Publications

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) use different approaches to manage prescription drug benefits, with implications for spending. Medicare relies on private plans with distinct formularies, whereas the VA administers its own benefit using a national formulary.

OBJECTIVE: To compare overall and regional rates of brand-name drug use among older adults with diabetes in Medicare and the VA.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort.

SETTING: Medicare and the VA, 2008.

PATIENTS: 1,061,095 Medicare Part D beneficiaries and 510,485 veterans aged 65 years or older with diabetes.

MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of patients taking oral hypoglycemics, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) who filled brand-name drug prescriptions and percentage of patients taking long-acting insulins who filled analogue prescriptions. Sociodemographic- and health status-adjusted hospital referral region (HRR) brand-name drug use was compared, and changes in spending were calculated if use of brand-name drugs in 1 system mirrored the other.

RESULTS: Brand-name drug use in Medicare was 2 to 3 times that in the VA: 35.3% versus 12.7% for oral hypoglycemics, 50.7% versus 18.2% for statins, 42.5% versus 20.8% for ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and 75.1% versus 27.0% for insulin analogues. Adjusted HRR-level brand-name statin use ranged (from the 5th to 95th percentiles) from 41.0% to 58.3% in Medicare and 6.2% to 38.2% in the VA. For each drug group, the 95th-percentile HRR in the VA had lower brand-name drug use than the 5th-percentile HRR in Medicare. Medicare spending in this population would have been $1.4 billion less if brand-name drug use matched that of the VA.

LIMITATION: This analysis cannot fully describe the factors underlying differences in brand-name drug use.

CONCLUSION: Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes use 2 to 3 times more brand-name drugs than a comparable group within the VA, at substantial excess cost.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed to nursing home residents despite their well-established adverse event profiles. Because little is known about their use in Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes [ie, Community Living Centers (CLCs)], we assessed the prevalence and risk factors for antipsychotic use in older residents of VA CLCs.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 3692 Veterans age 65 or older who were admitted between January 2004 and June 2005 to one of 133 VA CLCs and had a stay of ≥90 days. We used VA Pharmacy Benefits Management data to examine antipsychotic use and VA Medical SAS datasets and the Minimum Data Set to identify evidence-based indications for antipsychotic use (eg, schizophrenia, dementia with psychosis). We used multivariable logistic regression and generalized estimating equations to identify factors independently associated with antipsychotic receipt.

RESULTS: Overall, 948/3692(25.7%) residents received an antipsychotic, of which 59.3% had an evidence-based indication for use. Residents with aggressive behavior [odds ratio (OR)=2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.04-3.67] and polypharmacy (9+ drugs; OR=1.84, 95% CI, 1.41-2.40) were more likely to receive antipsychotics, as were users of antidepressants (OR=1.37, 95% CI, 1.14-1.66), anxiolytic/hypnotics (OR=2.30, 95% CI, 1.64-3.23), or drugs for dementia (OR=1.52, 95% CI, 1.21-1.92). Those residing in Alzheimer/dementia special care units were also more likely to receive an antipsychotic (OR=1.66, 95% CI, 1.26-2.21). Veterans with dementia but no documented psychosis were as likely as those with an evidence-based indication to receive an antipsychotic (OR=1.10, 95% CI, 0.82-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic use is common among VA nursing home residents aged 65 and older, including those without a documented evidence-based indication for use. Further quality improvement efforts are needed to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are associated with serious adverse events, and maintaining hemoglobin levels within a narrow range can be difficult. We examined the quality of ESA prescribing and monitoring in pharmacist-managed ESA clinics versus usual care in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD).

STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients receiving ESAs for NDD-CKD at 10 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with both pharmacist-managed ESA clinics (n = 314) and physician-based care (ie, usual care; n = 91) and 6 sites with usual care only (n = 167) on January 1, 2009, were followed up for 6 months.

PREDICTOR: Type/site of care (ie, pharmacist-managed ESA clinic, usual care at ESA clinic site, usual-care site).

OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were proportion of hemoglobin values in the target range of 10-12 g/dL, ESA dose, and frequency of hemoglobin monitoring. Factors associated with hemoglobin values out of target range were identified using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS: More hemoglobin values were in the target range in pharmacist-managed ESA clinics (71.1% vs 56.9% for usual-care sites; P < 0.001). The average 30-day dose of darbepoetin was 163 μg in pharmacist-managed ESA clinic patients versus 240 μg in usual-care site patients and 258 μg in usual-care patients at ESA clinic sites. For epoetin, corresponding average 30-day doses were 44,890 versus 47,141 and 57,436 IU. Veterans in pharmacist-managed ESA clinics had more hemoglobin measurements on average (5.8 vs 3.6 in usual-care sites and 3.8 in usual care at ESA clinic sites; P = 0.007). In the multinomial model, usual care was associated with hemoglobin levels out of target range, whereas heart failure and diabetes were associated with values in range.

