Monday, January 08, 2024

U$A

Study highlights barriers to contraceptive access for disabled Medicare enrollees


Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH




PITTSBURGH — Contraceptive use is low among reproductive-aged people with disabilities who are enrolled in Medicare, according to a new study from the University of Pittsburgh that highlights how lack of contraceptive coverage by Medicare may prevent disabled enrollees from accessing contraception.

Published today in the January issue of Health Affairs, the study provides the first national overview of contraceptive use among enrollees in Medicare, the government health insurance for people over 65 and for people with qualifying disabilities. The researchers say that policy changes are needed to expand contraception coverage in Medicare and to ensure more equitable health care for people with disabilities, who already face barriers to reproductive health care and have higher rates of pregnancy complications and deaths than nondisabled people.

“The federal government requires that commercial insurers and Medicaid cover all contraceptive methods without cost sharing, but there is no similar requirement for Medicare, which means that disabled enrollees may not be able to access contraception or their preferred method of contraception,” said lead author Jacqueline Ellison, Ph.D., M.P.H., assistant professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Pitt School of Public Health. “People with disabilities are already marginalized and experience barriers to accessing health care. It is unjust that they face additional cost-related barriers to receiving their contraceptive method of choice.”

Medicare does not require coverage for contraception to prevent pregnancies but may cover certain contraceptives for clinical indications such as endometriosis. Oral contraception may also be covered by Part D, an optional drug coverage benefit that costs extra. Patients may also be covered for other contraceptive methods by enrolling in Medicare Advantage, which is provided by private companies that contract with Medicare, but the scope of coverage depends on the company.

This complicated insurance landscape means that people with disabilities may not be able to access contraception or may be forced to pay out of pocket to access their preferred method of contraception.

In 2019, Medicare was the primary health insurance coverage for about 1.38 million reproductive-aged females with disabilities: About 941,000 had traditional Medicare and about 444,000 had Medicare Advantage. To understand more about patterns of contraceptive use among this population, Ellison and her team used two databases of insurance claims to analyze a study sample representing 17.2% of traditional Medicare and 9.5% of Medicare Advantage populations.

The researchers found that contraceptive use was low among reproductive-aged females with disabilities. Just 14.3% of traditional Medicare enrollees and 16.3% of those with Medicare Advantage had an insurance claim for contraception in 2019. In comparison, another study found that about 25% of reproductive-aged females with Medicaid — which is required to cover all forms of contraception — had such a claim in 2018.

The analysis also showed variation in contraceptive methods by type of Medicare coverage. For example, Medicare Advantage enrollees were about four times more likely to use an intrauterine device and 10 times more likely to have tubal ligation than those with traditional Medicare.

“This variation isn’t due to patient preference: There’s no reason that people with Medicare Advantage would be so much more likely than those with traditional Medicare to prefer using the intrauterine device or undergoing tubal sterilization,” explained Ellison. “This is a function of Medicare not requiring coverage for the full range of contraceptive methods.”

Medicare enrollees with noncontraceptive indications — such as acne, endometriosis, menstrual pain and irregular bleeding — were nearly twice as likely to use contraceptives as those without such an indication. This finding may highlight the importance of contraceptives for reasons beyond pregnancy prevention, or it may reflect clinicians documenting such an indication to help their patients get contraception when they otherwise would not have coverage.

“People with disabilities are more vulnerable to interference by guardians and clinicians in their reproductive decision making,” said Ellison. “It’s critical that, while ensuring access to the full range of contraceptive methods, we protect people with disabilities against such interference by ensuring contraceptive care provided in the Medicare program is truly person-centered.”

Other authors on the study were Sabnum Pudasainy, M.S., Deirdre Quinn, Ph.D., M.P.H, Sonya Borrero, M.D., M.S., Iris Olson, M.P.H., Qingwen Chen, M.S., and Marian Jarlenski, Ph.D., M.P.H., all of Pitt; and Meghan Bellerose, M.P.H., and Theresa I. Shireman, Ph.D., of Brown University.

This research was supported by the National Institute for Reproductive Health (5717077).

