Publications

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand clinician perceptions of nudge interventions designed to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing for acute pain in primary care.

DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted.

SETTING: Forty-eight practices across three healthcare systems were included.

PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians who were exposed to nudge interventions as part of a randomized clinical trial were included.

INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arms included an electronic health record alert upon new opioid prescribing either alone or with one or both nudge interventions (written opioid justification and/or monthly clinician comparison emails).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used conventional content and thematic analysis to identify themes related to clinician perceptions of nudge interventions and the opioid epidemic.

RESULTS: We conducted and analyzed 77 clinician interviews. Clinicians voiced favorable impressions of both nudge interventions, but they did not feel the nudge interventions had a direct impact on their own prescribing of opioids, perhaps due to low prescribing secondary to other opioid interventions. Clinicians felt interventions should continue to assist high opioid prescribers.

CONCLUSION: Nudge interventions are favorably perceived by physicians to be an additional option in the current landscape of interventions to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing for acute pain in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess nationwide trends in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses and pharmacotherapy among patients with opioid use disorder and ADHD and to examine factors predicting receipt of stimulant medications among patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs).

METHODS: A claims-based database of commercially insured patients ages 13-64 was used to conduct two analyses: an annual cross-sectional study of 387,980 patients diagnosed as having opioid use disorder (2007-2017) to estimate the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses and pharmacotherapy, and a retrospective cohort study of 158,591 patients receiving MOUDs to test, with multivariable regression, the association between patient characteristics and receipt of stimulant medication.

RESULTS: From 2007 to 2017, the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses increased from 4.6% to 15.1% and the rate of ADHD pharmacotherapy increased from 42.6% to 51.8% among patients with opioid use disorder. Among all patients receiving MOUDs, 10.5% received at least one prescription stimulant during the study period. Female sex; residence in the southern United States; and ADHD, mood, and anxiety disorder diagnoses were associated with increased likelihood of stimulant receipt. Stimulant use disorder and other substance use disorder diagnoses were associated with decreased likelihood of stimulant receipt.

CONCLUSIONS: ADHD diagnoses and pharmacotherapy among patients with opioid use disorder have increased. A minority of patients with ADHD and taking MOUDs received a stimulant. Further study is needed of the benefits and risks of ADHD pharmacotherapy for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Characterising benzodiazepine (BZD) prescribing to individuals with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) is important for optimising PNES outcomes, but existing data is lacking.

METHODS: Using a nationwide administrative claims database (2016-2022), incident PNES was defined as an International classification of diseases, tenth revision, clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis in an inpatient or outpatient healthcare encounter after a 1-year period with no documented diagnosis. We described clinical characteristics of adults with incident PNES and estimated the prevalence of outpatient BZD treatment in the baseline year and 30-day follow-up period, with secondary analyses stratifying by baseline ES, anxiety and/or insomnia diagnoses, representing common indications for BZD receipt. We used logistic regression to evaluate predictors of post-PNES BZD receipt.

RESULTS: Among 20 848 adults with incident PNES diagnosis, 33.1% and 15.1% received BZDs in the year and month prior to PNES diagnosis, respectively, and 18.1% received BZDs in the month following a PNES diagnosis; 5.4% of those without prior BZD prescriptions received BZDs after diagnosis. The median days' supply was 30 days, with clonazepam, alprazolam and lorazepam representing the most common BZDs prescribed after PNES. Most people who received BZDs in the month prior to PNES diagnosis remained on BZDs in the month after PNES diagnosis (62.9%), with similar findings in the subcohorts without ES, anxiety and/or insomnia. Baseline BZD receipt and anxiety disorders, but not baseline ES diagnoses, were strong independent predictors of post-PNES BZD receipt.

CONCLUSIONS: While new BZD initiation is rare after PNES, most individuals with BZD scripts 1 month before PNES continue scripts after diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Overdose mortality has risen most rapidly among racial and ethnic minority groups while buprenorphine prescribing has increased disproportionately in predominantly non-Hispanic White urban areas. To identify whether buprenorphine availability equitably meets the needs of diverse populations, we examined the differential geographic availability of buprenorphine in areas with greater concentrations of racial and ethnic minority groups.

