暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians play a critical role in mitigating the opioid epidemic in public health.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prescribing of emergency physicians for opioids among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the Part D program from 2013 to 2019.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber data, focusing on opioid claims between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome variables evaluated included proportion of opioid claims, trends of the most prescribed opioids, cost of opioid claims, and days\' supply per claim.
RESULTS: A total of 63,586 emergency physicians were identified over the study period. Opioid prescription by emergency physicians decreased from 14.45% to 11.55%, and the cost spent on opioid drugs declined by 50%. The use of drugs such as hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone-acetaminophen declined substantially, whereas tramadol and acetaminophen-codeine prescription increased. The opioid prescribing rate and days\' supply also decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: The decline in traditional opioid agents such as hydrocodone-acetaminophen was partly offset by an increase in opioids like tramadol, which carry additional potential adverse events. Opioid prescribing rate, average days\' supply, and cost of opioid drugs significantly decreased from 2015 to 2019, after a spike in 2015. All regions observed a decrease in emergency physicians, but opioid prescribing rates varied across regions. These trends highlight successful opioid stewardship practices in some areas and the need for further development in others. This information can aid in designing tailored guidelines and policies for emergency physicians to promote effective opioid stewardship practices.

In the US, there are no effective regulations controlling how much the price of a medication can increase. A patchwork of studies examining the reasons for soaring prices has focused on medications that have received considerable media attention, like insulin, epinephrine, and colchicine.
To identify the 50 medications with the greatest increase in average spending per beneficiary and the 50 medications with the greatest decrease in average spending per beneficiary, and to identify the factors associated with spending increases.
This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program from 2014 to 2020. We included drugs dispensed to > 1000 beneficiaries in each study year and excluded those primarily administered intravenously.
Percentage change in average spending per beneficiary from 2014 to 2020 was calculated for each drug. For each drug, we extracted the number of beneficiaries, the number of manufacturers, and the drug-specific total annual spending reported in the Medicare Part D data set. An online database search was conducted to identify the primary clinical indication, the availability of any generic versions, and the date of FDA approval for each drug.
The 50 medications with the greatest increase in spending per beneficiary had a median increase of 362.4% (interquartile range [IQR]: 286.6%-563.0%), with a cumulative spending of almost $5 billion in 2020 alone. Most drugs with the greatest increases in spending per beneficiary had generic versions available (68%) and were approved by the FDA over 10 years ago (66%). Medications with the greatest increase in spending per beneficiary had a median of 1 manufacturer (IQR: 1-2), while medications with the greatest decrease in spending per beneficiary had a median of 9.5 manufacturers (IQR: 5-14).
This study identified rapidly increasing costs of medications under Medicare Part D. Our findings demonstrate that off-patent medications can skyrocket in price, especially when there are few manufacturers of a given medication.

Opioid and benzodiazepine co-prescribing is associated with a substantial increase in opioid overdose deaths. In this study, we examine the prescribing trends of substitutes of opioids and benzodiazepines alone or in combination, compared with opioids and benzodiazepines.
Retrospective cohort study.
Data were collected using a 20% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2018.
4.1-4.3 million enrollees each year from 2013 to 2018.
None.
We employ a generalised linear mixed models to calculate ORs for opioid use, benzodiazepine or Z-drug (benzos/Z-drugs) use, opioid/benzos/Z-drugs 30-day use, gabapentinoid use and (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)) use, adjusted for the repeated measure of patient. We then created two models to calculate the ORs for each year and comparing to 2013.
Opioid and benzos/Z-drugs use decreased by 2018 (aOR 0.626; 95% CI 0.622 to 0.630) comparing to 2013. We demonstrate a 36.3% and 9.9% increase rate of gabapentinoid and SSRI/SNRI use, respectively. Furthermore, combined gabapentinoid and SSRI/SNRI use increased in 2018 (aOR 1.422; 95% CI 1.412 to 1.431).
Little is known about the prescribing pattern and trend of opioid and benzodiazepine alternatives as analgesics. There is a modest shift from prescribing opioid and benzos/Z-drugs (alone or in combination) towards prescribing non-opioid analgesics-gabapentinoids with and without non-benzos/Z-drugs that are indicated for anxiety. It is unclear if this trend towards opioid/benzos/Z-drugs alternatives is associated with fewer drug overdose death, better control of pain and comorbid anxiety, and improved quality of life.

The rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians\' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin.
Using the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation.
Industry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians\' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.

There has been a reduction in BZD prescribing in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system since 2013. It is unknown whether the decline in VA-dispensed BZDs has been offset by Medicare Part D prescriptions.
To examine (1) whether, accounting for Part D, declines in BZD prescribing to older Veterans remain; (2) patient characteristics associated with obtaining BZDs outside VA and facility variation in BZD source (VA only, VA and Part D, Part D only).
Retrospective cohort study with mixed effects multinomial logistic model examining characteristics associated with BZD source.
A total of 1,746,278 Veterans aged ≥65 enrolled in VA and Part D, 2013-2017.
BZD prescription prevalence and source.
From January 2013 to June 2017, the quarterly prevalence of older Veterans with Part D filling BZD prescriptions through the VA declined from 5.2 to 3.1% (p<0.001) or, accounting for Part D, from 10.0 to 7.7% (p<0.001). Among those prescribed BZDs between July 2016 and June 2017, 37.0%, 10.2%, and 52.8% received prescriptions from VA only, both VA and Part D, or Part D only, respectively. Older age was associated with higher odds of obtaining BZDs through Part D (e.g., compared to those 65-74, Veterans ≥85 had adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for Part D vs. VA only of 1.8 [95% highest posterior density interval (HPDI), 1.69, 1.86]). Veterans with substance use disorders accounted for few BZD prescriptions from any source but were associated with higher odds of prescriptions through Part D (e.g., alcohol use disorder AOR for Part D vs. VA alone: 1.9 [95% HPDI, 1.63, 2.11]) CONCLUSIONS: The decline in BZD use by older Veterans with Part D coverage remained after accounting for Part D, but the majority of BZD prescriptions came from Medicare. Further reducing BZD prescribing to older Veterans should consider prescriptions from community sources.

HIV medication adherence is a topic of major public health concern in the United States. Adherent patients may be less likely to experience treatment failure, AIDS presentations and extreme medical costs. We evaluate a cohort of highly adherent Medicare beneficiaries to establish if the out of pocket costs of HIV medications are an inherent barrier to adherence. We analyzed a 100% sample of Medicare Part-D prescription medications. The drug and out ofpocket costs for HIV and non-HIV medications of highly adherent cohort were extracted and analyzed. The average gross drug cost per beneficiary was $34,029for HIV medications and $11,439for non-HIV medications. Average out of pocket costs per beneficiary was $454for HIV medications and $129 for non-HIV medications. Out of pocket costs do not reasonably appear to be a barrier to adherence for Part-D beneficiaries.

Policy Points  Spending on prescription drugs is much higher per capita in the United States than in most other industrialized nations, including France.  Lower prescription drug spending in France is due to different approaches to managing drug prices, volume of prescribing, and global health budgets.  Linking a drug\'s price to value both at the launch of the drug and over its lifetime is key to controlling spending. Regulations on prescription volume and global spending complement the interventions on prices.  If the United States adopted the French approach to regulating drug pricing, Medicare could potentially save billions of dollars annually on prescription drug spending.
Prescription drug spending per capita in the United States is higher than in most other industrialized countries. Policymakers seeking to lower drug spending often suggest benchmarking prices against other countries, including France, which spends half as much as the United States per capita on prescription drugs. Because differences in drug prices may result from how markets are organized in each nation, we sought to directly compare drug prices and pricing regulations between the United States and France.
For the six brand-name drugs with the highest gross expenditures in Medicare Part D in 2017, we compared the price dynamics in France and the United States between 2010 and 2018 and analyzed associations between price changes in each country and key regulatory events. We also comprehensively reviewed US and French laws and regulations related to drug pricing.
Prices for the six drugs studied were higher in the United States than in France. In 2018, if Medicare had paid French prices for the brand-name drugs in our cohort, the agency would have saved $5.1 billion. We identified 12 factors that explain why the United States spends more than France on drugs, including variations in unit prices and the volume of prescriptions, driven by use of health technology assessment and value-based pricing in France.
Key drivers of lower drug spending in France compared to the United States are that the French government regulates drug prices when products are launched and prohibits substantial price increases after launch. The regulation of prescription drugs in France is governed by rules that can inform discussions of US prescription drug policy and potential Medicare price negotiations.