U$A

New research identifies high rates and common causes of diagnostic errors in hospitals across the nation


Efforts and initiatives are underway across the country to address and prevent the causes of diagnostic errors

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL




Almost a quarter of patients who were admitted to the ICU or died in 29 hospitals in the United States experienced a diagnostic error

Efforts and initiatives are underway across the country to address and prevent the causes of diagnostic errors

A new study from researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a founding member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, in collaboration with researchers at the University of California San Francisco, has shed light on the rate and impact of diagnostic errors in hospital settings. In an analysis of electronic health records from 29 hospitals across the country of 2,428 patients who had either been transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or died in the hospital, the researchers found 550 patients (23%) experienced a diagnostic error, the majority of which were harmful to the patient. The researchers also determined the most common causes of diagnostic errors. The study was published January 8 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

“We know diagnostic errors are dangerous and hospitals are obviously interested in reducing their frequency, but it’s much harder to do this when we don’t know what’s causing these errors or what their direct impact is on individual patients,” said senior author Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, of the Brigham’s Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care“We found that diagnostic errors can largely be attributed to either errors in testing, or errors in assessing patients, and this knowledge gives us new opportunities to solve these problems.”

Diagnostic errors are defined in medicine as any failure to either accurately explain a patient’s health problem or a failure to communicate that information to the patient. Some national efforts are currently underway to detect and address their causes, including DECODE, a Diagnostic Centers of Excellence program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital that focuses on decreasing diagnostic errors in medical imaging by implementing and evaluating a highly resilient system for care planning and coordination, as well as a peer learning system for clinical providers. Other projects underway that involve BWH researchers include projects to address cases and causes of delayed diagnosis of cancerexplore how electronic health records contribute to diagnostic errors and more.

To date, few studies have quantified the prevalence of diagnostic errors in hospitals or their most common underlying causes. In this study, cases were assessed for diagnostic errors by teams of two physicians who received extensive training in error adjudication and utilized multiple quality control steps. They found that 550 of the patients in their cohort (23%) experienced a diagnostic error in the hospital. Of these, 486 (17% of all patients) experienced some form of harm because of these errors. Of the 1,863 patients who died, the researchers judged that a diagnostic error was a contributing factor in 121 cases (6.6%).

“It appears to be that only a minority of deaths in hospitals are linked to diagnostic errors, but even a single patient death that might have been prevented with a better diagnostic process is one death too many,” said Schnipper.  

The researchers found that most errors were attributable to errors in assessing patients, or errors in ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests.

“These two parts of the diagnostic process feed directly into each other,” said Schnipper. “If you don’t think of the correct possible diagnosis during your assessment of a patient, you’re not going to order the right tests. And if you order the wrong test or order the right test but misinterpret the result, this will inevitably change how you then assess a patient.”

While the research demonstrates the dangers that diagnostic errors can pose to patients, the researchers maintain that the rate of diagnostic errors in their specific population of patients, which were all patients who experienced bad outcomes, does not represent the general rate of diagnostic errors across hospitals. The researchers are next exploring how health systems can implement surveillance systems to catch diagnostic errors as they occur, compare results across hospitals, and start pilot testing possible solutions.

“Our study does not tell us the overall frequency of diagnostic errors in the hospital, but it does tell us that there’s more we can be doing to prevent these types of errors from occurring,” said Schnipper.

Authorship: Authors of the study include Andrew D. Auerbach, Tiffany M. Lee, Colin C. Hubbard, Sumant R. Ranji, Katie Raffel, Gilmer Valdes, John Boscardin, Anuj K. Dalal (BWH), Alyssa Harris, and Ellen Flynn for the UPSIDE Research Group.

Disclosures: The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding: This study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS027369).

