Publications

OBJECTIVE: To compare users and nonusers of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacy services by age group.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional.

METHODS: We used data on sociodemographics, health status, and medical conditions from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to compare users and nonusers of VA pharmacies for medications. Data were pooled for 2003-2005 to ensure adequate sample sizes. Student t tests were used to compare the means for each variable, and all analyses were adjusted for the complex sample design of the MEPS.

RESULTS: Among both nonelderly (18-64 years) and elderly (>or=65 years) veterans, a higher proportion who used VA pharmacy services versus those who did not use VA pharmacy services (1) were black (nonelderly: 17.7 % vs 7.4%, P <.001; elderly: 9.4% vs 4.7%, P <.001); (2) had no alternative insurance (nonelderly: 27.2% vs 4.8%, P <.001; elderly: 36.3% vs 19.9%, P <.001); (3) had lower incomes (nonelderly: 32.4% vs 11.5%, P <.001; elderly: 32.4% vs 25.4%, P = .01); (4) had less than a high school education (nonelderly: 13.0% vs 6.5%, P <.001; elderly: 27.5% vs 17.6%, P <.001); (5) were disabled; and (6) reported poorer health. A higher percentage of nonelderly users reported a mental health condition (31.6% vs 19.4%, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Veterans who use VA pharmacy services appear to be more ill than those who do not use VA pharmacy services. In addition, the VA appears to be a safety net for uninsured veterans who have mental health problems.

BACKGROUND: Although gatifloxacin is no longer available, other fluoroquinolones may significantly interfere with glucose homeostasis. The objective of the present study was to compare the risk of severe hypo- and hyperglycemia in a cohort of patients treated with gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, or azithromycin.

METHODS: This was a retrospective inception cohort study of outpatients with a new prescription for gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, or azithromycin from 1 October 2000 through 30 September 2005 in the Veterans Affairs health care system. For patients who received one of these antibiotics, we identified outcomes of hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of hypo- or hyperglycemia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the odds of hypo- and hyperglycemia with the individual fluoroquinolones versus azithromycin.

RESULTS: The crude incidence rates for severe hypo- and hyperglycemia among those who received gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and azithromycin were 0.35 and 0.45, 0.19 and 0.18, 0.10 and 0.12, and 0.07 and 0.10 cases per 1000 patients, respectively. Among patients with diabetes, the odds ratios for hypoglycemia compared with azithromycin were 4.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-6.6) for gatifloxacin, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.4-3.3) for levofloxacin, and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.6-2.0) for ciprofloxacin. The odds ratios for hyperglycemia were 4.5 (95% CI, 3.0-6.9) for gatifloxacin, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.7) for levofloxacin, and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.6-1.8) for ciprofloxacin.

CONCLUSIONS: The odds of severe hypo- and hyperglycemia were significantly greater with gatifloxacin and levofloxacin, but not ciprofloxacin, than with azithromycin. Thus, the risk of a clinically relevant dysglycemic event appears to vary among the fluoroquinolones.

We aimed to elucidate the clinical significance of borderline troponin I (TnI) increases and see if such increases are of similar significance across different assays. Markedly increased TnI is a strong predictor of adverse cardiac events. It is not clear if borderline increases with different commercially available TnI assays provide similar prognostic information. From January 2001 to February 2004, 3 different TnI assays (Beckman Access TnI, Beckman Access AccuTnI, and Vitros ECI Troponin) were used to evaluate the peak TnI value in 1,152 consecutive patients admitted with suspected acute coronary syndrome/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Recommended cutoffs were used to differentiate borderline from marked increases reported as consistent with MI. Clinical data and 30-day death/new MIs were determined by chart abstraction. Demographics and cardiac risk factors were similar for the 3 groups. Frequency of borderline TnI ranged widely among assays (18.7% to 42.1%) but was significantly less with the Vitros ECI Troponin assay (p <0.0001). Prognostic significance of borderline increased TnI values also varied greatly by assay, with borderline Beckman Access AccuTnI increases being predictive of adverse 30-day outcomes (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 10.97, p = 0.007), but not with the other 2 assays. Borderline increases were significantly associated with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI; serum creatine >1.5); the relation to adverse 30-day outcomes and borderline increases persisted after correcting for CRI in a multivariate logistic regression model. In conclusion, although borderline increased TnI levels are common and significantly associated with CRI, they do not all portend the same clinical prognosis. This study highlights the need for standardization of TnI levels across different assays.

BACKGROUND: Cost-related nonadherence to medieations is common among older adults, yet physician-patient communication about medication cost concerns is infrequent. One factor affecting communication and adherence may be older adults' confidence in the information about prescription drugs provided by physicians and other sources.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to identify which source older adults most trust to provide information on drugs and to examine the relationship between older patients' trust in physicians to provide price information and the occurrence of cost-related nonadherence.

METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional national telephone survey of individuals aged > or =50 years who were taking at least 1 prescription medication. Respondents were asked how much they would trust various sources (physician, pharmacist, nurse, insurance plan, the Internet, consumer groups, friends and family) to provide helpful information on "the price of the prescription medicine compared to others like it" and on "how well the prescription medicine will work for you compared to other medicines like it." The response options were a lot, somewhat, and not at all. Other measures of interest were respondents' beliefs concerning physicians' ability to lower drug costs and patient activation. We also evaluated the potential association between trust in physicians to deliver drug price information and cost-related medication nonadherence.

