Publications

This study uses the most recent national data available from Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs to quantify the savings Medicare Part D would achieve if it paid the same prices for prescription drugs currently paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: There is systemic undercoding of medical comorbidities within administrative claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This leads to bias when applying claims-based risk adjustment indices to compare outcomes between VA and non-VA settings. Our objective was to compare the accuracy of a medication-based risk adjustment index (RxRisk-VM) to diagnostic claims-based indices for predicting mortality.

METHODS: We modified the RxRisk-V index (RxRisk-VM) by incorporating VA and Medicare pharmacy and durable medical equipment claims in Veterans dually-enrolled in VA and Medicare in 2012. Using the concordance (C) statistic, we compared its accuracy in predicting 1 and 3-year all-cause mortality to the following models: demographics only, demographics plus prescription count, or demographics plus a diagnostic claims-based risk index (e.g., Charlson, Elixhauser, or Gagne). We also compared models containing demographics, RxRisk-VM, and a claims-based index.

RESULTS: In our cohort of 271,184 dually-enrolled Veterans (mean age = 70.5 years, 96.1% male, 81.7% non-Hispanic white), RxRisk-VM (C = 0.773) exhibited greater accuracy in predicting 1-year mortality than demographics only (C = 0.716) or prescription counts (C = 0.744), but was less accurate than the Charlson (C = 0.794), Elixhauser (C = 0.80), or Gagne (C = 0.810) indices (all P < 0.001). Combining RxRisk-VM with claims-based indices enhanced its accuracy over each index alone (all models C ≥ 0.81). Relative model performance was similar for 3-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: The RxRisk-VM index exhibited a high level of, but slightly less, accuracy in predicting mortality in comparison to claims-based risk indices.

IMPLICATIONS: Its application may enhance the accuracy of studies examining VA and non-VA care and enable risk adjustment when diagnostic claims are not available or biased.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

BACKGROUND: More than half of enrollees in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are also covered by Medicare and can choose to receive their prescriptions from VA or from Medicare-participating providers. Such dual-system care may lead to unsafe opioid use if providers in these 2 systems do not coordinate care or if prescription use is not tracked between systems.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between dual-system opioid prescribing and death from prescription opioid overdose.

DESIGN: Nested case-control study.

SETTING: VA and Medicare Part D.

PARTICIPANTS: Case and control patients were identified from all veterans enrolled in both VA and Part D who filled at least 1 opioid prescription from either system. The 215 case patients who died of a prescription opioid overdose in 2012 or 2013 were matched (up to 1:4) with 833 living control patients on the basis of date of death (that is, index date), using age, sex, race/ethnicity, disability, enrollment in Medicaid or low-income subsidies, managed care enrollment, region and rurality of residence, and a medication-based measure of comorbid conditions.

MEASUREMENTS: The exposure was the source of opioid prescriptions within 6 months of the index date, categorized as VA only, Part D only, or VA and Part D (that is, dual use). The outcome was unintentional or undetermined-intent death from prescription opioid overdose, identified from the National Death Index. The association between this outcome and source of opioid prescriptions was estimated using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, marital status, prescription drug monitoring programs, and use of other medications.

RESULTS: Among case patients, the mean age was 57.3 years (SD, 9.1), 194 (90%) were male, and 181 (84%) were non-Hispanic white. Overall, 60 case patients (28%) and 117 control patients (14%) received dual opioid prescriptions. Dual users had significantly higher odds of death from prescription opioid overdose than those who received opioids from VA only (odds ratio [OR], 3.53 [95% CI, 2.17 to 5.75]; P < 0.001) or Part D only (OR, 1.83 [CI, 1.20 to 2.77]; P = 0.005).

LIMITATION: Data are from 2012 to 2013 and cannot capture prescriptions obtained outside the VA or Medicare Part D systems.

CONCLUSION: Among veterans enrolled in VA and Part D, dual use of opioid prescriptions was independently associated with death from prescription opioid overdose. This risk factor for fatal overdose among veterans underscores the importance of care coordination across health care systems to improve opioid prescribing safety.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The United States is facing an opioid crisis in which overdose is the leading cause of injury death-misuse of opioids constitutes the vast majority of those deaths. In 2016 alone, over 42,000 people died from opioid overdose, an increase of 27% from the prior year. Deployment of the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a clinical decision support tool to improve opioid safety, is one response by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to the opioid crisis. STORM identifies VHA patients at very high risk of opioid-related adverse events and lists potential risk mitigation strategies. Deployment of STORM also helps VHA meet certain requirements of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. In alignment with the VHA's learning health care system initiative, a multidisciplinary team designed a randomized evaluation of a policy approach to mandating case reviews of very-high-risk patients identified by STORM and the impacts of patient inclusion versus exclusion in mandated STORM case reviews using a stepped-wedge design. The STORM evaluation involves drafting the policy notice, shepherding it through the VHA approval process, and implementing the cluster randomized design. This mixed-methods evaluation includes (1) a qualitative assessment of medical center implementation strategies with the aim of understanding of how STORM is incorporated into practice, and (2) quantitative analyses of the relations between policy mandates and STORM inclusion on opioid-related adverse events. The findings from this synergistic research design will yield critical insights for VHA leadership to refine opioid prescribing-related policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining prescription medications from multiple health systems may complicate coordination of care. Older Veterans who obtain medications concurrently through Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and Medicare Part D benefits (dual users) are at higher risk of unintended negative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore characteristics predicting dual drug benefit use from both VA and Medicare Part D in a national sample of older Veterans with dementia.