LIMITATIONS: We could not assess whether different hemoglobin targets were used by usual-care providers.

CONCLUSIONS: Relative to usual care, pharmacist-managed clinics provided improved quality of ESA dosing and monitoring for patients with NDD-CKD.

OBJECTIVES: To describe facility-level variation in two measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing prevalent in Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities-exposure to high-risk medications in elderly adults (HRME) and drug-disease interactions (Rx-DIS)-and to identify facility characteristics associated with high-quality prescribing.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional.

SETTING: VA Healthcare System.

PARTICIPANTS: Veterans aged 65 and older with at least one inpatient or outpatient visit in 2005-2006 (N = 2,023,477; HRME exposure) and a subsample with a history of falls or hip fractures, dementia, or chronic renal failure (n = 305,059; Rx-DIS exposure).

MEASUREMENTS: Incident use of any HRME (iHRME) and incident Rx-DIS (iRx-DIS) and facility-level rates and facility-level predictors of iHRME and iRx-DIS exposure, adjusting for differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS: Overall, 94,692 (4.7%) veterans had iHRME exposure. At the facility level, iHRME exposure ranged from 1.6% at the lowest facility to 12.8% at the highest (median 4.7%). In the subsample, 9,803 (3.2%) veterans had iRx-DIS exposure, with a facility-level range from 1.3% to 5.8% (median 3.2%). In adjusted analyses, veterans seen in facilities with formal geriatric education had lower odds of iHRME (odds ratio (OR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-0.96) and iRx-DIS (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.88-1.01). Patients seen in facilities caring for fewer older veterans had greater odds of iHRME (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.35-1.75) and iRx-DIS exposure (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.33).

CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in the quality of prescribing for older adults exists across VA facilities, even after adjusting for patient characteristics. Higher-quality prescribing is found in facilities caring for a larger number of older veterans and facilities with formal geriatric education.

PURPOSE: The improvement and linkage of two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases for monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are described, with a discussion of the potential implications for improved medication safety within the VA health care system.

SUMMARY: Before 2007, VA had limited capability to track and evaluate ADRs across its nationwide network of health care facilities. Since then, VA has established a standardized monitoring system that has improved the reporting, analysis, and trending of ADRs reported by providers and pharmacists at individual VA facilities. The enhanced system has two components with distinct but complementary functions: the Adverse Reaction Tracking database, which is derived by extracting text-based, patient-specific information entered into the VA electronic medical record system by clinicians at the point of care; and the VA Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (VA ADERS), an external web-based portal that contains aggregated data from 146 VA facilities, with standardized coding of reported events. Both databases allow for ADR reporting at the local, regional, and national levels. The VA ADERS database permits rapid electronic reporting of certain ADRs to the federal MedWatch program. The two databases can be used in tandem for more comprehensive assessments of ADR patterns and reporting rates and to generate a wide range of benchmarking data.

CONCLUSION: In recent years, the refinement of two databases for ADR reporting has increased VA's capability to systematically monitor, track, and report ADRs across its national network of health care facilities. Linking the two databases has further strengthened those capabilities, enhancing medication safety practices and aiding in pharmacovigilance.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate medication use, which is common in older adults, may be responsive to out-of-pocket costs. We examined the impact of Medicare Part D on inappropriate medication use among Medicare beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post with comparison group.

METHODS: Using data from 34,679 elderly beneficiaries in Medicare plans from 2004 to 2007, we used Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures of prescribing quality: (1) any use of Drugs to Avoid in the Elderly (DAE), (2) a proportion of total medication use attributable to DAEs, and (3) any Potentially Harmful Drug-Disease Interactions in the Elderly (DDE). Rates of inappropriate use among 3 groups transitioning from no drug coverage or limited coverage ($150 or $350 quarterly caps) to Part D in 2006 were compared with those with constant drug coverage.

RESULTS: DAE use increased slightly among those moving from no coverage to Part D (from 15.72%-17.61%) whereas the comparison group's use decreased (20.97%-18.32%) [relative odds ratio (ROR) = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.48, P <.0001]. However, the proportion of total drug use attributable to DAEs declined among the no coverage group after Part D (3.01%-1.98%), a significant difference relative to the comparison group (ROR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98, P = .03). Rates of DDE were low (1%) both before and after Part D.

CONCLUSIONS: While use of high-risk drugs increased slightly among those gaining Part D drug coverage, high-risk drug use actually declined as a proportion of total drug use, and the prevalence of drug-disease interactions remained stable.