Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database: a novel resource to support pandemic-related research.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. There has been limited systematic evaluation of variation in U.S. local COVID-19-related policies. This study introduces the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database, whose objective is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. METHODS: In January-March 2021, we collected an initial wave of cross-sectional data from government and media websites for 171 counties in 7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. We characterized the presence and comprehensiveness of policies using univariate analyses. We also examined the correlation of policies with one another using bivariate Spearman's correlations. Finally, we examined geographical variation in policies across and within states. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the presence and comprehensiveness of county policies during January-March 2021. For containment and closure policies, the percent of counties with no restrictions ranged from 0% (for public events) to more than half for public transportation (67.8%), hair salons (52.6%), and religious gatherings (52.0%). For economic policies, 76.6% of counties had housing support, while 64.9% had utility relief. For public health policies, most were comprehensive, with 70.8% of counties having coordinated public information campaigns, and 66.7% requiring masks outside the home at all times. Correlations between containment and closure policies tended to be positive and moderate (i.e., coefficients 0.4-0.59). There was variation within and across states in the number and comprehensiveness of policies. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces the UCCP Database, presenting granular data on local governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We documented substantial variation within and across states on a wide range of policies at a single point in time. By making these data publicly available, this study supports future research that can leverage this database to examine how policies contributed to and continue to influence pandemic-related health and socioeconomic outcomes and disparities. The UCCP database is available online and will include additional time points for 2020-2021 and additional counties nationwide.

Association Between Mobile App Use and Caregivers' Support System, Time Spent on Caregiving, and Perceived Well-being: Survey Study From a Large Employer.

BACKGROUND: Mobile technology to address caregiver needs has been on the rise. There is limited evidence of effectiveness of such technologies on caregiver experiences. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effectiveness of ianacare, a mobile app, among employees of a large employer. ianacare mobilizes personal social circles to help with everyday tasks. Through the use of ianacare, we evaluate the associations between coordinating caregiving tasks among a caregiver's personal support network and outcomes related to the caregiver's support system, time use, perceived productivity, and perceived health and well-being. Caregiver tasks include tasks such as meal preparation, respite care, pet care, and transportation. Time use is the measure of a caregiver's time spent on caregiving tasks and how much time they had to take off from work to attend planned or unplanned caregiving tasks. METHODS: We conducted 2 surveys to assess within-participant changes in outcomes for the unpaid, employed, caregivers after 6 weeks of using the mobile app (n=176) between March 30, 2020, and May 11, 2020. The surveys contained questions in three domains: the caregiver's support system, time use and perceived productivity, and perceived health and well-being. The results of the linear probability models are presented below. RESULTS: App use was significantly associated with decreasing the probability of doing most caregiving tasks alone by 9.1% points (SE 0.04; P=.01) and increasing the probability of at least one person helping the primary caregiver by 8.0% points (SE 0.035; P=.02). App use was also associated with improving the time use of the primary caregiver who took significantly less time off work to attend to caregiving duties by 12.5% points (SE 0.04; P=.003) and decreased the probability of spending more than 30 hours weekly on caregiving by 9.1% points (SE 0.04; P=.02). Additional findings on the positive impact of the app included a decrease in the probability of reporting feeling overwhelmed by caregiving tasks by 12.5% points (SE 0.04; P=.003) and a decrease in the probability of reporting negative health effects by 6.8% points (SE 0.04; P=.07) because of caregiving. Although subjects reported that COVID-19 increased their stress attributed to caregiving and prevented them from requesting help for some caregiving tasks, using the app was still associated with improvements in receiving help and lessening of the negative effects of caregiving on the caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: App use was associated with improvements in 7 of 11 caregiver outcomes across three main categories: their support system, time spent on caregiving, and perceived health and well-being. These findings provide encouraging evidence that the mobile app can significantly reduce caregiver burden by leveraging a caregiver's support network despite the additional challenges brought by COVID-19 on caregivers.

Alcohol-Attributable Medical Costs in Commercially Insured and Medicaid Populations.

Introduction: Despite its social acceptance, excessive alcohol use remains among the top causes of preventable deaths in the U.S. Although there is a recognition of alcohol-related health and social costs, there are no current studies quantifying the medical costs incurred under health plans. Methods: This study estimates the direct medical costs attributable to excessive alcohol use using claims records from a large national insurer. The sample consists of adults with commercial insurance and Medicaid between 2008 and 2019. A case-control matched study design is used to compare individuals with a condition considered 100% attributable to alcohol by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with similar individuals. Medical care use and costs are examined over a 12-month follow-up. Costs are broken down by healthcare setting and health conditions as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Alcohol-Related Disease Impact diagnoses codes. Results: We find that having a diagnosis attributable to alcohol is associated with higher annual per-person healthcare expenditures in both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured participants by $14,918 (95% CI=$14,540, $15,297) and $4,823 (95% CI=$4,489, $5,158), respectively. We find that 60%‒75% of the additional costs of excessive alcohol use are driven by heart disease and stroke; conditions of the liver, gallbladder, and pancreas; and certain cancers as well as acute conditions that may be attributable to alcohol. Conclusions: The findings suggest that public and private initiatives to target people vulnerable to the harms of excessive alcohol use may potentially help to cut down significant costs on the already strained healthcare system in the U.S.

Effects of a Multi-site Expansion of Group Prenatal Care on Birth Outcomes.

Objectives Perinatal Quality Collaboratives across the United States are initiating projects to improve health and healthcare for women and infants. We compared an evidence-based group prenatal care model to usual individual prenatal care on birth outcomes in a multi-site expansion of group prenatal care supported by a state-wide multidisciplinary Perinatal Quality Collaborative. Methods We analyzed 15,330 pregnant women aged 14-48 across 13 healthcare practices in South Carolina (2013-2017) using a preferential-within cluster matching propensity score method and logistic regression. Outcomes were extracted from birth certificate data. We compared outcomes for (a) women at the intent-to-treat level and (b) for women participating in at least five group prenatal care visits to women with less than five group visits with at least five prenatal visits total. Results In the intent-to-treat analyses, women who received group prenatal care were significantly less likely to have preterm births (absolute risk difference - 3.2%, 95% CI - 5.3 to - 1.0%), low birth weight births (absolute risk difference - 3.7%, 95% CI - 5.5 to - 1.8%) and NICU admissions (absolute risk difference - 4.0%, 95% CI - 5.6 to - 2.3%). In the as-treated analyses, women had greater improvements compared to intent-to-treat analyses in preterm birth and low birth weight outcomes. Conclusions for Practice CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care is effective across a range of real-world clinical practices for decreasing the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. This is a feasible approach for other Perinatal Quality Collaboratives to attempt in their ongoing efforts at improving maternal and infant health outcomes.