Validation of claims-based algorithms for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Administrative claims studies do not adequately distinguish pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) from other forms of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Our aim is to develop and validate a set of algorithms using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes and electronic medical records (EMR), to identify patients with PAH. From January 2012 to August 2015, the EMRs of patients with ICD-9-CM codes for PH with an outpatient visit at the University of Texas Medical Branch were reviewed. Patients were divided into PAH or non-PAH groups according to EMR encounter diagnosis. Patient demographics, echocardiography, right heart catheterization (RHC) results, and PAH-specific therapies were assessed. RHC measurements were reviewed to categorize cases as hemodynamically determined PAH or not PAH. Weighted sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the developed algorithms. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine how well the algorithms performed. External validation was performed at the University of Virginia Health System. The cohort for the development algorithms consisted of 683 patients with PH, PAH group (n = 191) and non-PAH group (n = 492). A hemodynamic diagnosis of PAH determined by RHC was recorded in the PAH (26%) and non-PAH (3%) groups. The positive predictive value for the algorithm that included ICD-9-CM and PAH-specific medications was 66.9% and sensitivity was 28.2% with a c-statistic of 0.66. The positive predictive value for the EMR-based algorithm that included ICD-9-CM, EMR encounter diagnosis, echocardiography, RHC, and PAH-specific medication was 69.4% and a c-statistic of 0.87. A validation cohort of 177 patients with PH examined from August 2015 to August 2016 using EMR-based algorithms yielded a similar positive predictive value of 62.5%. In conclusion, claims-based algorithms that included ICD-9-CM codes, EMR encounter diagnosis, echocardiography, RHC, and PAH-specific medications better-identified patients with PAH than ICD-9-CM codes alone.

Variation in Functional Status After Hip Fracture: Facility and Regional Influence on Mobility and Self-Care.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports show substantial geographic variation in postacute health care spending. Little is known about variation in functional outcomes after postacute rehabilitation for patients with hip fracture. We examined variation in mobility and self-care after hip fracture rehabilitation across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), hospital referral regions (HRRs) and states. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from 2006 to 2009. Study sample included 149,258 records from patients 66 years and older at 1,166 IRFs located within 292 HRRs and across 50 states. Hip fracture cases were defined by CMS impairment group codes (08.11, 08.12). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess discharge mobility and self-care functional status, adjusting for individual patient characteristics and the random effect of IRFs, HRRs, and states. RESULTS: Variation in discharge mobility status as assessed by the intraclass correlation percentage (ICC%) was 8.8% across IRFs, 4.0% across HRRs, and 1.8% across states. For self-care, the ICCs were 10.2% across IRFs, 4.8% across HRRs, and 2.4% across states. The range of discharge mobility scores (maximum functional status rating to minimum functional status rating) showed a 9.6-point difference for IRFs, 6.5 for regions, and 2.6 for states. Range of discharge self-care scores were 13.1 for IRFs, 6.8 for HRRs, and 3.4 for states. CONCLUSION: Variation in functional status following postacute hip fracture rehabilitation appears to occur primarily at the level of facilities rather than geographic location.

Comparative effectiveness of outpatient cardiovascular disease and diabetes care delivery between advanced practice providers and physician providers in primary care: Implications for care under the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare quality of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) care between advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians in a primary care setting. METHODS: We identified diabetes (n=1,022,588) and CVD (n=1,187,035) patients receiving primary care between October 2013 and September 2014 in 130 Veterans Affairs facilities. We compared glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <7%) in diabetic patients, blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg in diabetic or CVD patients, cholesterol control (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol<100 mg/dL, receiving a statin) in diabetic or CVD patients, and those receiving a ß-blocker (with history of myocardial infarction in the last 2 years) among patients receiving care from physicians and APPs. We also compared the proportion meeting composite measure (glycemic, BP, and cholesterol control in diabetic patients; BP, cholesterol control, and receipt of ß-blocker among eligible CVD patients). RESULTS: Diabetic patients receiving care from APPs were statistically more likely to have glycemic (50% vs 51.4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.06 [1.05-1.08]) and BP control (77.5% vs 78.4%, OR 1.04 [1.03-1.06]), whereas patients receiving care from physicians were more likely to have cholesterol control (receipt of statin 68% vs 66.5%, OR 0.94 [0.93-0.95]) in adjusted models, although these differences are not clinically significant. Similar results were seen in CVD patients. Few patients met the composite measure (27.1% and 27.6% of diabetic and 54.0% and 54.8% of CVD patients receiving care from physicians and APPs, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes and CVD care quality was comparable between physicians and APPs with clinically insignificant differences. Regardless of provider type, there is a need to improve performance on eligible measures in diabetes or CVD patients.

Adherence to cardiovascular medications in the South Asian population: A systematic review of current evidence and future directions.

AIM: To review methods of assessing adherence and strategies to improve adherence to cardiovascular disease (CVD) medications, among South Asian CVD patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of English language studies that examined CVD medication adherence in South Asian populations from 1966 to April 1, 2015 in SCOPUS and PubMed. Working in duplicate, we identified 61 studies. After exclusions, 26 studies were selected for full text review. Of these, 17 studies were included in the final review. We abstracted data on several factors including study design, study population, method of assessing adherence and adherence rate. RESULTS: These studies were conducted in India (n = 11), Pakistan (n = 3), Bangladesh (n = 1), Nepal (n = 1) and Sri Lanka (n = 1). Adherence rates ranged from 32%-95% across studies. Of the 17 total publications included, 10 focused on assessing adherence to CVD medications and 7 focused on assessing the impact of interventions on medication adherence. The validated Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) was used as the primary method of assessing adherence in five studies. Three studies used validated questionnaires similar to the MMAS, and one study utilized Medication Event Monitoring System caps, with the remainder of the studies utilizing pill count and self-report measures. As expected, studies using non-validated self-report measures described higher rates of adherence than studies using validated scale measurements and pill count. The included intervention studies examined the use of polypill therapy, provider education and patient counseling to improve medication adherence. CONCLUSION: The overall medication adherence rates were low in the region, which suggest a growing need for future interventions to improve adherence.