Dosing limits in opioid clinical practice guidelines in the United States are likely misapplied to cancer patients, however, opioid use may be difficult to ascertain as they are largely excluded from opioid use studies.
The primary objective was to determine whether cancer patients were more likely to be chronic opioid users after diagnosis. We described prescription opioid use among U.S. older adult cancer patients during two time periods, within 2 years of diagnosis (short-term) and at least 2 years beyond diagnosis (long-term), compared to those without cancer (controls). Among participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial with linkages to Medicare Part D data during 2011-2015, we used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between cancer diagnosis and opioid use outcomes controlling for demographics. The primary outcome of opioid use was measured with the following metrics: Any opioid use, chronic use (90 consecutive days supply of opioid use while allowing for a 7-day gap between refills), high use (average daily morphine equivalent (MME) ≥120 mg for any 90-day period), and total MME dose above 2,000 mg (MME2000 ).
The short-term cohort included 1,491 cancer patients and 24,930 controls. Any use in the 2-year post-diagnosis period was higher among cancer patients OR 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0-3.7). Chronic use rates were similar by cancer status (4.6% vs. 3.8% for cases and controls, respectively). The long-term cohort included 4,377 cancer patients and 27,545 controls. Rates of any use were similar among cancer patients and controls (63% vs. 59%).
Any opioid use was similar among long-term cancer survivors compared to controls, but differed among short-term survivors for any opioid use and marginally for chronic opioid use.

Pain medicine physicians (PMP) are a group of physicians with background training in various primary specialties with interest and expertise in managing chronic pain disorders. Our objective is to analyze prescription drug (PD) claims from the Medicare Part D program associated with PMP to gain insights into patterns, associated costs, and potential cost savings areas.
The primary data source for Part D claims data is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, which contains Medicare Part D prescription drug events (PDE) records received through the claims submission cutoff date. Only providers with taxonomies of pain management (PM) and interventional pain management (IPM) were included in the study. The analysis of PDE was restricted to drugs with >250 claims. The distribution of claims and costs were analyzed based on drug class and provider specialty. Subsequently, we explored claims and expenses for opioid drug prescriptions in detail. Prescribing characteristics of the top 5% of providers by costs and claims were examined to gain additional insights. The costs and claims were explored for the top 10 drugs prescribed by PMP in 2017.
There were a total of unique 3280 PMP-prescribed drugs with an associated expense of 652 million dollars in the 2017 Medicare Part D program. Prescriptions related to PMP account for a tiny fraction of the program\'s drug expenditure (0.4%). Opioids, anticonvulsants, and gabapentinoids were associated with the largest number of claims and the largest expenses within this fraction. Among opioid drug prescriptions, brand-named drugs account for a small fraction of claims (8%) compared to generic drugs. However, the expenses associated with brand name drugs were higher than generic drugs. Prescribers in the top 5% by PD costs had a higher number of claims, prescribed a higher proportion of branded medications, and had prescriptions associated with longer day supply compared to an average PMP. There were several opioid medications in the top 10 PD list by cost associated with PMP.
Opioids were the most common medications among Medicare part D claims prescribed by PMP. Only 12% of the total opioid PD claims were by PMP. The top 5% of PMP prescribers had 10 times more claims than the average PMP.