Fluoride Prescribing Behaviors for Medicaid-Enrolled Children in Oregon.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to examine physician and dentist fluoride prescription patterns and identify the factors associated with fluoride prescriptions for Medicaid-enrolled children. The hypothesis is that dentists will be the primary prescribers of fluoride and that caries risk factors will be associated with fluoride prescriptions. METHODS: Data were analyzed for Oregon children aged 0-17 years enrolled in Medicaid for ≥300 days in both 2016 and 2017. The outcome variable was receiving a fluoride prescription in 2017. A 2-tailed chi-square test was used to assess fluoride prescribing differences between physicians and dentists. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the likelihood of receiving a fluoride prescription in 2017 and to generate ORs. Model covariates included child's age, sex, race, ethnicity, Medicaid plan type, previous fluoride prescription, previous restorative dental treatment, and water fluoridation status. RESULTS: Of 200,169 Medicaid-enrolled children, 6.7% (n=13,337) received fluoride prescriptions. Physicians were >3 times as likely to prescribe fluoride as dentists (73.4% vs 23.0%, p<0.001). Children with a history of fluoride prescriptions (OR=14.30, p<0.001) and any restorative dental treatment (OR=1.58, p<0.001) were significantly more likely to receive a fluoride prescription, whereas children living in areas with water fluoridation were significantly less likely (OR=0.50, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians play an important role in prescribing fluoride to Medicaid-enrolled children, especially those at increased dental caries risk. Additional research is needed on strategies to ensure that all high-risk children have an opportunity to benefit from prescription fluoride.

State-Level Evaluation of Washington's State Innovation Models (SIM) Initiative.

The Washington State Innovation Models (SIM) $65 million Test Award from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Innovation Center is a statewide intervention expected to improve population health, quality of care, and cost growth through four initiatives: 1) regional accountable communities of health linking health and social services to address local needs; 2) a practice transformation support hub; 3) four value-based payment reform pilot projects mainly in state employee and Medicaid populations; and 4) data and analytic infrastructure development to support system transformation with common measures. We develop a conceptual model based on diffusion theory and apply the RE-AIM evaluation framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) to structure our evaluation. We find that in three years (2016-2018), SIM built the infrastructure for system transformation and increased Washington's readiness for health system change in the next decade. However, the initiatives have not spread statewide, which may take over 10 years.

Plan Type and Opioid Prescriptions for Children in Medicaid.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are generally an inappropriate acute pain management strategy in children, particularly because of the risk for diversion and subsequent misuse and abuse. OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between Medicaid plan type [coordinated care organization (CCO), managed care (MC), fee-for-service (FFS)] and whether a child received an opioid prescription. RESEARCH DESIGN: Secondary analysis of Oregon Medicaid data (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017). SUBJECTS: Medicaid-enrolled children ages 0-17 (N=200,169). MEASURES: There were 2 outcomes: whether a child received an opioid prescription from (a) any health provider or (b) from a visit to the dentist. Predictor variables included Medicaid plan type, age, sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: About 6.7% of children received an opioid from any health provider and 1.2% received an opioid from a dentist visit. Children in a CCO were significantly more likely than children in a MC (P<0.01) or FFS (P=0.02) plan to receive an opioid from any health provider. Children in a CCO were also significantly more likely than children in MC or FFS to receive an opioid from a dentist visit (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric opioid prescriptions vary by plan type. Future efforts should identify reasons why Medicaid-enrolled children in a CCO plan are more likely to be prescribed opioids.

Survey and electronic health record-based medication use agreement in children with cystic fibrosis: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medication use is important to collect accurately in medically complex patients in both clinical and research settings. AIM: We assessed patient-level agreement for medication use between self-reported survey and electronic health record (EHR) for children with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: Our retrospective cross-sectional study focused on children with CF ages 6-20 years from Seattle Children's Hospital in Washington state, USA (N = 85). A self- or parent-reported survey included questions on current use of specific medications and antibiotic use in the past 2 months. We compared survey data with data abstracted from the individual's EHR and derived Cohen's Kappa statistics to estimate the level of agreement between the two methods. RESULTS: Self-reported medication use was generally higher in the survey than in the EHR. The level of agreement ranged from slight for probiotics (74.1% agreement; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.6%-83.6%; kappa: 0.07), pancreatic enzymes (80% agreement; 95% CI: 71.3%-88.7%; kappa: 0.12), and vitamin D (55.3% agreement; 95% CI: 44.5%-66.1%; kappa: 0.20) to moderate for chronic azithromycin (80% agreement; 95% CI: 7.13%-88.7%; kappa: 0.50), proton pump inhibitors (76.5% agreement; 95% CI: 67.3%-85.7%; kappa: 0.46), and oral antibiotics (70.6% agreement; 95% CI: 60.7%-80.5%; kappa: 0.42). CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in level of agreement in medication use between self-reported survey and EHR data for children with CF. Standardized approaches are needed to improve the accuracy of medication data collected in clinical practice and research.

