An analysis of Medicare accountable care organization expense reports.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the investments that Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the ACO Investment Model (AIM) made to participate in the program and the costs that they incurred as a result of their efforts to lower spending and improve quality. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and categorization of all available and approved quarterly expenses reported by AIM ACOs. METHODS: We reviewed final approved quarterly expense reports submitted by ACOs detailing how they spent funds in the quarter. All distinct line-item descriptions were classified into a more informative and consistent set of categories. We then applied higher conceptual dimensions (type of care input and type of ACO strategy) to these newly categorized expenses to facilitate additional analysis of spending patterns. RESULTS: AIM ACOs reported expenses of $264.8 million over the 3 performance years (2016-2018). The majority of the $264.8 million in expenditures was incurred for personnel (55.5%), followed by infrastructure (22.3%), management firm expenses (15.3%), and internal programs and systems (6.9%). The dominant identifiable ACO strategy was care coordination and management, accounting for 52.9% of related ACO expenses. CONCLUSIONS: AIM ACOs invested most heavily in personnel, information technology, and care management, with less than half of the investments explicitly tied to a strategy for improving quality or reducing spending. Efforts to change clinician practice patterns, alter the way patients access the health care system, and institute other practice redesigns were not primary targets for investment.

Economic and clinical benefits of early identification of acute kidney injury using a urinary biomarker.

Purpose: To evaluate the budget impact of adding a diagnostic test of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 ([TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]), which identifies patients at risk of moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury (AKI), to the current standard of care (SOC) in a hospital setting.Materials and methods: A budget impact model (2017 USD) was developed from the perspective of a hypothetical US hospital system serving 10,000 inpatients annually. The model estimated the impact of assessing the risk of AKI using SOC vs a combination of SOC and the US Food and Drug Administration-approved assay [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] over a 1-year period. Potential cost implications were assessed using estimates for payer mix among patients, diagnostic efficacy, and patient healthcare resource utilization. The model also considered provider adoption rates and the estimated costs of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7].Results: Compared to SOC alone, adding [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to SOC was associated with a $1,855 reduction in uncompensated care per patient tested, which, after accounting for the additional costs of the test ($277), resulted in net savings of $1,578 per patient tested. The findings were robust to input parameter variations, as demonstrated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, net cost savings to the hospital ranged from $50,308-$3,971,514, or $101-$7,943 per tested patient (mean = $1,710; 95% confidence interval = $1,691-$1,729).Conclusions: The introduction of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] as a novel tool in the identification of AKI risk may result in considerable cost savings from a hospital perspective under this model's base-case assumptions. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings in a real-world setting.Key points for decision makersAn economic model was constructed to determine the budget impact of adding a diagnostic test ([TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]), which identifies patients at risk of moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury, to the current standard of care (SOC) in a hospital setting.According to the present model, the use of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to identify acute kidney injury risk may reduce costs for hospitals by ∼$1,578 per patient tested.

The burden of non-infectious intraocular inflammatory eye diseases: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Non-infectious inflammatory eye diseases (IEDs), although rare, are complex and varied and may result in detrimental effects. A systematic literature review was conducted on the clinical outcome and economic burden of IED. METHODS: The Ovid search platform (Wolters Kluwer) was used to access scientific literature databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane libraries, Health Technology Assessment and the NHS Economic Evaluation database. The search strategy targeted clinical and economic outcomes research in 2009-2016. Titles and abstracts resulting from inclusion criteria were screened, and two reviewers independently extracted relevant information from the selected full-text articles. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria - 21 clinical trials, 7 database analyses, 6 non-systematic literature reviews with expert commentary, 3 chart reviews, and 2 surveys - which assessed steroids, immunosuppressants, implants and biologics. Patients experienced considerable morbidity, much of which was associated with corticosteroid use. The average annual healthcare costs of patients with IED were $13,728 to $32,268 in 2009 US dollars, which amounted to 3.1 to 8.3 times that of patients without IED. Steroid-releasing intraocular implants were associated with higher up-front costs, close monitoring requirements, potential for implant removal and increased rates of adverse ocular events than systemic steroids. CONCLUSIONS: IEDs are rare and complex conditions that threaten eyesight and impose considerable morbidity as well as a substantial economic burden. This review confirms that further research is needed to more fully explore the burden of IED and treatment-related adverse events, as well as appropriate means for clinicians to intensify treatment.

