The Center for Epidemiologic Study-Depression (CES-D) Scale has been used to assess levels of depressive symptomatology in cancer survivors but has not been validated in African American cancer survivors. The current study assessed the reliability and validity of the CES-D in 216 African American cancer survivors. A Cronbach alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency reliability, and correlations were computed between the CES-D and other measure of mood states (Profile of Mood States-Short Form and Bradburn Positive and Negative Affect Scales) to assess concurrent validity. The CES-D demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (= .90), and the concurrent validity was supported by significant correlations with other measures of mood states. These analyses indicate that the CES-D is a reliable and valid measure for use with African American cancer survivors. The mean CES-D score (M = 15.7, SD = 11.89) further suggests that this sample of African American cancer survivors exhibit significant levels of depressive symptomatology.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) programs are designed to improve clinical outcomes and enhance appropriate medication use. Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) and targeted medication reviews (TMRs) are 2 broad interventions defined within MTM services. While MTM services have been extensively researched, there are few comparisons of CMR versus non-CMR interventions. Given the variability in MTM interventions and lack of a consistent TMR definition in the literature, this study sought to compare CMRs and TMRs that were clearly defined based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare acute inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits between patients participating in MTM services (CMR, TMR, or both) and eligible nonparticipating patients and (b) examine the effect of receiving TMR services on medication adherence.METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with Medicare Part D coverage who received MTM services and a 1:1 propensity scorematched control group. Participants had to be eligible for MTM services in 2014 or 2015 based on CMS requirements. CMRs were offered to all MTM-eligible patients, while TMRs were completed based on clinical rules that helped identify medication-related problems (MRPs). The date of MTM intervention, or eligibility for the control group, was considered the index date. Participants had to be continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan that included prescription drug coverage during the study period and have at least 6 months of data before and after the index date. Medical and pharmacy claims were assessed to examine trend-adjusted inpatient admissions and ED visits from pre-index to post-index date for participants and matched controls. RESULTS: In 2014 and 2015, receipt of TMR interventions was associated with statistically significant reductions in acute inpatient admissions. In 2014, there were 55.2 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals (95% CI = 29-81) and 30.8 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals in 2015 (95% CI = 20-42). Receipt of CMR-only interventions was associated with fewer acute inpatient admissions only when coupled with preidentification of MRPs (36.8 [95% CI = 25-49] fewer admits per 1,000 individuals). In 2015, there were significant reductions in ED visits for participants receiving TMR-only interventions or TMR/CMR interventions and 12.0 [95% CI = 1-23] fewer ED visits per 1,000 individuals, respectively). In both years, a larger percentage (0.4% for oral diabetes medications; 7.7% for antihypertensives; 3.0% for statins) of MTM participants had greater improvements in medication adherence in the post-index period compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving MTM services targeted at resolution of MRPs (TMR or CMR/TMR) resulted in positive reductions in health care utilization and increases in medication adherence. Given the importance of optimal medication utilization, this study highlights the need for additional focus on resolution of MRPs through TMRs and CMRs that ca...

No abstract

The rising cost of healthcare has strained the resources of governments, private third parties and individuals with responsibility to pay for it. Various strategies have been used in an attempt to control costs. This article examines the economic impact of 4 such strategies: (a) cost sharing; (b) prescription limits; (c) rebates; and (d) cost limits. Cost sharing has been successful at reducing utilisation of prescription drugs, although the effects have not been uniform across therapeutic categories. However, the long term effect on cost and utilisation of other medical services, and the impact on overall health status, remain largely unknown. Some evidence suggests that utilisation of other services may increase. The available data regarding drug rebate programmes have been descriptive in nature. However, the designs employed in this research do not establish a direct causal relationship between rebate programmes and changes in Medicaid drug expenditure. Furthermore, still unknown is the degree of cost shifting and the effect of the rebate programme on other large public and private drug purchasers. The Maximum Allowable Cost programme led to direct savings in drug costs, but the size of these savings was variable and uncertain because of administrative costs of the programme. The Estimated Acquisition Cost programme has not resulted in significant savings.