Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries using antipsychotic medications for FDA-approved indications before and after transitioning from the community to a nursing home.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the relationships between changes in antipsychotic medication (AP) use and acute clinical events (identified with administrative claims data) for patients with FDA-approved indications for APs following transition from the community (e.g. home) to a nursing home (NH) in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) research identifiable files (RIF) claims data (2016-2018). Medicare beneficiaries with a condition for which APs are approved by the FDA were examined using logistic regression models to determine whether changes in AP use following transition from community to NHs were correlated with the likelihood of experiencing acute clinical events. RESULTS: We identified 38,448 Medicare FFS beneficiaries meeting our study criteria. A change in AP use after transition to a NH did not have a statistically significant association with acute skeletal events, coronary artery events, or cerebrovascular events (p = .55, p = .69, and p = .59, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2016 and 2018, Medicare FFS patients with approved-use indications for APs had lower average AP use following transition to a NH. Changes in the use of other medications of interest largely followed a similar pattern, indicating that these medications did not tend to be used as substitutions for APs. No clear relationship exists between increases or decreases in AP use and adverse events among NH residents who used APs and had FDA-approved conditions in the community setting.

Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States. METHODS: Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies. RESULTS: In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: To compare the Medicare population cost of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average risk individuals by CT colonography (CTC) vs. optical colonoscopy (OC). METHODS: The authors used Medicare claims data, fee schedules, established protocols, and other sources to estimate CTC and OC per-screen costs, including the costs of OC referrals for a subset of CTC patients. They then modeled and compared the Medicare costs of patients who complied with CTC and OC screening recommendations and tested alternative scenarios. RESULTS: CTC is 29% less expensive than OC for the Medicare population in the base scenario. Although the CTC cost advantage is increased or reduced under alternative scenarios, it is always positive. CONCLUSION: CTC is a cost-effective CRC screening option for the Medicare population and will likely reduce Medicare expenditures for CRC screening.