RESULTS: Compared with the other sources of information studied, doctors and pharmacists were the sources that respondents were most likely to trust "a lot" to provide information on drug prices (55.6% and 61.7%, respectively) and to provide information on drug effectiveness (79.9% and 66.4%). Less than half (42.3%) of respondents who said that they trusted their doctor to provide drug price information "somewhat" or "not at all" agreed that there are ways doctors could lower drug costs (P = 0.01 vs those who trusted their doctor "a lot"). Adults aged > or =65 years were more likely than those aged 50 to 64 years to trust their doctors "a lot" to provide information on drug prices (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.08-1.92); the same was true of members of minority groups compared with white respondents (OR = 1.72; 95%) CT, 1.1 3-2.61 ). Among individuals with high drug spending, those who placed "a lot" of trust in their doctors to provide price information were less likely than those who trusted their doctor "somewhat" or "not at all" to have cost-related nonadhcrence (OR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, older adults trusted physicians and pharmacists more than the other sources studied to provide information on prescription drugs. Trust in physicians to provide price information was an important moderator of the effect of high drug spending on cost-related nonadhcrence. Efforts to provide patients and their providers with comparative data on drug prices and effectiveness may reduce cost-related nonadhcrence.

We calculated prescription drug usage in two groups of Medicare beneficiaries: employer group with no coverage gap, and individual Part D group with no coverage or some generic drug coverage in the coverage gap. Among those with employer coverage, 40 percent reached the doughnut hole, compared with 25 percent of those without such coverage. Overall, 5 percent went through the doughnut hole to reach the catastrophic coverage level. Those lacking coverage in the doughnut hole reduced their drug use by 14 percent; those with generic coverage reduced their use by 3 percent. Coverage of generic drugs with a $0-$10 copayment in the doughnut hole could be financed by, at most, a six-to-nine-percentage-point increase in initial coinsurance.

BACKGROUND: It is not known what effect the increased use of prescription drugs by enrollees in Medicare Part D has had on spending for other medical care.

METHODS: We compared spending for prescription drugs and other medical care 2 years before the implementation of Part D in January 2006 with such expenditures 2 years after the program's implementation in four groups of elderly beneficiaries: Medicare Advantage enrollees with stable, uncapped, employer-based drug coverage throughout the study period (no-cap group), those who had no previous drug coverage, and those who had previous limited benefits (with either a $150 or a $350 quarterly cap) before they were covered by Part D in 2006.

RESULTS: Between December 2005 and December 2007, as compared with the increase in the no-cap group, the increase in total monthly drug spending was $41 higher (95% confidence interval [CI], $33 to $50) (74%) among enrollees with no previous drug coverage, $27 higher (95% CI, $20 to $34) (27%) among those with a previous $150 quarterly cap, and $13 higher (95% CI, $8 to $18) (11%) among those with a previous $350 cap. The use of both lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications rose in the groups with no or minimal previous drug coverage. As compared with expenditures in the no-cap group, monthly medical expenditures (excluding drugs) were $33 lower (95% CI, $29 to $37) in the group with no previous coverage and $46 lower (95% CI, $29 to $63) in the group with a previous $150 quarterly cap, whereas medical spending was $30 higher (95% CI, $25 to $36) in the group with a previous $350 cap.

CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment in Medicare Part D was associated with increased spending on prescription drugs. Groups that had no or minimal drug coverage before the implementation of Part D had reductions in other medical spending that approximately offset the increased spending on drugs, but medical spending increased in the group that had more generous previous coverage.

In 2006, six million beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid switched from Medicaid to Medicare Part D for coverage of their prescription drugs. This change led to an expanded role for Medicare in financing psychotropic medications for dual eligibles. A reduction in the number of plans serving these beneficiaries and an increase in utilization restrictions for some psychotropics since 2006 raise concerns about access to medications for dual eligibles with mental disorders and point to potential problems with adverse selection. To improve access for this population, Medicare might consider changes to its enrollment and risk-sharing systems.

The slow spread of treatments supported by empirical evidence and the rapid diffusion of treatments lacking such support play major roles in the lower quality of mental health care received by people with severe mental illnesses compared with the care of less severely ill people. Further, the rapid spread of treatments that are of low cost-effectiveness limits the system's ability to provide the full gamut of high-value treatments available to treat this vulnerable population. Using the case of schizophrenia, we review the context in which these paradoxical patterns of diffusion have occurred, and we propose policy solutions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether retail prices for prescription drugs are higher in poorer areas.

DATA SOURCES: The MyFloridarx.com website, which provides retail prescription prices at Florida pharmacies, and median ZIP code income from the 2000 Census.

STUDY DESIGN: We compared mean pharmacy prices for each of the four study drugs across ZIP code income groups. Pharmacies were classified as either chain pharmacies or independent pharmacies.

DATA COLLECTION: Prices were downloaded in November 2006.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across the four study drugs, mean prices were highest in the poorest ZIP codes: 9 percent above the statewide average. Independent pharmacies in the poorest ZIP codes charged the highest mean prices.

CONCLUSIONS: Retail prescription prices appear to be higher in poorer ZIP codes of Florida.