Is There a Relationship Between Part D Medication Adherence and Part C Intermediate Outcomes Star Ratings Measures?

Effects of star ratings bonus payments on disparities in medication utilization issues

Background

Previous literature suggested that the consequences of inappropriate medication use may be borne disproportionately by racial/ethnic minorities. It is, therefore, essential to examine if quality improvement initiatives, such as Medicare Part D Star Ratings (Star Ratings), can improve these disparities.

Objective

To assess the impact of Star Ratings bonus payments to Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MAPDs) implemented in 2012 on racial/ethnic disparities in medication utilization issues (MUIs).

Methods

This study mainly used secondary data from Medicare administrative data linked to Area Health Resources Files for years before (2010-2011) and after MAPD bonus payment implementation (2016-2017). Patients in MAPDs were treated as the intervention group, and those in independent prescription drug plans (PDPs) were used as the comparison group because PDPs were ineligible for bonuses. MUIs targeted and not targeted in Star Ratings were both examined to determine spillover effects. A difference-in-differences approach was applied by including in a logistic regression a 3-way interaction term for dummy variables for racial/ethnic minorities, later period of 2016-2017, and MAPD plan.

Results

Racial/ethnic minorities experienced more MUIs: e.g., the odds of MUIs targeted in Star Ratings among MAPD enrollees were 83% higher (odds ratio [OR] = 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.71-1.96) for Black than White patients. Black-White disparities in MUIs targeted in Star Ratings decreased 16% more (OR = 0.84; 95% = CI 0.78-0.91) over time among MAPD enrollees than those in PDPs. This pattern was not found for non-Star Ratings measures. Changes in Hispanic-White disparities were similar between MAPD and PDP enrollees for MUIs targeted and not-targeted by Star Ratings. Asian-White and Other-White disparities in MUIs did not experience a higher reduction among MAPD enrollees than PDP enrollees.

Conclusions

Part D bonus payments are associated with lower Black-White disparities in MUIs targeted by Star Ratings. However, Part D bonus payments may not have reduced Hispanic-White or Asian-White disparities. Future research should explore the causes of the bonus payments' heterogeneous effects across racial/ethnic groups.

Solving racial/ethnic disparities associated with Medicare Part D Star Ratings

OBJECTIVE

Medicare Part D Star Ratings are instrumental in shaping healthcare quality improvement efforts. However, the calculation metrics for medication performance measures for this program have been associated with racial/ethnic disparities. In this study, we aimed to explore whether an alternative program, named Star Plus by us that included all medication performance measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance and applicable to our study population, would reduce such disparities among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, hypertension, and/or hyperlipidemia.

METHOD

We conducted an analysis of a 10% random sample of Medicare A/B/D claims linked to the Area Health Resources File. Multivariate logistic regressions with minority dummy variables were used to examine racial/ethnic disparities in measure calculations of Star Ratings and Star Plus, respectively.

RESULTS

Adjusted results indicated that relative to non-Hispanic Whites (Whites), racial/ethnic minorities had significantly lower odds of being included in the Star Ratings measure calculations: the odds ratios (ORs) for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Others were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-0.71), 0.73 (CI = 0.69-0.78), 0.88 (CI = 0.82-0.93), and 0.92 (CI = 0.88-0.97), respectively. In contrast, every beneficiary in the sample was included in Star Plus. Further, racial/ethnic minorities had significantly higher increase in the odds of being included in measure calculation in Star Plus than Star Ratings. The ORs for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Others were 1.47 (CI = 1.41-1.52), 1.37 (CI = 1.29-1.45), 1.14 (CI = 1.07-1.22), and 1.09 (CI = 1.03-1.14), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that racial/ethnic disparities may be eliminated by including additional medication performance measures to Star Ratings.

