Background:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide significant incentives to health plans that score well on Medicare STAR metrics for cardiovascular disease risk factor medication adherence. Information on modifiable health system-level predictors of adherence can help clinicians and health plans develop strategies for improving Medicare STAR scores, and potentially improve cardiovascular disease outcomes.Objective:To examine the association of Medicare STAR adherence metrics with system-level factors.Research Design:A cross-sectional study.Subjects:A total of 129,040 diabetes patients aged 65 years and above in 2010 from 3 Kaiser Permanente regions.Measures:Adherence to antihypertensive, antihyperlipidemic, and oral antihyperglycemic medications in 2010, defined by Medicare STAR as the proportion of days covered ≥80%.Results:After controlling for individual-level factors, the strongest predictor of achieving STAR-defined medication adherence was a mean prescribed medication days’ supply of >90 days (RR=1.61 for antihypertensives, oral antihyperglycemics, and statins; all P<0.001). Using mail order pharmacy to fill medications >50% of the time was independently associated with better adherence with these medications (RR=1.07, 1.06, 1.07; P<0.001); mail order use had an increased positive association among black and Hispanic patients. Medication copayments ≤$10 for 30 days’ supply (RR=1.02, 1.02, 1.02; P<0.01) and annual individual out-of-pocket maximums ≤$2000 (RR=1.02, 1.01, 1.02; P<0.01) were also significantly associated with higher adherence for all 3 therapeutic groupings.Conclusions:Greater medication days’ supply and mail order pharmacy use, and lower copayments and out-of-pocket maximums, are associated with better Medicare STAR adherence. Initiatives to improve adherence should focus on modifiable health system-level barriers to obtaining evidence-based medications.
OBJECTIVEMedication nonadherence is a major obstacle to better control of glucose, blood pressure (BP), and LDL cholesterol in adults with diabetes. Inexpensive effective strategies to increase medication adherence are needed.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn a pragmatic randomized trial, we randomly assigned 2,378 adults with diabetes mellitus who had recently been prescribed a new class of medication for treating elevated levels of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥8% (64 mmol/mol), BP ≥140/90 mmHg, or LDL cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL, to receive 1) one scripted telephone call from a diabetes educator or clinical pharmacist to identify and address nonadherence to the new medication or 2) usual care. Hierarchical linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on 1) the first medication fill within 60 days of the prescription; 2) two or more medication fills within 180 days of the prescription; and 3) clinically significant improvement in levels of A1C, BP, or LDL cholesterol.RESULTSOf the 2,378 subjects, 89.3% in the intervention group and 87.4% in the usual-care group had sufficient data to analyze study outcomes. In intent-to-treat analyses, intervention was not associated with significant improvement in primary adherence, medication persistence, or intermediate outcomes of care. Results were similar across subgroups of patients defined by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and study site, and when limiting the analysis to those who completed the intended intervention.CONCLUSIONSThis low-intensity intervention did not significantly improve medication adherence or control of glucose, BP, or LDL cholesterol. Wide use of this strategy does not appear to be warranted; alternative approaches to identify and improve medication adherence and persistence are needed.
Abstract:This paper explores the implementation of Cleveland Police's pilot Street Triage service. The service aimed to reduce the number of section 136 detentions under the Mental Health Act and improve referral pathways for those presenting with mental health issues. The initiative was funded by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust. Dedicated Street Triage mental health nurses accompanied police officers to incidents where it was suspected that mental health issues were a presenting concern. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen strategic and operational stakeholders to review whether the project was successful. Analysis was supplemented with secondary data from the Street Triage Team. We conclude that there were significantly fewer section 136 detentions, and identify continuing challenges.
Objective: As part of a multidisciplinary team managing patients with type-2 diabetes, pharmacists need a consistent approach of identifying and prioritizing patients at highest risk of adverse outcomes. Our objective was to identify which predictors of adverse outcomes among type-2 diabetes patients were significant and common across 7 outcomes and whether these predictors improved the performance of risk prediction models. Identifying such predictors would allow pharmacists and other health care providers to prioritize their patient panels. Research Design and Methods: Our study population included 120,256 adults aged 65 years or older with type-2 diabetes from a large integrated health system. Through an observational retrospective cohort study design, we assessed which risk factors were associated with 7 adverse outcomes (hypoglycemia, hip fractures, syncope, emergency department visit or hospital admission, death, and 2 combined outcomes). We split (50:50) our study cohort into a test and training set. We used logistic regression to model outcomes in the test set and performed k-fold validation (k=5) of the combined outcome (without death) within the validation set. Results: The most significant predictors across the 7 outcomes were: age, number of medicines, prior history of outcome within the past 2 years, chronic kidney disease, depression, and retinopathy. Experiencing an adverse outcome within the prior 2 years was the strongest predictor of future adverse outcomes (odds ratio range: 4.15–7.42). The best performing models across all outcomes included: prior history of outcome, physiological characteristics, comorbidities and pharmacy-specific factors (c-statistic range: 0.71–0.80). Conclusions: Pharmacists and other health care providers can use models with prior history of adverse event, number of medicines, chronic kidney disease, depression and retinopathy to prioritize interventions for elderly patients with type-2 diabetes.
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). We employ several techniques to increase the credibility of results from our "natural experiment," such as the inclusion of multiple comparison groups, controls for differential time trends, and "difference-in-difference-indifferences" estimators. Terms of use: Documents inOur regression estimates generally do not provide evidence that family cap policies reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births among single, less-educated women with children.
While almost three-fourths of adults with SMI taking antipsychotic medications received a lab order for diabetes screening, only 55% received screening within a 12-month period. Young adults and smokers were less likely to be screened, despite their disproportionate metabolic risk. Future studies should assess the barriers and facilitators with regard to diabetes screening in this vulnerable population at the patient, provider, and system levels.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.