimates varying from $3738 to $8726 in annual prevalent costs and $8938 to $38,794 in 1-year immediate postdiagnosis incident costs. Reviewed studies also used varied study populations, case and cost ascertainment methods, and analytic methods, making cross-study comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
The expected continued growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, coupled with the large and growing impact of ADRD on America's healthcare delivery and finance systems, requires more research on the cost of ADRD within managed care. This research should use more consistent approaches to identify ADRD prevalence and provide more detail regarding which components of care are included in analyses and how the costs of care are captured and measured.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Dementia; Health Expenditures; Humans; Managed Care Programs; Medicare; United States
PubMed: 31419102
DOI: No ID Found -
JAMA Dermatology Mar 2018The ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States has been fueled by prescription opioids. Increases in opioid-related deaths and complications mandate clinicians in all...
IMPORTANCE
The ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States has been fueled by prescription opioids. Increases in opioid-related deaths and complications mandate clinicians in all fields to scrutinize their prescribing patterns.
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the current status and potential complications of opioid prescribing practices among dermatologists for Medicare beneficiaries.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A cross-sectional study used Medicare Part D prescriber data to evaluate opioid prescriptions by dermatologists from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The number of prescribers, opioid claims, beneficiaries, and days supplied as well as the type of opioid and geographic location of prescribers were extracted and analyzed. The top 1% of dermatologists prescribing opioids were identified and compared with a random sample of the same size among the remaining dermatologists based on sex, geographic location, type of practice, and time in practice. A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the outcome of opioid prescribing practices on the exposed population.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
Practice characteristics, epidemiologic factors, and consequences of opioids prescribed by dermatologists.
RESULTS
Of the 12 537 dermatologists in the study, 5305 (42.3%) prescribed no opioid claims, 5408 (43.1%) prescribed 1 to 10 opioid claims, and 1824 (14.5%) prescribed more than 10 opioid claims. Among dermatologists prescribing at least 10 opioid claims, a mean of 1.0 opioid claims was given to each beneficiary, with a supply lasting a mean of 4.4 days. A total of 108 dermatologists (93.9%) in the top 1% of opioid prescribers (n = 115) work in a surgical practice. Estimates suggest that opioids prescribed by dermatologists could annually lead to 3877 to 7602 beneficiaries continuing to use opioids at 1 year and 1825 to 4209 continuing to use opioids at 3 years. A total of 9882 to 22 806 beneficiaries could experience gastrointestinal tract or central nervous system adverse effects and 588 to 999 could experience fractures.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Opioid prescribing among dermatologists is limited and concentrated in the surgical setting, but it may be associated with a substantial number of adverse events that serve as a reminder to emphasize nonopioid pain medications in the postoperative setting.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Central Nervous System Diseases; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatologic Surgical Procedures; Dermatology; Drug Prescriptions; Female; Fractures, Bone; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Male; Medicare; Pain; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; United States
PubMed: 29417134
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5835 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Sep 2014Clinical research traditionally relies on measures of statistical significance to assess the strength of evidence while less attention is paid to the practical import of... (Review)
Review
Clinical research traditionally relies on measures of statistical significance to assess the strength of evidence while less attention is paid to the practical import of the results. The objective of this study was to provide a critical overview of the current approaches to measuring clinical significance in dementia research and to provide suggestions for future research. A systematic search was conducted of Medline and Embase for original, English-language, peer-reviewed articles published before July 2012. A total of 18 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 used multiple approaches to measure clinical significance. In all, 5 articles used expert opinion as anchors; 4 also used distribution-based approaches. In all, 8 articles used Goal Attainment Scaling; 7 of these also relied on clinician-based impressions of change. Another 3 articles used only clinical global impressions of change, 1 article used changes in symptomatology, and another used the value from literature.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Humans; Knowledge Discovery; Sample Size; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24526758
DOI: 10.1177/1533317514522539 -
Diabetologia Jul 2012Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS
Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of alternative dressings in a field where there are several different dressing options. We aimed to determine the relative effects of alternative wound dressings on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
METHODS
This study was a systematic review involving Bayesian mixed treatment comparison. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects on diabetic foot ulcer healing of one or more wound dressings. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status.
RESULTS
Fifteen eligible studies, evaluating nine dressing types, were included. Ten direct treatment comparisons were made. Whilst there was increased healing associated with hydrogel and foam dressings compared with basic wound contact materials, these findings were based on data from small studies at unclear or high risk of bias. The mixed treatment comparison suggested that hydrocolloid-matrix dressings were associated with higher odds of ulcer healing than all other dressing types; there was a high degree of uncertainty around these estimates, which were deemed to be of very low quality.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION
These findings summarise all available trial evidence regarding the use of dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers. More expensive dressings may offer no advantages in terms of healing than cheaper basic dressings. In addition, evidence pointing to a difference in favour of 'advanced' dressing types over basic wound contact materials is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Bayes Theorem; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Female; Humans; Male; Medicare; National Health Programs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United Kingdom; United States; Wound Healing
PubMed: 22544222
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2558-5 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Dec 2020Patients with kidney failure experience depression at rates higher than the general population. Despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ESRD Quality...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Patients with kidney failure experience depression at rates higher than the general population. Despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ESRD Quality Incentive Program requirements for routine depression screening for patients with kidney failure, no clear guidance exists.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and other databases from inception to June 2020. Two investigators screened all abstracts and full text. We included studies assessing patients with kidney failure and compared a tool to a clinical interview or another validated tool (., Beck Depression Inventory II). We abstracted data related to sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the curve. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies evaluated the performance characteristics of depression assessment tools for patients with kidney failure. The Beck Depression Inventory II was by far the best studied. A wide range of thresholds were reported. Shorter tools in the public domain such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 and Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (adults over 60) performed well but were not well studied. Short tools such as the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen may be a good option for an initial screen.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited research evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of most screening tools for depression in patients with kidney failure, and existing studies may not be generalizable to US populations. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodology quality and/or reporting. Future research should target widely used, free tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER
Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020140227.
