Characteristics of dual drug benefit use among veterans with dementia enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Part D

Initiation and Persistence of Antipsychotic Medications at Hospital Discharge Among Community-Dwelling Veterans With Dementia

OBJECTIVES

Adults with dementia are frequently prescribed antipsychotic medications despite concerns that risks outweigh benefits. Understanding conditions where antipsychotics are initially prescribed, such as hospitalization, may offer insights into reducing inappropriate use.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling veterans with dementia aged ≥68 with VA hospitalizations in 2014, using Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare data.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was new outpatient antipsychotic prescription at hospital discharge. We used generalized estimating equations to study associations between antipsychotic initiation and patient, hospitalization, and facility characteristics. Among veterans with antipsychotic initiation, we used a cumulative incidence function to evaluate discontinuation in the year following hospitalization, accounting for competing risks.

RESULTS

4,719 community-dwelling veterans with dementia had VA hospitalizations in 2014; 264 (5.6%) filled new antipsychotic prescriptions at discharge. Antipsychotic initiation was associated with discharge unit (surgical vs medical, OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.87; psychiatric vs medical, OR 6.58, 95% CI 4.48-9.67), length of stay (OR 1.03/day, 95% CI 1.02-1.05), and delirium diagnosis (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.78-3.83), but not demographic or facility characteristics. Among veterans with antipsychotic initiation, the 1-year cumulative incidence of discontinuation was 18.2% (n = 47); 15.9% (n = 42) of those who were alive and not censored remained on antipsychotics at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic initiation at hospital discharge was uncommon among community-dwelling veterans with dementia; however, once initiated, antipsychotic persistence at 1 year was common among those who remained community-dwelling. Hospitalization is a contributor to potentially-inappropriate medications in the community, suggesting an opportunity for medication review after hospitalization.

Caregiver and provider perspectives on dual VA and Medicare Part D medication use in veterans with suspected dementia or cognitive impairment

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Many older veterans with dementia fill prescriptions through both Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D benefits. Dual VA/Part D medication use may have unintended negative consequences on prescribing safety and quality. We aimed to characterize benefits and drawbacks of dual VA/Part D medication use in veterans with dementia or cognitive impairment from the perspectives of caregivers and providers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on semistructured telephone interviews of 2 group: (1) informal caregivers accompanying veterans with suspected dementia or cognitive impairment to visits at a VA Geriatric Evaluation and Management clinic (n = 11) and (2) VA healthcare providers of veterans with dementia who obtained medications via VA and Part D (n = 12). We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with caregivers and providers about benefits and drawbacks of dual VA/Part D medication use. Interview transcripts were subjected to qualitative content analysis to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Caregivers and providers both described cost and convenience benefits to dual VA/Part D medication use. Caregivers reported drawbacks including poor communication between VA and non-VA providers and difficulty managing medications from multiple systems. Providers reported potential safety risks including communication barriers, conflicting care decisions, and drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study allow for understanding of potential policy interventions to better manage dual VA/Part D medication use for older veterans with dementia or cognitive impairment at a time when VA is expanding access to non-VA care.

Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Against Patients' Wishes and Change in Pain Severity

BACKGROUND

There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit from opioid medications for chronic pain and substantial evidence of potential harms. For patients, dose reduction may be beneficial when implemented voluntarily and supported by a multidisciplinary team but experts have advised against involuntary opioid reduction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of self-reported involuntary opioid reduction and to examine whether involuntary opioid reduction is associated with changes in pain severity.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care patients treated with long-term opioid therapy in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 290).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary exposure was self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction. The primary outcome was the three-item PEG scale, which measures past-week average pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life and general activity.

KEY RESULTS

Past year opioid reduction or discontinuation was reported by 63% (184/290). Similar numbers reported involuntary (88/290) and voluntary (96/290) opioid reduction. At baseline, there were no significant differences in pain severity between the groups (mean PEG, 7.08 vs. 6.73 vs. 7.07 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.32). For the primary outcome of change in pain severity from baseline to 18 months, there were no significant differences between groups (mean PEG change, - 0.05 vs. - 0.44 vs. - 0.23 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction was common among a national sample of veterans treated with long-term opioid therapy. Opioid dose reduction, whether involuntary or voluntary, was not associated with change in pain severity. Future studies should examine involuntary opioid reduction in different populations and trends over time and explore further patient- and provider-level factors that may impact patient experience and outcomes during opioid reduction.

Misalignment of Stakeholder Incentives in the Opioid Crisis

The current opioid epidemic has killed more than 446,000 Americans over the past two decades. Despite the magnitude of the crisis, little is known to what degree the misalignment of incentives among stakeholders due to competing interests has contributed to the current situation. In this study, we explore evidence in the literature for the working hypothesis that misalignment rooted in the cost, quality, or access to care can be a significant contributor to the opioid epidemic. The review identified several problems that can contribute to incentive misalignment by compromising the triple aims (cost, quality, and access) in this epidemic. Some of these issues include the inefficacy of conventional payment mechanisms in providing incentives for providers, practice guidelines in pain management that are not easily implementable across different medical specialties, barriers in adopting multi-modal pain management strategies, low capacity of providers/treatments to address opioid/substance use disorders, the complexity of addressing the co-occurrence of chronic pain and opioid use disorders, and patients' non-adherence to opioid substitution treatments. In discussing these issues, we also shed light on factors that can facilitate the alignment of incentives among stakeholders to effectively address the current crisis.

An Evaluation of Statin Use Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events Across Multiple Health Care Systems

BACKGROUND

Patients with more than one chronic condition often receive care from several providers and facilities, which may lead to fragmentation of care. Poor care coordination in dual health care system use has been associated with increased emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and costs.

OBJECTIVE

Dual health care system use is increasing among veterans, and we sought to evaluate the effect of dual health care system use on statin treatment in veterans with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events, using varying degrees of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) services.

METHODS

This was a 10-year retrospective longitudinal cohort study of national clinical and administrative data that included 689,138 veterans with type 2 diabetes who were aged 65 years or older on January 1, 2006. Patients were followed from January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2016. Administrative and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse were merged with CMS inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy data. Statin use was defined as any therapy and subcategorized as high versus low or moderate intensity per the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Marginal generalized estimating equation-type models for longitudinal data were used to model the association between dual health care utilization status (< 50%, 50%-80%, and > 80% VHA utilization, with the first group serving as the reference group) and statin use after adjusting for measured covariates.

RESULTS

The mean ages at baseline for each group were similar and ranged between 75.4 and 76.9 years. For the outcome of any statin use, the group with < 50% VHA utilization was significantly less likely to receive statin therapy compared with the group with > 80% VHA utilization (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.26-0.26), while the group with 50%-80% VHA utilization was slightly more likely (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07). Similarly, for the high-intensity versus low-/moderate-intensity or no statins outcome, the group with < 50% VHA utilization was significantly less likely to receive a high-intensity statin compared with the group with > 80% VHA utilization (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.55-0.57), while the group with 50%-80% VHA utilization was only slightly less likely (OR = 0.95, 95% CI =0.94-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Among veterans with diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events, dual health care system utilization status appeared to affect statin use. We observed lower odds for any statin use and high-intensity statin therapy among the cohort with the lowest degree of VHA utilization (i.e., < 50%). Interventions to increase statin use among veterans at high risk of cardiovascular events with lower degrees of VHA utilization should be explored.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by a grant funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs' Health Services Research and Development Service and was undertaken at the Health Equity and Rural Outreach Center (HEROIC) at Ralph H. Johnson Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Charleston, SC. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article. This article represents the views of the authors and not those of the Medical University of South Carolina or Veteran Health Administration.