This study examines cost sharing for novel second-line diabetes treatment agents under Medicare Part D.
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the differential ability of variables on transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) to predict heart failure (HF) readmission across the spectrum of left ventricular (LV) systolic function.
METHODS: We linked 15 years of TTE report data (1/6/2003-5/3/2018) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to complete Medicare claims. In those with recent HF, we evaluated the relationship between variables on baseline TTE and HF readmission, stratified by LVEF.
RESULTS: After excluding TTEs with uninterpretable diastology, 5,900 individuals (mean age: 76.9 years; 49.1% female) were included, of which 2545 individuals (41.6%) were admitted for HF. Diastolic variables augmented prediction compared to demographics, comorbidities, and echocardiographic structural variables (p < 0.001), though discrimination was modest (c-statistic = 0.63). LV dimensions and eccentric hypertrophy predicted HF in HF with reduced (HFrEF) but not preserved (HFpEF) systolic function, whereas LV wall thickness, NT-proBNP, pulmonary vein D- and Ar-wave velocities, and atrial dimensions predicted HF in HFpEF but not HFrEF (all interaction p < 0.10). Prediction of HF readmission was not different in HFpEF and HFrEF (p = 0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center echocardiographic study linked to Medicare claims, left ventricular dimensions and eccentric hypertrophy predicted HF readmission in HFrEF but not HFpEF and left ventricular wall thickness predicted HF readmission in HFpEF but not HFrEF. Regardless of LVEF, diastolic variables augmented prediction of HF readmission compared to echocardiographic structural variables, demographics, and comorbidities alone. The additional role of medication adherence, readmission history, and functional status in differential prediction of HF readmission by LVEF category should be considered for future study.
To assess the frequency and costs of revascularization procedures in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) initiating ranolazine versus traditional antianginals. Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of SIHD who initiated ranolazine or a traditional antianginal (beta-blocker [BB], calcium channel blocker [CCB], or long-acting nitrate [LAN]) as second or third line therapy between 2008 and 2016, were selected from the IBM MarketScan Databases. Inverse probability weighting based on propensity score was employed to balance the ranolazine and traditional antianginals cohorts on patient clinical characteristics. Outcomes assessed were frequency and total cost of revascularization procedures over a 12-month follow-up. A total of 108,741 patients with SIHD were included. Of these, 18% initiated treatment with ranolazine, 21% received BBs, 24% received CCBs, and 37% were treated with LANs. Revascularization rates were significantly lower in ranolazine patients (11%) than in BB (16%) and LAN (14%) patients (both p <0.001), and more comparable to CCB patients (10%; p = 0.007). Compared with BB and LAN, those in the ranolazine cohort were less likely to have a revascularization procedure during hospitalization and had a shorter length of stay if hospitalized (all p <0.001). The mean healthcare costs associated with revascularization were lower in ranolazine patients ($2,933) than in BB ($4,465) and LAN ($3,609) patients (p <0.001), but similar to CCB patients ($2,753; p = 0.29). In conclusion, ranolazine treatment in patients with SIHD was associated with fewer revascularization procedures and lower associated healthcare costs compared with patients initiating BB or LAN, and comparable to patients initiating CCBs.
BACKGROUND: The ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial included participants with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Compared with participants receiving statins alone, those receiving a statin plus alirocumab had lower rates of a composite outcome including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of alirocumab in these circumstances.
DESIGN: Decision analysis using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model.
DATA SOURCES: Data sources representative of the United States combined with data from the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.
TARGET POPULATION: U.S. adults with a recent first MI and a baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or greater.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health system.
INTERVENTION: Alirocumab or ezetimibe added to statin therapy.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2018 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with a statin alone, the addition of ezetimibe cost $81 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $51 000 to $215 000) per QALY. Compared with a statin alone, the addition of alirocumab cost $308 000 (UI, $197 000 to $678 000) per QALY. Compared with the combination of statin and ezetimibe, replacing ezetimibe with alirocumab cost $997 000 (UI, $254 000 to dominated) per QALY.