Paper cited: Auerbach, AD et al. “Diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to intensive care” JAMA Internal Medicine DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.7347

 

 

Hospital care at home benefits medically complex, socially vulnerable patients


Current acute hospital care at home waiver expires December 2024


Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS





Annals of Internal Medicine Tip Sheet   

@Annalsofim  
Below please find summaries of new articles that will be published in the next issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. The summaries are not intended to substitute for the full articles as a source of information. This information is under strict embargo and by taking it into possession, media representatives are committing to the terms of the embargo not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the organization they represent.  
----------------------------  

1. Hospital care at home benefits medically complex, socially vulnerable patients

Current acute hospital care at home waiver expires December 2024

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-2264

URL goes live when the embargo lifts  

A study of more than 5,000 adults found that acute hospital care at home (AHCaH) may provide important benefits to a diverse group of medically complex and socially vulnerable patients. Hospital care at home also was associated with low mortality, escalation, and readmission rates. However, the current AHCaH waiver issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is set to expire in December 2024. The report is published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Hospitalization is the standard of care for acute illness, but hospital care is often expensive, unsafe, and uncomfortable. Prior research has shown that compared with traditional inpatient hospital care, patients cared for in AHCaH have improved experiences and physical activity levels, with lower rates of mortality, readmission, and discharge to skilled-nursing facilities. In November 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued the AHCaH waiver, creating a regulatory and payment pathway for hospitals to deliver AHCaH. However, this waiver is set to expire in December 2024.

 

Researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School analyzed data for 5,132 patients receiving AHCaH between July 2022 and June 2023. Of the patients studied, 42.5 percent had heart failure, 43.3 percent had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 22.1 percent had cancer, and 16.1 percent had dementia. AHCaH was associated with low rates of mortality, escalation, skilled nursing facility use, and readmission. According to the authors, their data provide preliminary evidence on national uptake and suggest that AHCaH is an important care model to manage acute illness, including among socially vulnerable and medically complex patients. They suggest that these data should help inform ongoing policy deliberations.

 

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Angela Collom at acollom@acponline.org. To speak with the corresponding author, David M. Levine, MD, MPH, MA, please email Haley Bridger at hbridger@mgb.org.

----------------------------  

2. In real world study, BNT162b2 bivalent vaccine provides substantial protection against severe illness from Delta and Omicron variants in pediatric patients

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-1754       

URL goes live when the embargo lifts   

In a real-world study, the BNT162b2 bivalent vaccine proved to be highly effective against COVID-19 during the Delta period. There was a moderate decline in effectiveness against the Omicron variant after 4 months, but the vaccine still provided significant protection against severe outcomes, including hospital admissions. The vaccine was safe, with no indication of heart-related complications. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine used electronic health record data from a national network of U.S. pediatric medical centers to assess the real-world effectiveness of BNT162b2 among children and adolescents during the periods when the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 were predominant. The researchers used a novel comparative effectiveness research method and adjusted for underreporting issues in vaccination status.

 

The researchers found that during the Delta variant period, the BNT162b2 vaccine showed an estimated effectiveness of 98.4 percent against getting infected with COVID-19 among adolescents. The effectiveness didn't significantly decrease after receiving the first vaccine dose. During the Omicron variant period, the effectiveness against documented infection among children dropped to 74.3 percent. However, the vaccine seemed to provide significant protection against more severe infection and hospital admission due to COVID-19. Among adolescents, the effectiveness against Omicron infection was 85.5 percent, with higher effectiveness against more severe outcomes. The effectiveness of the vaccine against the Omicron variant declined four months after the first dose but then stabilized. An analysis did not find an increased risk of heart-related complications after vaccination.

 

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Angela Collom at acollom@acponline.org. To speak with the corresponding author, Yong Chen, PhD, please email ychen123@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

----------------------------  

3. Two doses of the herpes zoster vaccine provides strong and lasting protection against shingles

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-2023    
 URL goes live when the embargo lifts   
 A real-world study of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) found that two doses provided strong and lasting protection against  herpes zoster , or shingles, even in patients at higher risk for the disease , such as those taking corticosteroids. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Shingles is a painful rash with complications that include persistent burning pain at the site of the initial rash, known as postherpetic neuralgia. The incidence and severity of shingles increase markedly with age and immunocompromising conditions. A 2-dose series of RZV has been shown to be very effective in clinical trials, but the long-term effectiveness has not been extensively studied in real-world settings.