The Economic Burden of Abuse of Prescription Opioids: A Systematic Literature Review from 2012 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Abuse of prescription opioids [opioid use disorder (OUD), poisoning, and fatal and non-fatal overdose] is a public health and economic challenge that is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality in the USA and globally. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the health economics literature published over the last 5 years that describes the economic burden of abuse of prescription opioids. METHODS: Findings from searches of databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL as well as hand searches of multiple conference abstracts were screened against predefined inclusion criteria to identify studies reporting cost and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) data associated with abuse of prescription opioids. RESULTS: A total of 49 unique studies were identified. Most of the studies examined direct costs and HRU, which were substantially higher for abusers of prescription opioids than non-abuser controls in several matched cohort analyses (US$20,343-US$28,718 vs US$9716-US$14,079 for mean direct combined annual healthcare costs reported in 6 studies). Although only a small number of studies reported indirect costs, these findings suggest a high societal burden related to productivity losses, absenteeism, morbidity, and mortality among those who abuse opioids. Studies of medication-assisted treatment demonstrated that factors such as adherence, dose, formulation (film or tablet), and relapse during treatment, were associated with direct costs and HRU among treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review shows that abuse of prescription opioids is characterized by substantial direct healthcare costs, medical utilization, and related societal costs. Future research should further investigate the indirect costs of opioid abuse.

Long-term Systemic Corticosteroid Exposure: A Systematic Literature Review.

PURPOSE: While corticosteroids are relatively inexpensive and commonly used as treatment for a variety of conditions, long-term use is known to be associated with certain toxicities. Prior systematic reviews have revealed an increased risk for costly adverse events (AEs), including bone fracture, infection, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of recent publications on the burden of long-term corticosteroid exposure, specifically, to summarize the AEs and economic impact of long-term corticosteroid use and to reveal data gaps for additional research. METHODS: The Ovid search platform was used to access scientific literature databases. The search strategy targeted the use of corticosteroids and economic outcomes research. Articles were restricted to those published between 2007 and 2016 to cover publications since prior reviews; conference abstracts and articles assessing pediatrics were excluded. Titles and abstracts resulting from inclusion criteria were screened, and reviewers independently extracted relevant information from the relevant full-text articles. FINDINGS: The literature review included 32 articles, with 75% focusing on autoimmune diseases, asthma, or lung diseases. Included articles were 14 database analyses, 6 simulations, 6 clinical trials, 3 systematic literature reviews, 2 patient surveys, and 1 chart review. Commonly-cited AEs associated with long-term corticosteroid exposure included hypertension (prevalence >30%); bone fracture (21%-30%); cataract (1%-3%); nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal conditions (1%-5%); and metabolic issues (eg, weight gain, hyperglycemia, and type 2 diabetes; cases had 4-fold the risk of controls). Association of dose and duration with increased AE risk is not well-quantified. AEs like peptic ulcer and myocardial infarction are particularly costly to payers (1-year cost of $21,825 and $26,472, respectively, in year-2009 USD). The few articles assessing the economic impact of corticosteroid use have found dose-related increases in health care resource utilization and costs, with per-annum incremental costs relative to nonusers ranging from $5700 in low-dose users (<7.5 mg/d) to $29,000 in high-dose users (>15 mg/d). Adherence to treatment guidelines on avoiding AEs (eg, prescribing of oral bisphosphonates, calcium, and vitamin D) remains low. IMPLICATIONS: Although doses of long-term corticosteroids have fallen over the past several decades in response to AEs, dose reduction may not be a sufficient solution. Numerous AEs, some very costly, persist among long-term corticosteroid users, suggesting a need for further research to fill current data gaps, as well as a potential need for alternative treatment options.