Racial and ethnic disparities due to Medicare Part D Star Ratings criteria among kidney transplant patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND: Policies such as Medicare Part D Star Ratings are designed to encourage medication adherence and facilitate positive health outcomes. Patients who have received a kidney transplant not included in assessment of Star Ratings measures may have worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine if criteria for inclusion in assessment of Star Ratings medication adherence measures among kidney transplant patients with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia lead to racial and ethnic disparities in who is included in this assessment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, secondary analysis of 94,822 adult kidney transplant patients receiving continuous coverage of Medicare Parts A/B/D and filling at least 1 prescription for diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia in 2017. Utilizing 2017 Medicare claims, inclusion in assessment of Star Ratings measures was determined based on criteria for each measure concerning adherence to oral diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia medication. Binary and multinomial logistic regression were conducted. RESULTS: Among kidney transplant patients with diabetes only, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely than White patients to be included in assessment of the Star Ratings adherence measure for oral diabetes medications (P < 0.0001). Among kidney transplant patients with hypertension only and dyslipidemia only, all racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to be included in assessments of Star Ratings adherence measures for oral hypertension and dyslipidemia medications (P < 0.001). For example, among patients with hypertension, adjusted odds ratios for inclusion of Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients were 0.44 (95% CI = 0.40-0.49), 0.56 (95% CI = 0.49-0.63), and 0.55 (95% = CI 0.45-0.67), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities exist among patients who have received a kidney transplant qualifying for inclusion in Star Ratings measures, which may ultimately facilitate adverse health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Marie Chisholm-Burns is a member of the American Society of Transplantation Board of Directors. Christina Spivey has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Chi Chun Tsang has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Junling Wang received funding for this project from the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health; she has also received funding from AbbVie and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (additionally, she has received consulting fees from the latter). Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AG049696 (Principal Investigator: Junling Wang). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The sponsor of the research does not have any role in any aspect of the research, including study design and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Association of Medication Adherence with Hospital Utilization and Costs Among Elderly with Diabetes Enrolled in a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is crucial for the successful treatment among elderly patients with diabetes taking oral antidiabetic medications (OAMs). Cost of medications, lack of insurance coverage, and low income are major contributing factors towards medication nonadherence. State pharmaceutical assistance programs (SPAPs) provide medications at little or no cost to income-eligible patients and have potential to improve medication adherence among elderly patients. Despite this, limited research has focused on the association of medication adherence with health care utilization among elderly patients enrolled in SPAPs, and inclusion of health care costs as an outcome is even rarer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between adherence to OAMs and hospital utilization and costs among elderly patients with diabetes who were enrolled in a SPAP.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included elderly patients with diabetes enrolled in Pennsylvania's Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly (PACE) program in 2015. Medication adherence was estimated as the proportion of days covered (PDC; adherent: PDC≥80%, nonadherent: PDC < 80%). Hospital utilization and costs were estimated using hospital discharge records from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. Multiple adjusted regression analyses were used to examine the association of medication adherence with hospital utilization (all-cause and diabetes-related number of inpatient hospital visits and length of stay [LOS]) and costs.

RESULTS

Among 9,497 elderly PACE enrollees with diabetes, 81% were adherent, and 21% were hospitalized. Compared with adherent patients, patients who were nonadherent to OAMs had twice the odds of all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalization. Controlling for covariates, nonadherent patients had 27% more all-cause (95% CI = 9%-36%) and 21% more diabetes-related (95% CI = 5%-40%) hospital visits than adherent patients. Covariate-adjusted LOS for nonadherent patients was 24% longer than that of adherent patients for all-cause hospitalization (95% CI = 1.171-1.311) and 12.7% longer for diabetes-related hospitalization (95% CI = 1.036-1.227). Medication nonadherence was associated with significantly greater all-cause ($22,670 vs. $16,383; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-related ($13,518 vs. $12,634; P = 0.0003) hospitalization costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among SPAP-enrolled elderly patients, nonadherence to OAMs was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization, longer hospital stays, and greater hospitalization costs. Attention is needed to improve medication adherence among elderly receiving financial assistance to pay their prescriptions to reduce economic burden on the health care system.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Impact of Appointment-Based Medication Synchronization on Proportion of Days Covered for Chronic Medications