 

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Northern California studied data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of RZV against acquiring shingles. The outcome was incident shingles defined by a diagnosis with an antiviral prescription. The researchers used a Cox regression model to compare the risk of getting shingles in people who were vaccinated versus those who were not. Other factors that could affect the risk, such as age or other health conditions were accounted for in the model. The researchers found that the RZV vaccine provided a high level of protection that didn't decrease much over 4 years. Among people taking corticosteroids, medications that can weaken the immune system, the vaccine still showed substantial effectiveness. According to the authors, this is important because people on corticosteroids are at a higher risk of getting shingles. The study also revealed that the effectiveness of just one dose of the vaccine decreased after a year, supporting the current recommendation for people to get a second dose. These findings support the existing guideline recommending a two-dose regimen for optimal protection.

 

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Angela Collom at acollom@acponline.org. To speak with the corresponding author, Ousseny Zerbo, PhD, please e-mail ousseny.x.zerbo@kp.org.

----------------------------  

 

 

 

 

Residential addiction treatment for U.S. teens is scarce, expensive


OHSU-led study suggests it’s crucial to improve treatment in outpatient settings, including primary care


Peer-Reviewed Publication

OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY




Despite an alarming increase in overdose deaths among young people nationwide, a new “secret shopper”-style study led by Oregon Health & Science University researchers finds that access to residential addiction treatment centers for adolescents in the United States is limited and costly.

The study, published today in the January issue of the journal Health Affairs, found that about half of the sites reported a wait time, and among those the average wait was almost a month. For those who do manage to find a placement, the average daily cost is $878 — with close to half of the facilities that provided information requiring partial or full payment upfront. For the average residential facility, the average quoted cost of a month’s stay is about $26,000.

“If you are a family in crisis and you have a kid for whom outpatient treatment is not an option, you hope to be able to call the closest residential facility to you and have access to timely, safe, affordable care for your child,” said lead author Caroline King, M.D., Ph.D., who conducted the study as a medical student at OHSU and now serves as an emergency medicine resident in the Yale School of Medicine. “This study shows that affordable, timely and effective treatment is severely lacking for the most vulnerable kids in our population.”

Researchers posed as the aunt or uncle of a 16-year-old seeking treatment after a recent non-fatal fentanyl overdose, inquiring about admission and costs. They identified a total of 160 residential treatment centers in the country primarily through a database maintained by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and extracted cost information for 108 facilities.

For-profit treatment centers were more likely to have space available — but at roughly triple the cost of non-profit facilities, on average.

In the midst of an overdose epidemic supercharged by cheap, potent and readily available fentanyl, overdose rates have risen nationwide among young people in recent years. The steep cost and scarce access to residential addiction treatment leaves many kids untreated and vulnerable to overdose, or their families susceptible to significant economic hardship, study leaders said.

King noted that some sites offered loans through an outside provider, or suggested alternatives such as taking out a second mortgage on a home or putting it on a new credit card.

The situation highlights the importance of providing addiction treatment across the medical field as opposed to relying on residential inpatient centers that are scarce, expensive and often ineffective, researchers said.

“When your kid is in a crisis and needs treatment, it can be terrifying to know where to turn. Many parents or family members will look first for residential care and find the experience profoundly disheartening,” said senior author Ryan Cook, Ph.D., research and training scientist for addiction medicine at OHSU. “Systems-level changes are needed to ensure effective, affordable treatment options for adolescents.”

King agreed.

“The solution isn’t to build new treatment centers,” she said. “It’s to strengthen care for addiction in primary care settings.”

This study follows previous OHSU-led research revealing that only one in four of these centers provide buprenorphine, a proven medication to treat opioid use disorder that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for people age 16 or older.

For more information on substance and mental health treatment programs in your area, call the free and confidential National Helpline 1-800-662-HELP (4357) or visit www.FindTreatment.gov. 

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health, award K23DA045085, R01DA057566, K23DA044324 and UG1DA01581; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality award T32HS017589; and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute award UL1TR002369 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.