Publications

Polypharmacy has been linked to adverse outcomes including increased risk of hospitalization, falls, and death and contributes to unnecessary healthcare spending. Deprescribing efforts aim to reduce medication burden while improving or maintaining patients' quality of life. While the practice of deprescribing is gaining momentum, quality measurement and provider reimbursement are barriers that must be addressed for deprescribing to achieve widespread adoption. Because many quality measures are focused on medication use and adherence, deprescribing efforts may negatively impact primary care provider and health plan quality ratings and value-based reimbursement. In addressing this conflict, there are opportunities to proactively align the priorities and incentives of patients, providers, and plans to promote deprescribing. In this report, we propose several actionable steps to address quality and reimbursement-based barriers such as facilitating the exclusion of those engaged in deprescribing efforts from quality measures and the development of deprescribing-based quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Value-based contracts (VBCs) between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers link drug payments to predefined performance measures and require shared risk between both entities. It is unclear how outcome measures were selected in previously reported VBCs, and many VBCs have focused on surrogate endpoints often used in the conduct of clinical trials, which may not be valued by or of importance to patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify outcome measures that are meaningful to key stakeholders and feasibly measured to inform VBCs for diabetes medications.

METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi survey to incorporate views from patients (n = 9), endocrinologists (n = 5), primary care physicians (n = 4), payers (n = 3), pharmacy benefit managers (n = 3), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 2). A list of 12 diabetes-related outcome measures was generated from the literature and consultations with subject matter experts. Participants rated the importance of each outcome on a 5-point Likert scale and selected the 3 most meaningful outcomes. Nonpatient participants then used a Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores 4 or 5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). A 2-sample test of proportions was performed to examine differences between patient and nonpatient stakeholder rankings of outcomes.

RESULTS: All 12 outcomes reached consensus for importance on the Likert scale. The measure "reducing risk of heart attacks" was the most meaningful outcome (84%), while "reducing A1c levels" ranked second (68%). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "reducing A1c levels" and "reducing risk of hospitalizations from diabetes" (93.8% each). The measures "weight loss," "reducing risk of diabetes-related kidney disease," "reducing risk of emergency room visits from diabetes," and "reducing risk of diabetes-related amputations and foot ulcers" also reached consensus for feasibility. There were statistically significant differences between patient and nonpatient stakeholders in the selection of "reducing A1c levels" (37.5% vs. 82.3%, respectively; P = 0.03) and "reducing risk of diabetes-related kidney disease" (50.0% vs. 11.8%, respectively; P = 0.03) as most meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: The measures "reducing risk of heart attacks" and "reducing A1c levels" were identified as top priority diabetes outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES: Express Scripts provided research funding for this study to the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Henderson is employed by Express Scripts and was involved in the conception and design of the study and manuscript approval. The other authors are employed by the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and have nothing to disclose.

PURPOSE: Adverse drug events (ADEs) in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) were evaluated, and differences in age group report rates and reported medications in different age groups were assessed.

METHODS: We utilized the VA Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (ADERS) to assess 10-year age groups regarding ADE reporting rates, event severity, and associated reported medications. Data were derived from 484,351 ADE reports from 395,703 patients included in VA ADERS from 2009 through 2016.

RESULTS: Reported rates of ADEs per 10,000 unique users demonstrated a nonlinear relationship with age, peaking in the group aged 60-69 years (148.6 reports/10,000 unique users) and declining thereafter. However, the percentage of adverse events reported as severe consistently rose with age group (3% in patients age 20-29 years versus 6% in patients older than 90 years). The types of medications reported as causative agents shifted over time from predominantly mental health and pain medications in younger veterans (e.g., age 20-29 years) to medications for chronic diseases in older cohorts (e.g., age 60-69 years).

CONCLUSION: An analysis of VA ADE reports revealed a nonlinear relationship between age and events, with events peaking at age 60-69 years. Rates of severe ADEs increased in older age groups. Drugs commonly associated with ADEs tended to be those primarily used for mental health and pain treatment in younger patients and those used to address chronic disease states in older patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite increased risks for adverse effects in patients with cirrhosis, little is known about opioid prescriptions for this population. We aimed to assess time trends in opioid prescribing and factors associated with receiving opioids among patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS: Among Veterans with cirrhosis, identified using national Veterans Health Administration data (2005-2014), we assessed characteristics of patients and their prescriptions for opioids. We calculated the annual proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription. Among opioid recipients, we assessed prescriptions that were long-term (>90 days' supply), for high doses (>100 MME/day), or involved combinations of opioids and acetaminophen or benzodiazepine. We evaluated patient characteristics independently associated with long-term and any opioid prescriptions using mixed-effects regression models.

RESULTS: Among 127,239 Veterans with cirrhosis, 97,974 (77.0%) received a prescription for an opioid. Annual opioid prescriptions increased from 36% in 2005 to 47% in 2014 (P < .01). Among recipients of opioids, the proportions of those receiving long-term prescriptions increased from 47% in 2005 to 54% in 2014 (P < .01), and19%-21% received prescriptions for high-dose opioids. Prescriptions for combinations of opioids and acetaminophen decreased from 68% in 2005 to 50% in 2014 (P < .01) and for combinations of opioids and benzodiazepines decreased from 24% to 19% over this time (P < .01). Greater probability of long-term opioid prescriptions was independently associated with younger age, female sex, white race, hepatitis C, prior hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, mental health disorders, nicotine use disorders, medical comorbidities, surgery, and pain-related conditions.

CONCLUSION: Among Veterans with cirrhosis, 36%-47% were prescribed opioids in each year. Mental health disorders and hepatic decompensation were independently associated with long-term opioid prescriptions.

This study uses Medicaid drug utilization data to describe reimbursement and market share of long-acting insulins before and after approval of new insulin products and to estimate savings associated with a “biosimilar” for insulin glargine approved in 2015.

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.