METHODS: Using IQVIA longitudinal prescription data, IQVIA OneKey data, and Microsoft Bing Maps, we calculated 2 outcome measures across the continental United States: the number of buprenorphine prescribers per 1000 residents within a 30-minute drive of a ZIP code, and the number of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed per capita at retail pharmacies among nearby buprenorphine prescribers. We then estimated differences in these outcomes by ZIP codes' racial and ethnic minority composition and rurality with t tests.

RESULTS: Buprenorphine prescribers per 1000 residents within a 30-minute drive decreased by 3.8 prescribers per 1000 residents in urban ZIP codes (95% confidence interval = -4.9 to -2.7) and 2.6 in rural ZIP codes (95% confidence interval = -3.0 to -2.2) whose populations consisted of ≥5% racial and ethnic minority groups. There were 45% to 55% fewer prescribers in urban areas and 62% to 79% fewer prescribers in rural areas as minority composition increased. Differences in dispensed buprenorphine per capita were similar but larger in magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS: Achieving more equitable buprenorphine access requires not only increasing the number of buprenorphine-prescribing clinicians; in urban areas with higher racial and ethnic minority group populations, it also requires efforts to promote greater buprenorphine prescribing among already prescribing clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess nationwide trends in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses and pharmacotherapy among patients with opioid use disorder and ADHD and to examine factors predicting receipt of stimulant medications among patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs).

METHODS: A claims-based database of commercially insured patients ages 13-64 was used to conduct two analyses: an annual cross-sectional study of 387,980 patients diagnosed as having opioid use disorder (2007-2017) to estimate the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses and pharmacotherapy, and a retrospective cohort study of 158,591 patients receiving MOUDs to test, with multivariable regression, the association between patient characteristics and receipt of stimulant medication.

RESULTS: From 2007 to 2017, the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses increased from 4.6% to 15.1% and the rate of ADHD pharmacotherapy increased from 42.6% to 51.8% among patients with opioid use disorder. Among all patients receiving MOUDs, 10.5% received at least one prescription stimulant during the study period. Female sex; residence in the southern United States; and ADHD, mood, and anxiety disorder diagnoses were associated with increased likelihood of stimulant receipt. Stimulant use disorder and other substance use disorder diagnoses were associated with decreased likelihood of stimulant receipt.

CONCLUSIONS: ADHD diagnoses and pharmacotherapy among patients with opioid use disorder have increased. A minority of patients with ADHD and taking MOUDs received a stimulant. Further study is needed of the benefits and risks of ADHD pharmacotherapy for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Characterising benzodiazepine (BZD) prescribing to individuals with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) is important for optimising PNES outcomes, but existing data is lacking.

METHODS: Using a nationwide administrative claims database (2016-2022), incident PNES was defined as an International classification of diseases, tenth revision, clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis in an inpatient or outpatient healthcare encounter after a 1-year period with no documented diagnosis. We described clinical characteristics of adults with incident PNES and estimated the prevalence of outpatient BZD treatment in the baseline year and 30-day follow-up period, with secondary analyses stratifying by baseline ES, anxiety and/or insomnia diagnoses, representing common indications for BZD receipt. We used logistic regression to evaluate predictors of post-PNES BZD receipt.

RESULTS: Among 20 848 adults with incident PNES diagnosis, 33.1% and 15.1% received BZDs in the year and month prior to PNES diagnosis, respectively, and 18.1% received BZDs in the month following a PNES diagnosis; 5.4% of those without prior BZD prescriptions received BZDs after diagnosis. The median days' supply was 30 days, with clonazepam, alprazolam and lorazepam representing the most common BZDs prescribed after PNES. Most people who received BZDs in the month prior to PNES diagnosis remained on BZDs in the month after PNES diagnosis (62.9%), with similar findings in the subcohorts without ES, anxiety and/or insomnia. Baseline BZD receipt and anxiety disorders, but not baseline ES diagnoses, were strong independent predictors of post-PNES BZD receipt.

