Variation in Prices Charged to Patients for Specialty Intraocular Lenses Inserted during Universally Covered Cataract Surgery

Patients often pay for specialty intraocular lenses (IOLs) for cataract surgery covered by universal insurance. This practice creates the potential for inequitable pricing where the medical service provider is also the retailer. We measured the variation in prices between cataract surgeons for the same IOL and associated testing.We telephoned every cataract surgeon in Ontario, Canada, and asked their price for the most common type of specialty IOL as a prospective patient. We measured the total prices quoted and variation between providers.We contacted 404 ophthalmologists. There were 256 that performed cataract surgery but 127 offered the most commonly employed specialty IOL and would provide a price to patients over the telephone. We obtained prices from all 127 ophthalmologists. Prices for the same lens and associated testing varied substantially between ophthalmologists from $358 to$2790 (median $615, interquartile range$528-$915). There was variation in all components of the total out-of-pocket price, including the price for the IOL itself, charges for uninsured eye measurements, and non-specific supplemental fees.Although cataract surgery is covered by public health insurance, some ophthalmologists charge much more than others for the same specialty IOL and associated testing. Greater access to price information and better regulatory control could help ensure patients receive fair value for out-of-pocket health expenses

Duration and compliance with antidepressant treatment in immigrant and native-born populations in Spain: a four year follow-up descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-compliance with antidepressant treatment continues to be a complex problem in mental health care. In immigrant populations non-compliance is one of several barriers to adequate management of mental illness; some data suggest greater difficulties in adhering to pharmacological treatment in these groups and an increased risk of therapeutic failure.</p> <p>The aim of this study is to assess differences in the duration and compliance with antidepressant treatment among immigrants and natives in a Spanish health region.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Population-based (n=206,603), retrospective cohort study including all subjects prescribed ADT between 2007 and 2009 and recorded in the national pharmacy claims database. Compliance was considered adequate when the duration was longer than 4months and when patients withdrew more than 80% of the packs required.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>5334 subjects (8.5% of them being immigrants) initiated ADT. Half of the immigrants abandoned treatment during the second month (median for natives=3months). Of the immigrants who continued, only 29.5% presented good compliance (compared with 38.8% in natives). The estimated risk of abandoning/ending treatment in the immigrant group compared with the native group, adjusted for age and sex, was 1.28 (95%CI 1.16-1.42).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In the region under study, immigrants of all origins present higher percentages of early discontinuation of ADT and lower median treatment durations than the native population. Although this is a complex, multifactor situation, the finding of differences between natives and immigrants in the same region suggests the need to investigate the causes in greater depth and to introduce new strategies and interventions in this population group.</p

The association of health literacy with adherence in older 2 adults, and its role in interventions: a systematic meta-review

Background: Low health literacy is a common problem among older adults. It is often suggested to be associated with poor adherence. This suggested association implies a need for effective adherence interventions in low health literate people. However, previous reviews show mixed results on the association between low health literacy and poor adherence. A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews was conducted to study the association between health literacy and adherence in adults above the age of 50. Evidence for the effectiveness of adherence interventions among adults in this older age group with low health literacy was also explored. Methods: Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DARE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge) were searched using a variety of keywords regarding health literacy and adherence. Additionally, references of identified articles were checked. Systematic reviews were included if they assessed the association between health literacy and adherence or evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to improve adherence in adults with low health literacy. The AMSTAR tool was used to assess the quality of the included reviews. The selection procedure, data-extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Seventeen reviews were selected for inclusion. Results: Reviews varied widely in quality. Both reviews of high and low quality found only weak or mixed associations between health literacy and adherence among older adults. Reviews report on seven studies that assess the effectiveness of adherence interventions among low health literate older adults. The results suggest that some adherence interventions are effective for this group. The interventions described in the reviews focused mainly on education and on lowering the health literacy demands of adherence instructions. No conclusions could be drawn about which type of intervention could be most beneficial for this population. Conclusions: Evidence on the association between health literacy and adherence in older adults is relatively weak. Adherence interventions are potentially effective for the vulnerable population of older adults with low levels of health literacy, but the evidence on this topic is limited. Further research is needed on the association between health literacy and general health behavior, and on the effectiveness of interventions

Deprescribing interventions and their impact on medication adherence in community-dwelling older adults with polypharmacy: a systematic review

Background: Polypharmacy, and the associated adverse drug events such as non-adherence to prescriptions, is a common problem for elderly people living with multiple comorbidities. Deprescribing, i.e. the gradual withdrawal from medications with supervision by a healthcare professional, is regarded as a means of reducing adverse effects of multiple medications including non-adherence. This systematic review examines the evidence of deprescribing as an effective strategy for improving medication adherence amongst older, community dwelling adults. Methods: A mixed methods review was undertaken. Eight bibliographic database and two clinical trials registers were searched between May and December 2017. Results were double screened in accordance with pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria related to polypharmacy, deprescribing and adherence in older, community dwelling populations. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal and an a priori data collection instrument was used. For the quantitative studies, a narrative synthesis approach was taken. The qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis. Findings were integrated using a mixed methods technique. The review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA reporting statement. Results: A total of 22 original studies were included, of which 12 were RCTs. Deprescribing with adherence as an outcome measure was identified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational and cohort studies from 13 countries between 1996 and 2017. There were 17 pharmacy-led interventions; others were led by General Practitioners (GP) and nurses. Four studies demonstrated an overall reduction in medications of which all studies corresponded with improved adherence. A total of thirteen studies reported improved adherence of which 5 were RCTs. Adherence was reported as a secondary outcome in all but one study. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to show that deprescribing improves medication adherence. Only 13 studies (of 22) reported adherence of which only 5 were randomised controlled trials. Older people are particularly susceptible to non-adherence due to multi-morbidity associated with polypharmacy. Bio-psycho-social factors including health literacy and multi-disciplinary team interventions influence adherence. The authors recommend further study into the efficacy and outcomes of medicines management interventions. A consensus on priority outcome measurements for prescribed medications is indicated

Cholesterol treatment with statins: Who is left out and who makes it to goal?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Whether patient socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education) are independently associated with failure to receive indicated statin therapy and/or to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) therapy goals are not known. We examined socio-demographic factors associated with a) eligibility for statin therapy among those not on statins, and b) achievement of statin therapy goals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults (21-79 years) participating in the United States (US) National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1999-2006 were studied. Statin eligibility and achievement of target LDL-C was assessed using the US Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) on Treatment of High Cholesterol guidelines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 6,043 participants not taking statins, 10.4% were eligible. Adjusted predictors of statin eligibility among statin non-users were being older, male, poorer, and less educated. Hispanics were less likely to be eligible but not using statins, an effect that became non-significant with adjustment for language usually spoken at home. Among 537 persons taking statins, 81% were at LDL-C goal. Adjusted predictors of goal failure among statin users were being male and poorer. These risks were not attenuated by adjustment for healthcare access or utilization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among person's not taking statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are more likely to be eligible and among those on statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are less likely to achieve statin treatment goals. Further study is needed to identify specific amenable patient and/or physician factors that contribute to these disparities.</p