Association of opioid fills with centers for disease control and prevention opioid guidelines and payer coverage policies: physician, insurance and geographic factors.

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines and certain healthcare payers have made pharmacy coverage changes (PCC) focusing on regulating prescription opioids. Aim We evaluated differences in the rate of first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and first-time opioid fills with benzodiazepine fill overlap following the CDC guidelines and following a PCC between provider types, geographic locations, and insurance types. Method We used OptumLabs® Data Warehouse claims data between 2014 and 2018. Subjects were opioid naïve non-cancer care patients, 18 years and older who had an identified chronic pain condition ICD diagnosis within 2 weeks prior to their first-time opioid fill. We used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis with interaction terms to test the differences between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialist providers (SPs), urban and rural primary care service areas (PCSAs), and Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercially insured patients (CIPs) in their first-time opioid fill patterns. Results Prescribing first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50MME/day declined following the CDC guidelines and PCC, the decline was greater among SPs than PCPs and in rural PCSAs than urban PCSAs. Also, following the CDC guidelines, the decline was greater among MA patients however following the PCC the decline was greater among CIPs. There were no differences in rate of first-time opioid fill with benzodiazepine overlap between groups. Conclusion Responses to the CDC opioid guidelines and a PCC differed between PCPs and SPs, urban and rural PCSAs, and when prescribing to MA and CIPs. Understanding these differences is important to help inform future guidelines.

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019.

Importance: Glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are associated with low rates of hypoglycemia, and postmarketing trials of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i demonstrated that these medications improved cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Objective: To compare trends in initiation of treatment with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i by older adults with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Advantage vs commercial health plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a deidentified database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Adults aged 58 to 66 years with type 2 diabetes who filled any medication prescription to lower glucose levels from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019, were compared between groups. Exposure: Enrollment in a Medicare Advantage or commercial health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The odds of initiating GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment were examined for Medicare Advantage vs commercial insurance beneficiaries using 3 separate logistic regression models adjusted for year and demographic and clinical factors. These models were used to calculate adjusted annual rates of medication initiation by health plan. Results: A total of 382 574 adults with pharmacologically treated type 2 diabetes (52.9% men; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [2.7] years) were identified, including 172 180 Medicare Advantage and 210 394 commercial beneficiaries. From 2016 to 2019, adjusted rates of initiation of GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment increased among all beneficiaries, from 2.14% to 20.02% for GLP-1RA among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.50% to 11.44% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; from 2.74% to 18.15% for SGLT2i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.57% to 8.51% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; and from 3.30% to 11.71% for DPP-4i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 2.44% to 7.68% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Initiation rates for all 3 drug classes were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than among commercial insurance beneficiaries. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating GLP-1RA treatment ranged from 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29) to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.75) for Medicare Advantage and commercial insurance beneficiaries, respectively; SGLT2i, from 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22) to 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61), respectively; and DPP-4i, from 0.37 (95% CI, 0.34-0.39) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78), respectively (P < .001 for all). The odds of starting GLP-1RA and SGLT2i increased with income; for an income of $200 000 and higher vs less than $40 000, the odds ratio for GLP-1RA was 1.23 (95% CI, 1.15-1.32) and for SGLT2i was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.09-1.24). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries may be less likely than commercially insured beneficiaries to be treated with newer medications to lower glucose levels, with greater disparities among lower-income patients. Better understanding of nonclinical factors contributing to treatment decisions and efforts to promote greater equity in diabetes management appear to be needed.

Factors Associated with Psychiatrist Opt-out from US Medicare: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist about availability and access to psychiatric services in the USA. For Medicare beneficiaries, one impediment to psychiatric services is the extent to which psychiatrists have opted out of the Medicare program. OBJECTIVE: This study describes geographic variation in rates that psychiatrists opt out of Medicare, and assesses physician-level and geographic-level predictors of opt-out. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data describing psychiatrists' opt-out status as of March 2017 linked to data on psychiatrist location, psychiatrist characteristics (obtained from a comprehensive US physician database), and market area-level characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: 27,838 psychiatrists in the USA MAIN MEASURES: Whether a psychiatrist had opted out of Medicare as of March 2017. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 7.0% of psychiatrists (1940/27,838) opted out of Medicare as of March 2017. Opt-out rates varied substantially across states and within states. Physician-level factors independently associated with opt-out included: older age (psychiatrists > 65 years were 2.6 percentage points more likely to opt vs. psychiatrists < 35 years old, p = 0.03), greater years of experience, female gender (female psychiatrists were 2.6 percentage points more likely to opt out than male psychiatrists, p < 0.001), graduation from a top-20 ranked medical school (1.7 percentage points more likely to opt out of Medicare, p < 0.001), and domestic medical graduate (domestic graduates were 7.3 percentage points more likely to opt out of Medicare vs. foreign graduates, p < 0.001). Adjusting for other individual- and geographic-level factors, psychiatrists who practiced in areas with more psychiatrists per Medicare beneficiary were less likely to opt out (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall likelihood that psychiatrists opt out of Medicare is significant and varies considerably across regions and by characteristics of psychiatrists.

Medicare and Private Insurance Variations in New Medical Technology: The Case of Drug Eluting Stents.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the geographic and hospital variations of the new medical technologies in Medicare. Even less is known about these variations for the privately insured. OBJECTIVE: To examine geographic and hospital variations in the diffusion of drug eluting stents, comparing Medicare and privately insured populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of discharges from the State Inpatient Databases for 11 states (2004-2005) supplemented with data on hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Study sample included discharges with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures that involved a cardiac stent. EXPOSURE: Insurance type: Medicare versus private insurance. MAIN OUTCOME: Use of a drug eluting stent during the PCI was our outcome variable. We estimated linear probability models at the discharge level that related our outcome variable to patient and hospital characteristics separately for Medicare and private insurance. To examine variations across hospital referral regions (HRRs) and across hospitals, our models included HRR and hospital indicators respectively. RESULTS: Our analysis included 390,649 records (237,991 Medicare, 152,658 private insurance). We found large HRR variations in the use of drug eluting stents in 2004 for both payer types, the year after drug eluting stents were approved (adjusted CoV: 0.35 (Medicare); 0.24 (Private Insurance)). We also found large hospital variations in 2004 (adjusted CoV: 0.32 (Medicare); 0.29 (Private Insurance)). Between 2004 and 2005, adjusted HRR and hospital variations decreased across both payer types, suggesting that practice styles converged as the drug eluting stents diffused and became more common. Finally, adjusted drug eluting stent rates were highly correlated both at the HRR and hospital level across payer types. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that private insurance closely follows the lead of Medicare in terms of medical technology coverage and reimbursement.