Appointment-based medication synchronization (ABMS) programs have been associated with increased adherence and persistence to chronic medications. Adherence to statin therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and non-insulin antidiabetic medications (NIDM) are used to determine a health plan’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Star Rating under a pay-for-performance model. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of implementing an ABMS program on overall pharmacy adherence measures for statins, ACEI/ARBs, and NIDM, as presented through the Electronic Quality Improvement Platform for Plans and Pharmacies (EQuIPP©) platform. This retrospective, pre-post ABMS program study evaluated EQuIPP© generated adherence performance measures, represented as proportion of days covered (PDC), 6-months before and 6- and 12-months after the ABMS service for statin therapy, ACEIs/ARBs, and NIDM. All adherence measures showed statistically significant improvement in PDC percentage post ABMS implementation, except for NIDM percentage in 6-months post-ABMS service. This study shows that a comprehensive medication synchronization program can enhance adherence measures that are important to health plans to increase CMS Star Rating under a pay-for-performance model.

Refill-Based Medication Use Quality Measures in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Examination of Proportion of Days Covered and Medication Possession Ratio

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacy Quality Alliance's definition of proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR) have not been examined as potential quality measures in the kidney transplant recipient population.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe the frequency distribution of MPR and PDC using mycophenolic acid products in a real-world kidney transplant recipient population and (b) evaluate associations between MPR and PDC with late (> 90 days after transplantation) biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study combining data from the Wisconsin Allograft Recipient Database with University of Wisconsin (UW) Health Specialty Pharmacy prescription claims and dispensing data from March 10, 2006, to June 30, 2012. Patients who met criteria for persistence filling mycophenolic acid prescriptions at UW Health Specialty Pharmacy in the first year following discharge from kidney transplantation surgery hospitalization were included. Patients were excluded if they were enrolled in a clinical trial, if they had BPAR within 90 days of transplantation, or if they did not have panel reactive antibody data available. PDC and MPR were calculated over 360 days after discharge, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine if there were associations between PDC or MPR with late BPAR within 3 years.

RESULTS

This study included 388 patients. The incidence of 3-year late BPAR was 5.1% (n = 20). Characteristics of patients who experienced late BPAR were largely consistent with those who did not experience late BPAR, with the exception of number of hospital readmissions, which was higher among patients who experienced late BPAR. The frequency distribution of PDC and MPR exhibited a skewed left distribution, with a median PDC of 0.972 and a median MPR of 1.000. Higher PDC was associated with lower odds of late BPAR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.417) in multivariable analysis, as was a higher MPR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.419).

CONCLUSIONS

MPR and PDC may be calculated from data available to pharmacies and health plans, and each was associated with 3-year late BPAR among patients who did not experience early BPAR. However, the construct validity of these medication adherence measures requires further study.

DISCLOSURES

This study was not funded. The authors report no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial interests related to the products or services discussed in this article. Study concept and design were contributed by Hofmeyer, along with Look and Hager. Hager took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Look, along with the other authors. The manuscript was primarily written by Hofmeyer, assisted by Look and Hager, and revised by all of the authors.

Achievement of Glycated Hemoglobin Goals in the US Remains Unchanged Through 2014

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has found that the percentage of US adults with diabetes achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target of <7.0% with currently available treatments has been fairly constant from 2003 to 2010, remaining at just over 50% [1]. The objective of this study was to compare the most recent data (2011-2014) with earlier data to track progress on HbA1c target achievement, for both the general target of <7.0% and inferred individualized targets based on age and the presence of complications.

METHODS

Data from 2677 adults with self-reported diabetes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2014 were examined to determine the percentage of adults who achieved HbA1c targets of <7% and an individualized target based on age and comorbidities. National estimates are reported by using weights that account for the complex sampling design of the NHANES.

RESULTS

The percentage of people with diabetes and HbA1c <7.0% slightly declined from 52.2% (95% CI 48.7-55.7%) to 50.9% (95% CI 47.2-54.7%) between the two most recent waves of data. Achievement of individualized targets declined from 69.8% (95% CI 66.5-73.0%) to 63.8% (95% CI 60.1-67.5%). The percentage with HbA1c >9.0% increased from 12.6% (95% CI 10.5-14.8%) to 15.5% (95% CI 12.9-18.2%). Achievement of individualized targets varied by age group and presence of comorbidities, but exhibited similar trends as general target achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the development of many new medications to treat diabetes during the past decade, the proportion of patients achieving glycemic control targets has not improved.

FUNDING

Intarcia Therapeutics.