Adherence to Cardiovascular Disease Medications: Does Patient-Provider Race/Ethnicity and Language Concordance Matter?

BACKGROUND: Patient–physician race/ethnicity and language concordance may improve medication adherence and reduce disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) by fostering trust and improved patient–physician communication. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of patient race/ethnicity and language and patient–physician race/ethnicity and language concordance on medication adherence rates for a large cohort of diabetes patients in an integrated delivery system. DESIGN: We studied 131,277 adult diabetes patients in Kaiser Permanente Northern California in 2005. Probit models assessed the effect of patient and physician race/ethnicity and language on adherence to CVD medications, after controlling for patient and physician characteristics. RESULTS: Ten percent of African American, 11 % of Hispanic, 63% of Asian, and 47% of white patients had same race/ethnicity physicians.24% of Spanish-speaking patients were linguistically concordant with their physicians. African American (46%), Hispanic (49%) and Asian (52%) patients were significantly less likely than white patients (58%) to be in good adherence to all of their CVD medications (p<0.001). Spanish-speaking patients were less likely than English speaking patients to be in good adherence (51%versus 57%, p<0.001). Race concordance for African American patients was associated with adherence to all their CVD medications (53% vs. 50%, p<0.05). Language concordance was associated with medication adherence for Spanish-speaking patients (51% vs. 45%, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Increasing opportunities for patient– physician race/ethnicity and language concordance may improve medication adherence for African American and Spanish-speaking patients, though a similar effect was not observed for Asian patients or Englishproficient Hispanic patients

Using neighborhood-level census data to predict diabetes progression in patients with laboratory-defined prediabetes

Context Research on predictors of clinical outcomes usually focuses on the impact of individual patient factors, despite known relationships between neighborhood environment and health. Objective To determine whether US census information on where a patient resides is associated with diabetes development among patients with prediabetes. Design Retrospective cohort study of all 157,752 patients aged 18 years or older from Kaiser Permanente Northern California with laboratory-defined prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose, 100 mg/dL-125 mg/dL, and/or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7%-6.4%). We assessed whether census data on education, income, and percentage of households receiving benefits through the US Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was associated with diabetes development using logistic regression controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, blood glucose levels, and body mass index. Main Outcome Measure: Progression to diabetes within 36 months. Results Patients were more likely to progress to diabetes if they lived in an area where less than 16% of adults had obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher (odds ratio [OR] =1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.36), where median annual income was below $79,999 (OR = 1.16 95% CI = 1.03-1.31), or where SNAP benefits were received by 10% or more of households (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4). Conclusion Area-level socioeconomic and food assistance data predict the development of diabetes, even after adjusting for traditional individual demographic and clinical factors. Clinical interventions should take these factors into account, and health care systems should consider addressing social needs and community resources as a path to improving health outcomes

Study protocol: The Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study - a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study

Abstract Background Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. Methods In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. Discussion Integration of the three intervention elements - proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification - is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. Trial Registration The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/1/1745-6215-11-95.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/2/1745-6215-11-95.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/3/1745-6215-11-95-S1.DOCPeer Reviewe

The impact of removing financial incentives from clinical quality indicators: longitudinal analysis of four Kaiser Permanente indicators

Objective To evaluate the effect of financial incentives on four clinical quality indicators common to pay for performance plans in the United Kingdom and at Kaiser Permanente in California

Exploiting non‐systematic covariate monitoring to broaden the scope of evidence about the causal effects of adaptive treatment strategies

In studies based on electronic health records (EHR), the frequency of covariate monitoring can vary by covariate type, across patients, and over time, which can limit the generalizability of inferences about the effects of adaptive treatment strategies. In addition, monitoring is a health intervention in itself with costs and benefits, and stakeholders may be interested in the effect of monitoring when adopting adaptive treatment strategies. This paper demonstrates how to exploit non‐systematic covariate monitoring in EHR‐based studies to both improve the generalizability of causal inferences and to evaluate the health impact of monitoring when evaluating adaptive treatment strategies. Using a real world, EHR‐based, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study of patients with type II diabetes mellitus, we illustrate how the evaluation of joint dynamic treatment and static monitoring interventions can improve CER evidence and describe two alternate estimation approaches based on inverse probability weighting (IPW). First, we demonstrate the poor performance of the standard estimator of the effects of joint treatment‐monitoring interventions, due to a large decrease in data support and concerns over finite‐sample bias from near‐violations of the positivity assumption (PA) for the monitoring process. Second, we detail an alternate IPW estimator using a no direct effect (NDE) assumption. We demonstrate that this estimator can improve efficiency but at the potential cost of increase in bias from violations of the PA for the treatment process

Improving Treatment Intensification to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Background: Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results: Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions: Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT0051768

Improving treatment intensification to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cluster randomized trial

Abstract Background Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00517686http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112310/1/12913_2012_Article_2076.pd

Impact of a Pharmacy Benefit Change on New Use of Mail Order Pharmacy among Diabetes Patients: The Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110855/1/hesr12223-sup-0001-AuthorMatrix.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110855/2/hesr12223.pd