Vicki Fung

BACKGROUND: Little information exists about the consequences of limits on prescription-drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We compared the clinical and economic outcomes in 2003 among 157,275 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries whose annual drug benefits were capped at 1,000 dollars and 41,904 beneficiaries whose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements. RESULTS: After adjusting for individual characteristics, we found that subjects whose benefits were capped had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped (95 percent confidence interval, 29 to 33 percent) but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, -4 to 6 percent). Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department (relative rate, 1.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.14]), nonelective hospitalizations (relative rate, 1.13 [1.05 to 1.21]), and death (relative rate, 1.22 [1.07 to 1.38]; difference, 0.68 per 100 person-years [0.30 to 1.07]). Among subjects who used drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes in 2002, those whose benefits were capped were more likely to be nonadherent to long-term drug therapy in 2003; the respective odds ratios were 1.30 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.38), 1.27 (1.19 to 1.34), and 1.33 (1.18 to 1.48) for subjects using drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. In each subgroup, the physiological outcomes were worse for subjects whose drug benefits were capped than for those whose benefits were not capped; the odds ratios were 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.09), 1.13 (1.03 to 1.25), and 1.23 (1.03 to 1.46), respectively, for subjects with a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more, a serum low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol level of 130 mg per deciliter or more, and a glycated hemoglobin level of 8 percent or more. CONCLUSIONS: A cap on drug benefits was associated with lower drug consumption and unfavorable clinical outcomes. In patients with chronic disease, the cap was associated with poorer adherence to drug therapy and poorer control of blood pressure, lipid levels, and glucose levels. The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate resource use represents a critical challenge in health services research. The New York University Emergency Department (NYU ED) visit severity algorithm attempts to classify visits to the ED based on diagnosis, but it has not been formally validated. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of the NYU algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal study in a single integrated delivery system from January 1999 to December 2001. SUBJECTS: A total of 2,257,445 commercial and 261,091 Medicare members of an integrated delivery system. MEASURES: ED visits were classified as emergent, nonemergent, or intermediate severity, using the NYU ED algorithm. We examined the relationship between visit-severity and the probability of future hospitalizations and death using a logistic model with a general estimating equation approach. RESULTS: Among commercially insured subjects, ED visits categorized as emergent were significantly more likely to result in a hospitalization within 1-day (odds ratio = 3.37, 95% CI: 3.31-3.44) or death within 30-days (odds ratio = 2.81, 95% CI: 2.62-3.00) than visits categorized as nonemergent. We found similar results in Medicare patients and in sensitivity analyses using different probability thresholds. ED overuse for nonemergent conditions was not related to socio-economic status or insurance type. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence presented supports the validity of the NYU ED visit severity algorithm for differentiating ED visits based on need for hospitalization and/or mortality risk; therefore, it can contribute to evidence-based policies aimed at reducing the use of the ED for nonemergencies.

Importance: There is limited information about health care use and costs in patients with functional neurological disorders (FNDs). Objective: To assess US emergency department (ED) and inpatient use and charges for FNDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data to assess all-payer (1) adult (age, ≥18 years) hospitalizations (2008-2017), (2) pediatric (age, 5-17 years) hospitalizations (2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016), and (3) adult and pediatric ED evaluations (2008-2017). International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 300.11 (conversion disorder) or 306.0 (musculoskeletal malfunction arising from mental factors) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for conversion disorder/functional neurological symptom disorder (F44.4 to F44.7) were used to conservatively define FNDs and to compare them with other neurological disorders that are associated with high levels of health care use. Analysis was performed between January 2019 and July 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Admission traits (eg, demographic characteristics of patients, length of stay, and discharge disposition) and hospital charges. Results: Compared with other neurological disorders in 2017, emergency FND evaluations of 36 359 adults (25 807 women [71.0%] and 3800 children (2733 girls [71.9%]) more frequently resulted in inpatient admissions (22 895 adult admissions [69.2% female] and 1264 pediatric admissions [73.4% ]). These FND admissions had a shorter mean (SEM) hospital length of stay (5.21 [0.15] days vs 6.03 [0.03] days, P < .001) but higher workup rates than admissions for comparable neurological diagnoses. Admissions for FNDs had low rates of inpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language pathology, and psychiatric consultation. The total annual costs (a proxy for total costs in 2017 US dollars) were $1066 million (95% CI, $971-$1160 million) for adult FND inpatient charges in 2017 compared with $1241 million (95% CI, $1132-$1351 million) for anterior horn cell disease; $75 million (95% CI, $57-$92 million) for pediatric FND inpatient charges in 2012 compared with $86 million (95% CI, $63-$108 million) for demyelinating diseases; and $163 million (95% CI, $144-$182 million) for adult and pediatric ED visits in 2017 compared with $135 million (95% CI $111-$159 million) for refractory epilepsy. Total charges per admission for ED care of FNDs were higher than the other comparison groups in adults. Total costs and costs per admission for FNDs increased from 2008 to 2017 at a higher rate than that of other neurological disorders. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that the more than $1.2 billion and increasing annual costs for ED and inpatient care of FNDs were similar to other investigation-intensive and pharmacologically demanding neurological disorders. Unnecessary investigations and iatrogenic harm inflate costs at the expense of necessary but neglected psychiatric and rehabilitative treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of introducing health information technology (HIT) on physician-patient interactions during outpatient visits. DESIGN: This was a longitudinal pre-post study: two months before and one and seven months after introduction of examination room computers. Patient questionnaires (n = 313) after primary care visits with physicians (n = 8) within an integrated delivery system. There were three patient satisfaction domains: (1) satisfaction with visit components, (2) comprehension of the visit, and (3) perceptions of the physician's use of the computer. RESULTS: Patients reported that physicians used computers in 82.3% of visits. Compared with baseline, overall patient satisfaction with visits increased seven months after the introduction of computers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.22), as did satisfaction with physicians' familiarity with patients (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.01-2.52), communication about medical issues (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.05-2.47), and comprehension of decisions made during the visit (OR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.06-2.50). In contrast, there were no significant changes in patient satisfaction with comprehension of self-care responsibilities, communication about psychosocial issues, or available visit time. Seven months post-introduction, patients were more likely to report that the computer helped the visit run in a more timely manner (OR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.28-2.42) compared with the first month after introduction. There were no other significant changes in patient perceptions of the computer use over time. CONCLUSION: The examination room computers appeared to have positive effects on physician-patient interactions related to medical communication without significant negative effects on other areas such as time available for patient concerns. Further study is needed to better understand HIT use during outpatient visits.