Opioid Abuse: A Detailed Examination of Cost Drivers over a 24-Month Follow-up Period.

BACKGROUND: Previous work has documented the considerable economic burden associated with opioid abuse, dependence, and overdose/poisoning (hereafter, "abuse"). Recent analyses have provided insights into the trajectory and drivers of the excess costs of abuse both before and after diagnosis, showing the important role of other substance abuse, mental health issues, and painful conditions. OBJECTIVE: To build on the recently published study by Kirson et al. (2017) and extend its findings by (a) evaluating the trajectory of excess costs of abuse for an additional year after an incident abuse diagnosis and (b) exploring the diagnosis-level drivers of excess costs over time in greater detail. METHODS: Using administrative medical and pharmacy claims, which included payment amounts, for beneficiaries covered by large self-insured companies throughout the United States, abusers were matched to controls using the same methods as in Kirson et al. Excess health care costs were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period, which comprised the 6 months before the initial abuse diagnosis and the 18 months after. Drivers of excess costs were then evaluated by diagnosis (grouped at the 3-digit ICD-9-CM level). RESULTS: This study analyzed 9,345 matched pairs of abusers and non-abusers. Similar to the previous study, mean per-patient excess health care costs were found to rise considerably leading up to and shortly after the incident diagnosis of abuse, reaching $15,764 over the first half of the follow-up period. Over the newly extended follow-up period (months 6 to 18 after diagnosis), excess costs remained elevated ($7,346) and did not return to baseline levels. Over time, an increasing share of excess costs was observed for outpatient services and prescription drug use, relative to acute care settings. A detailed examination of cost drivers suggested elevated costs in several clinical categories (e.g., gastrointestinal, respiratory conditions) beyond those previously identified. CONCLUSIONS: This research finds that the excess medical costs of abuse extend for at least 1 more year than previously documented, reflecting the need for considerable follow-up care over time. The identification of several other clinical categories with elevated excess costs suggests important areas for future research into the interaction of opioid abuse with the management of other conditions. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Purdue Pharma. Howard was an employee of Purdue Pharma at the time that this study was conducted. Kirson, Scarpati, Jia, and Wen are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from Purdue Pharma to conduct this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Kirson, Scarpati, and Howard, along with Jia and Wen. Jia and Wen took the lead in data collection, with assistance from Scarpati and Kirson. Data interpretation was performed by Scarpati, Kirson, and Howard, with assistance from Jia and Wen. The manuscript was written and revised by Scarpati, Kirson, and Howard.

Drivers of excess costs of opioid abuse among a commercially insured population.

OBJECTIVES: To replicate and extend a recently published analysis of the drivers of excess costs of opioid abuse. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis using de-identified claims data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter database. METHODS: Medical and prescription drug claims from beneficiaries covered by large self-insured US companies were used to select patients with incident diagnoses of opioid abuse between 2012 and 2015. Two cohorts, abusers and nonabusers, were matched using propensity score methods. Excess healthcare costs were estimated over a 6-month baseline period and 12-month follow-up period. Cost drivers were assessed by diagnosis (3-digit International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification groupings) and place of service. RESULTS: The analysis included 73,714 matched pairs of abusers and nonabusers. Relative to nonabusers, abusers had considerably higher annual healthcare costs of $10,989 per patient, or $1.98 per member per month. Excess costs were similar, yet lower, than the previous analysis using another commercial claims database. In both analyses, a ramp-up in excess costs was observed prior to the incident abuse diagnosis, followed by a decline post diagnosis, although not to baseline levels. Key drivers of excess costs in the 2 studies included opioid use disorders, nonopioid substance misuse, and painful and mental health conditions. From 2010 to 2014, the prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse doubled, with incidence rates exhibiting an increasing, though flatter, trend than earlier in the period. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid abuse imposes a considerable economic burden on payers. Many abusers have complex healthcare needs and may require care beyond that which is required to treat opioid abuse. These results are robust and consistent across different data sources.