Topics: Aged; Depression; Diagnostic Screening Programs; Geriatric Assessment; Humans; Middle Aged; Patient Health Questionnaire; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Renal Insufficiency; Renal Replacement Therapy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33203736
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05540420 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Oct 2018Clinical pharmacy services often comprise complex interventions. In this MiniReview, we conducted a systematic review aiming to evaluate the impact of multifaceted... (Review)
Review
Clinical pharmacy services often comprise complex interventions. In this MiniReview, we conducted a systematic review aiming to evaluate the impact of multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published from 2006 to 1 March 2018. Controlled trials concerning hospitalized patients in any setting receiving patient-related multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions were considered. All types of outcome were accepted. Inclusion and data extraction were performed. Study characteristics were collected, and risk of bias assessment was conducted utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. All stages were conducted by at least two independent reviewers. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075808). A total of 11,896 publications were identified, and 28 publications were included. Of these, 17 were conducted in Europe. Six of the included publications were multi-centre studies, and 16 were randomized trials. Usual care was the comparator. Significant results on quality of medication use were reported as positive in eleven studies (n = 18; 61%) and negative in one (n = 18, 6%). Hospital visits were reduced significantly in seven studies (n = 16; 44%). Four studies (n = 12; 33%) reported a positive significant effect on either length of stay or time to revisit, and one study reported a negative effect (n = 12; 6%). All studies investigating mortality (n = 6), patient-reported outcome (n = 7) and cost-effectiveness (n = 1) showed no significant results. This MiniReview indicates that multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting may improve the quality of medication use and reduce hospital visits and length of stay, while no effect was seen on mortality, patient-reported outcome and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Delivery of Health Care, Integrated; Drug Costs; Female; Hospital Costs; Humans; Leadership; Length of Stay; Male; Medication Therapy Management; Middle Aged; Patient Admission; Patient Care Team; Pharmacists; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; Professional Role
PubMed: 29723934
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13030 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Apr 2018This article has been corrected. To see what has changed, please read the Letter to the Editor and the authors' response. The original version (PDF) is appended to this...
UNLABELLED
This article has been corrected. To see what has changed, please read the Letter to the Editor and the authors' response. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.
BACKGROUND
The Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), the sepsis performance measure introduced in 2015 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requires the reporting of up to 5 hemodynamic interventions, as many as 141 tasks, and 3 hours to document for a single patient.
PURPOSE
To evaluate whether moderate- or high-level evidence shows that use of the 2015 SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improves survival in adults with sepsis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 November 2017 with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized and observational studies of death among adults with sepsis who received versus those who did not receive either the entire SEP-1 bundle or 1 or more SEP-1 hemodynamic interventions, including serial lactate measurements; a fluid infusion of 30 mL/kg of body weight; and assessment of volume status and tissue perfusion with a focused examination, bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography, or fluid responsiveness testing.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two investigators independently extracted study data and assessed each study's risk of bias; 4 authors rated level of evidence by consensus using CMS criteria published in 2013. High- or moderate-level evidence required studies to have no confounders and low risk of bias.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Of 56 563 references, 20 studies (18 reports) met inclusion criteria. One single-center observational study reported lower in-hospital mortality after implementation of the SEP-1 bundle. Sixteen studies (2 randomized and 14 observational) reported increased survival with serial lactate measurements or 30-mL/kg fluid infusions. None of the 17 studies were free of confounders or at low risk of bias. In 3 randomized trials, fluid responsiveness testing did not alter survival.
LIMITATIONS
Few trials, poor-quality and confounded studies, and no studies (with survival outcomes) of the focused examination or bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography. Use of the 2015 version of SEP-1 and 2013 version of CMS evidence criteria, both of which were updated in 2017.
CONCLUSION
No high- or moderate-level evidence shows that SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improve survival in adults with sepsis.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42016052716).
Topics: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.; Disease Management; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Survival Analysis; United States
PubMed: 29459977
DOI: 10.7326/M17-2947 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... Nov 2021The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a...
BACKGROUND
The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure?
METHODS
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.
Topics: Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Orthopedics; Patient Care Bundles; Reimbursement Mechanisms; United States
PubMed: 33942797
DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001792