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The price of alirocumab would have to decrease from its original cost of $14 560 to $1974 annually to be cost-effective relative to ezetimibe.
LIMITATION: Effectiveness estimates were based on a single randomized trial with a median follow-up of 2.8 years and should not be extrapolated to patients with stable coronary heart disease.
CONCLUSION: The price of alirocumab would have to be reduced considerably to be cost-effective. Because substantial reductions already have occurred, we believe that timely, independent cost-effectiveness analyses can inform clinical and policy discussions of new drugs as they enter the market.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.
IMPORTANCE: Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act led to one of the largest gains in health insurance coverage for nonelderly adults in the United States. However, its association with cardiovascular mortality is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of Medicaid expansion with cardiovascular mortality rates in middle-aged adults.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a longitudinal, observational design, using a difference-in-differences approach with county-level data from counties in 48 states (excluding Massachusetts and Wisconsin) and Washington, DC, from 2010 to 2016. Adults aged 45 to 64 years were included. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to January 2019.
EXPOSURES: Residence in a Medicaid expansion state.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference-in-differences of annual, age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality rates from before Medicaid expansion to after expansion.
RESULTS: As of 2016, 29 states and Washington, DC, had expanded Medicaid eligibility, while 19 states had not. Compared with counties in Medicaid nonexpansion states, counties in expansion states had a greater decrease in the percentage of uninsured residents at all income levels (mean [SD], 7.3% [3.2%] vs 5.6% [2.7%]; P < .001) and in low income strata (19.8% [5.5%] vs 13.5% [3.9%]; P < .001) between 2010 and 2016. Counties in expansion states had a smaller change in cardiovascular mortality rates after expansion (146.5 [95% CI, 132.4-160.7] to 146.4 [95% CI, 131.9-161.0] deaths per 100 000 residents per year) than counties in nonexpansion states did (176.3 [95% CI, 154.2-198.5] to 180.9 [95% CI, 158.0-203.8] deaths per 100 000 residents per year). After accounting for demographic, clinical, and economic differences, counties in expansion states had 4.3 (95% CI, 1.8-6.9) fewer deaths per 100 000 residents per year from cardiovascular causes after Medicaid expansion than if they had followed the same trends as counties in nonexpansion states.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Counties in states that expanded Medicaid had a significantly smaller increase in cardiovascular mortality rates among middle-aged adults after expansion compared with counties in states that did not expand Medicaid. These findings suggest that recent Medicaid expansion was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged adults and may be of consideration as further expansion of Medicaid is debated.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of cannabis legalisation on health effects and healthcare utilisation in Colorado (CO), the first state to legalise recreational cannabis, when compared with two control states, New York (NY) and Oklahoma (OK).
DESIGN: We used the 2010 to 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project (HCUP) inpatient databases to compare changes in rates of healthcare utilisation and diagnoses in CO versus NY and OK.
SETTING: Population-based, inpatient.
PARTICIPANTS: HCUP state-wide data comprising over 28 million individuals and over 16 million hospitalisations across three states.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition codes to assess changes in healthcare utilisation specific to various medical diagnoses potentially treated by or exacerbated by cannabis. Diagnoses were classified based on weight of evidence from the National Academy of Science (NAS). Negative binomial models were used to compare rates of admissions between states.
RESULTS: In CO compared with NY and OK, respectively, cannabis abuse hospitalisations increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.28 and RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.17; both p<0.0005) post-legalisation. In CO, there was a reduction in total admissions but only when compared with OK (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98, p<0.0005). Length of stay and costs did not change significantly in CO compared with NY or OK. Post-legalisation changes most consistent with NAS included an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injury and a reduction in chronic pain admissions (all p<0.05 compared with each control state).
CONCLUSIONS: Recreational cannabis legalisation is associated with neutral effects on healthcare utilisation. In line with previous evidence, cannabis liberalisation is linked to an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injuries and a decrease in chronic pain admissions. Such population-level effects may help guide future decisions regarding cannabis use, prescription and policy.