The Economic Burden of Opioid Abuse: Updated Findings.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain relievers can be highly effective in providing relief for patients suffering from pain. At the same time, prescription opioid abuse, dependence, overdose, and poisoning (hereinafter "abuse") have become a national public health concern. Opioid abuse is also costly: previous estimates of the annual excess costs of opioid abuse to payers range from approximately $10,000 to $20,000 per patient. OBJECTIVES: To (a) provide a comprehensive, current estimate of the economic burden of opioid abuse to commercial payers and (b) explore the drivers of these excess costs of abuse. METHODS: Administrative claims from beneficiaries covered by large self-insured companies throughout the United States were used to identify patients diagnosed with opioid abuse, dependence, and overdose/poisoning ("abuse") between 2012 and 2015. Sample selection criteria identified patients most likely to be misusing opioids. Abusers and nonabuser controls were matched using propensity scores. Excess health care costs were assessed over the 18-month study period. Drivers of excess costs were then evaluated by place of service and medical condition (identified as 3-digit ICD-9-CM groupings). RESULTS: 9,342 matched abuser/nonabuser pairs were analyzed. Relative to nonabusers, abusers had significantly higher annual health care resource utilization, leading to $14,810 in per-patient incremental annual health care costs. Excess costs began accumulating 5 months before the formal, incident diagnosis of abuse, driven by alcohol and nonopioid substance abuse. Major drivers of excess costs of abuse included opioid and other substance abuse disorders, mental health conditions, and painful conditions. Many patients had diagnoses for other substance abuse that predated their opioid abuse diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid abuse imposes a substantial economic burden on payers and often occurs in the context of other substance abuse. Poly-substance abuse often precedes the diagnosis of opioid abuse. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Purdue Pharma. Mayne is an employee of Purdue Pharma. Kirson, Scarpati, and Birnbaum are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from Purdue Pharma to conduct this study. Enloe and Dincer were employees of Analysis Group at the time this research was conducted. Study concept and design were contributed by Kirson, Birnbaum, Mayne, and Scarpati, along with Enloe and Dincer. Enloe and Dincer took the lead in data collection, along with Birnbaum and assisted by Kirson and Scarpati. Data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written and revised by Kirson and Scarpati, along with Mayne and Birnbaum.

Did Medicare Part D reduce disparities?

OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether Medicare Part D reduced disparities in access to medication. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, using Parts A and B medical claims from 2002 to 2008 and Part D drug claims from 2006 to 2008. METHODS: We analyzed the medication use of Hispanic, black, and white beneficiaries with diabetes before and after reaching the Part D coverage gap, and compared their use with that of race-specific reference groups not exposed to the loss in coverage. Unadjusted difference-in-difference results were validated with multivariate regression models adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and zip code-level household income used as a proxy for socioeconomic status. RESULTS: The rate at which Hispanics reduced use of diabetes-related medications in the coverage gap was twice as high as whites, while blacks decreased their use of diabetes-related medications by 33% more than whites. The reduction in medication use was correlated with drug price. Hispanics and blacks were more likely than whites to discontinue a therapy after reaching the coverage gap but more likely to resume once coverage restarted. Hispanics without subsidies and living in low-income areas reduced medication use more than similar blacks and whites in the coverage gap. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the Part D coverage gap is particularly disruptive to minorities and those living in low-income areas. The implications of this work suggest that protecting the health of vulnerable groups requires more than premium subsidies. Patient education may be a first step, but more substantive improvements in adherence may require changes in healthcare delivery.