CONCLUSIONS: While new BZD initiation is rare after PNES, most individuals with BZD scripts 1 month before PNES continue scripts after diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Overdose mortality has risen most rapidly among racial and ethnic minority groups while buprenorphine prescribing has increased disproportionately in predominantly non-Hispanic White urban areas. To identify whether buprenorphine availability equitably meets the needs of diverse populations, we examined the differential geographic availability of buprenorphine in areas with greater concentrations of racial and ethnic minority groups.

METHODS: Using IQVIA longitudinal prescription data, IQVIA OneKey data, and Microsoft Bing Maps, we calculated 2 outcome measures across the continental United States: the number of buprenorphine prescribers per 1000 residents within a 30-minute drive of a ZIP code, and the number of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed per capita at retail pharmacies among nearby buprenorphine prescribers. We then estimated differences in these outcomes by ZIP codes' racial and ethnic minority composition and rurality with t tests.

RESULTS: Buprenorphine prescribers per 1000 residents within a 30-minute drive decreased by 3.8 prescribers per 1000 residents in urban ZIP codes (95% confidence interval = -4.9 to -2.7) and 2.6 in rural ZIP codes (95% confidence interval = -3.0 to -2.2) whose populations consisted of ≥5% racial and ethnic minority groups. There were 45% to 55% fewer prescribers in urban areas and 62% to 79% fewer prescribers in rural areas as minority composition increased. Differences in dispensed buprenorphine per capita were similar but larger in magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS: Achieving more equitable buprenorphine access requires not only increasing the number of buprenorphine-prescribing clinicians; in urban areas with higher racial and ethnic minority group populations, it also requires efforts to promote greater buprenorphine prescribing among already prescribing clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Over half of veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) are also enrolled in Medicare, potentially increasing their opportunity to receive low-value health services within and outside VA.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the use and cost of low-value services delivered to dually enrolled veterans from VA and Medicare.

DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS: Veterans enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare (FY 2017-2018).

MAIN MEASURES: We used VA and Medicare administrative data to identify 29 low-value services across 6 established domains: cancer screening, diagnostic/preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing, and surgery. We determined the count of low-value services per 100 veterans delivered in VA and Medicare in FY 2018 overall, by domain, and by individual service. We applied standardized estimates to determine each service's cost.

KEY RESULTS: Among 1.6 million dually enrolled veterans, the mean age was 73, 97% were men, and 77% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 63.2 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered, affecting 32% of veterans; 22.9 services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA and 40.3 services per 100 veterans were delivered in Medicare. The total cost was $226.3 million (M), of which $62.6 M was spent in VA and $163.7 M in Medicare. The most common low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing at 17.3 per 100 veterans (VA 55.9%, Medicare 44.1%). The costliest low-value service was percutaneous coronary intervention (VA $10.1 M, Medicare $32.8 M).

CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 3 dually enrolled veterans received a low-value service in FY18, with twice as many low-value services delivered in Medicare vs VA. Interventions to reduce low-value services for veterans should consider their substantial use of such services in Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare commonly experience downstream services as part of a care cascade after an initial low-value service. Our objective was to characterize the frequency and cost of low-value cervical cancer screening and subsequent care cascades among Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used VA and Medicare administrative data from fiscal years 2015 to 2019. The study cohort was comprised of female Veterans aged >65 years and at low risk of cervical cancer who were dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. Within this cohort, we compared differences in the rates and costs of cascade services related to low-value cervical cancer screening for Veterans who received and did not receive screening in FY2018, adjusting for baseline patient- and facility-level covariates using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS: Among 20,972 cohort-eligible Veterans, 494 (2.4%) underwent low-value cervical cancer screening with 301 (60.9%) initial screens occurring in VA and 193 (39%) occurring in Medicare. Veterans who were screened experienced an additional 26.7 (95% CI, 16.4-37.0) cascade services per 100 Veterans compared to those who were not screened, contributing to $2919.4 (95% CI, -265 to 6104.7) per 100 Veterans in excess costs. Care cascades consisted predominantly of subsequent cervical cancer screening procedures and related outpatient visits with low rates of invasive procedures and occurred in both VA and Medicare.

CONCLUSIONS: Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare commonly receive related downstream tests and visits as part of care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening. Our findings demonstrate that to fully capture the extent to which individuals are subject to low-value care, it is important to examine downstream care stemming from initial low-value services across all systems from which individuals receive care.