METHODS: Administrative data were obtained from the VA and Medicare for a national sample of 110,828 Veterans with dementia ages 68 and older in 2010. Veterans were classified into three drug benefit user groups based on the source of all prescription medications they obtained in 2010: VA-only, Part D-only, and Dual Use. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine predictors of drug benefit user group. The source of prescriptions was described for each of the ten most frequently used drug classes and opioids.

RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of Veterans received all of their prescription medications from VA-only, 28% from Part D-only, and 16% from both VA and Part D. Veterans who were eligible for Medicaid or who had a priority group score conferring less generous drug benefits within the VA were more likely to be Part D-only or dual users. Nearly one fourth of Veterans taking opioids concurrently received opioid prescriptions from dual sources (24.7%).

CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid eligibility and Veteran priority group status, which largely decrease copayments for drugs obtained outside versus within the VA, respectively, were the main factors predicting drug user benefit group. Policies to encourage single-system prescribing and enhance communication across health systems are crucial to preventing negative health outcomes related to care fragmentation.

BACKGROUND: The continued escalation of opioid use disorder (OUD) calls for heightened vigilance to implement evidence-based care across the US. Rural care providers and patients have limited resources, and a number of barriers exist that can impede necessary OUD treatment services. This paper reports the design and protocol of an implementation study seeking to advance availability of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for OUD in rural Pennsylvania counties for patients insured by Medicaid in primary care settings.

METHODS: This project was a hybrid implementation study. Within a chronic care model paradigm, we employed the Framework for Systems Transformation to implement the American Society for Addiction Medicine care model for the use of medications in the treatment of OUD. In partnership with state leadership, Medicaid managed care organizations, local care management professionals, the Universities of Pittsburgh and Utah, primary care providers (PCP), and patients; the project team worked within 23 rural Pennsylvania counties to engage, recruit, train, and collaborate to implement the OUD service model in PCP practices from 2016 to 2019. Formative measures included practice-level metrics to monitor project implementation, and outcome measures involved employing Medicaid claims and encounter data to assess changes in provider/patient-level OUD-related metrics, such as MAT provider supply, prevalence of OUD, and MAT utilization. Descriptive statistics and repeated measures regression analyses were used to assess changes across the study period.

DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need in the US to expand access to high quality, evidence-based OUD treatment-particularly in rural areas where capacity is limited for service delivery in order to improve patient health and protect lives. Importantly, this project leverages multiple partners to implement a theory- and practice-driven model of care for OUD. Results of this study will provide needed evidence in the field for appropriate methods for implementing MAT among a large number of rural primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected rural areas, where a limited number of health care providers offer medication-assisted treatment (MAT), the mainstay of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Rural residents with OUD may face multiple barriers to engagement in MAT including long travel distances.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which rural residents with OUD are engaged with primary care providers (PCPs), describe the role of rural PCPs in MAT delivery, and estimate the association between enrollee distance to MAT prescribers and MAT utilization.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid-enrolled adults diagnosed with OUD in 23 rural Pennsylvania counties.

MAIN MEASURES: Primary care utilization, MAT utilization, distance to nearest possible MAT prescriber, mean distance traveled to actual MAT prescribers, and continuity of pharmacotherapy.

KEY RESULTS: Of the 7930 Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of OUD, a minority (18.6%) received their diagnosis during a PCP visit even though enrollees with OUD had 4.1 visits to PCPs per person-year in 2015. Among enrollees with an OUD diagnosis recorded during a PCP visit, about half (751, 50.8%) received MAT, most of whom (508, 67.6%) received MAT from a PCP. Enrollees with OUD with at least one PCP visit were more likely than those without a PCP visit to receive MAT (32.7% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and filled more buprenorphine and naltrexone prescriptions (mean = 11.1 vs. 9.3; p < 0.001). The median of the distances traveled to actual MAT prescribers was 48.8 miles, compared to a median of 4.2 miles to the nearest available MAT prescriber. Enrollees traveling a mean distance greater than 45 miles to MAT prescribers were less likely to receive continuity of pharmacotherapy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.91, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS: PCP utilization among rural Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with OUD is high, presenting a potential intervention point to treat OUD, particularly if the enrollee's PCP is located nearer than their MAT prescriber.

This observational study evaluates the association of dual prescribing for Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D benefits with unsafe prescription exposure in a national cohort of older veterans.