Association between Medication Non-Adherence and Increases in Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes Medications.

Importance: Medication non-adherence is highly costly and leads to worse disease control and outcomes. However, knowledge about medication adherence is often disconnected from prescribing decisions, and this disconnect may lead to inappropriate increases in medications and higher risks of adverse events. Objectives: To evaluate the association between medication non-adherence and the likelihood of increases in the intensity of medication regimens for two chronic conditions, hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Design: Cohort Study. Setting and Participants: This study used US national pharmacy claims data for Medicare Part D (ages ≥ 65) and commercial (ages 50-64) plans to evaluate medication adherence and its association with the likelihood of receiving an increase in medication intensity for patients with hypertension and/or oral diabetes medication fills. Patients had an index fill for hypertension (N = 2,536,638) and/or oral diabetes (N = 701,376) medications in January 2015. Medication fills in the follow-up period from August 2015 to December 2016 were assessed for increases in medication regimen intensity. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The proportion of days covered (PDC) over 181 days was used as a measure for patient's medication adherence before a medication addition, medication increase, or dosage increase. Differences in the likelihood of experiencing an escalation in medication intensity was considered between patients with a PDC < 80% vs. PDC ≥ 80%. Results: Among Medicare Part D and commercial plan patients filling hypertension and/or oral diabetes medications, non-adherent patients were significantly more likely to experience an intensification of their medication regimens (p < 0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found a significant association between non-adherence to medications and a higher likelihood of patients experiencing potentially inappropriate increases in treatment intensity. Sharing of objective patient refill data between retail pharmacies and prescribers can enable prescribers to have more targeted discussions with patients about their adherence and overall treatment plan. Additionally, it can increase safe medication prescribing and plausibly reduce adverse drug events and healthcare costs while improving patient health outcomes.

Impact of late-to-refill reminder calls on medication adherence in the Medicare Part D population: evaluation of a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates a nationwide pharmacy chain's late-to-refill (LTR) reminder program that entails local pharmacists placing reminder calls to Medicare Part D patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled study among 735,218 patients who exhibited nonadherent behavior by not refilling a maintenance medication 3 days from an expected refill date. Patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group who received LTR reminder calls or to a control group. We used Walgreens pharmaceutical claims data from 2015 to estimate the impact of LTR calls on short-term and annual adherence. RESULTS: The initial refill rate within the first 14 days of the expected refill date significantly increased in the intervention group by 22.8% (6.09 percentage points) compared to the control group (P<0.001). The proportion of days covered (PDC) in the intervention group increased significantly by 1.5% (0.856 percentage points) relative to the control group (P<0.001) over 365 days. Patients in the intervention group were significantly more adherent (PDC ≥80%) by 3% (0.97 percentage points) compared to the control group (P<0.001). Over a 270-day follow-up period, persistence significantly increased by 2.15 days in the intervention group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that LTR reminder calls increased adherence for Medicare Part D patients who are late in refilling their medications and therefore have the potential to reduce their risk for hospitalization and health care costs. Additionally, the intervention increased the number of patients with PDC ≥80% by ~3%, positively impacting Medicare Part D plan quality rating.

Medicaid Expansion Did Not Result In Significant Employment Changes Or Job Reductions In 2014.

Medicaid expansion undertaken through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is already producing major changes in insurance coverage and access to care, but its potential impacts on the labor market are also important policy considerations. Economic theory suggests that receipt of Medicaid might benefit workers who would no longer be tied to specific jobs to receive health insurance (known as job lock), giving them more flexibility in their choice of employment, or might encourage low-income workers to reduce their hours or stop working if they no longer need employment-based insurance. Evidence on labor changes after previous Medicaid expansions is mixed. To view the impact of the ACA on current labor market participation, we analyzed labor-market participation among adults with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, comparing Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states and Medicaid-eligible and -ineligible groups, for the pre-ACA period (2005-13) and the first fifteen months of the expansion (January 2014-March 2015). Medicaid expansion did not result in significant changes in employment, job switching, or full- versus part-time status. While we cannot exclude the possibility of small changes in these outcomes, our findings rule out the large change found in one influential pre-ACA study; furthermore, they suggest that the Medicaid expansion has had limited impact on labor-market outcomes thus far.