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Washington State Practice Transformation Support Hub.

PURPOSE: Practice transformation initiatives have the potential to promote collaborations between public health, primary care, and behavioral health, but limited empirical evidence is available on how these programs affect participating clinical practices. OBJECTIVE: To report the findings from a mixed-methods program evaluation of the Washington Practice Transformation Support Hub (Hub), a publicly funded, multicomponent practice transformation initiative in Washington State. DESIGN: We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the impact of Hub activities on participating primary care and behavioral health practices. Pre- and posttest survey data were combined with administrative program data to understand the effect of program components. Qualitative interviews contextualized findings. SETTING: Urban and rural primary care and behavioral health practices in Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-five practices that were recruited to receive Hub coaching and facilitation from 8 coaches; of these, 13 practices and all coaches participated in key informant interviews. INTERVENTION: Practice coaching and facilitation supported by an online resource portal, from January 2017 through January 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported progress in specific activities in 3 practice-level domains: bidirectional integration of physical and behavioral health care (care integration); alignment with community-based services for whole-person care (clinical-community linkages); and value-based payment. RESULTS: Participation in Hub activities was associated with improvements in care integration and clinical-community linkages but not with progress toward value-based payment. Qualitative results indicated that practice progress was influenced by communication with practices, the culture of the practice, resource constraints (particularly in rural areas), and perceptions about sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This statewide practice transformation initiative was successful in strengthening primary care and behavioral health integration and clinical-community linkages among participating practices but not value-based payment. Future practice transformation efforts may benefit from addressing barriers posed by communication, limited application of value-based payment, culture change, competing priorities, and resource limitations, particularly for rural communities.

Current and Future Oncology Management in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The cost of treating cancer patients is high and rising in the United States. Payers are exposed to cost through doctor visits, laboratory tests, imaging tests, radiation treatment, drugs, hospital stays, surgery, home care, transportation and travel, and caregiving. This study focuses on the cost of medication from the viewpoint of U.S. payers. Although new tools for managing these costs have been gaining attention, prices continue to rise, and challenges to managing costs remain high. Innovative tools are necessary for controlling the cost of care in oncology, but their effectiveness is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To (a) gauge payer perceptions of current and future cost management of innovative oncology drugs and (b) predict which management tools will increase in prevalence by 2020-2022. METHODS: A literature search of cost and management of oncology created the foundation for developing a survey for U.S. payers. The mobile survey was completed on devices such as smart phones or tablets. Payers were asked about general oncology product management, use of specific management tools today, management challenges, and expected use of specific management tools in 2020-2022. Management tools were segmented into traditional (used across many therapeutic categories), oncology-specific (used in oncology but not routinely used in other disease areas), and systemic (not product-specific but that affect the way services are provided and funded). Specific questions for managing the cost of care in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were included in the survey. NSCLC and CLL were chosen because of their diverse clinical characteristics and the level of innovation in these disease areas. The survey was fielded from May 31, 2017, to June 15, 2017. Results consisted of simple descriptive statistical analysis weighted by the payer's reported organizational covered lives. RESULTS: Payers were concerned with the high cost and budget impact of oncology drugs and considered these a high priority for management. However, they continue to use traditional management tools such as manage to FDA label, quantity limits, step edits, and reauthorizations, which are ineffective in controlling cost. More innovative management tools such as pathways of care are available but are not yet widely adopted. Payers hope to better control oncology cost in the future; however, specific questions pertaining to the management of NSCLC and CLL indicate that minimal changes in cost management will occur by 2020-2022. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increasing number of innovative cost management tools, challenges remain for managing oncology medication costs. New incentives are being generated, but barriers to their implementation will continue to restrict use through 2020-2022. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors are employed by MKO Global Partners, which is a consulting firm that focuses on payer strategy and market access in the pharmaceutical and biotech markets. Some initial results from this research were published as part of a comparative poster at ISPOR European Conference; November 4-8, 2017; Glasgow, Scotland, UK.