JAMA Health Forum最新文献

{"title":"Emphasis on Financial vs Nonfinancial Criteria in Employer Benefits' Measurements.","authors":"Jeffrey Pfeffer, Esther Olsen, Sara J Singer","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5229","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5229","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Few studies have examined the extent to which employers emphasize financial over nonfinancial criteria in measurement, reporting, and decision-making about health care benefits.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To measure and identify factors associated with financial over nonfinancial emphasis in employer decision-making about health benefits.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>A survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of US employers to assess the extent of employers' emphasis on benefits plans' costs over member experience, access to care, and equity, and on financial vs other considerations when choosing third-party benefits administrators. The sample included in-company human resources administrators from randomly selected nongovernmental organizations with at least 50 employees. The survey was administered in 2 waves: May 2022 to July 2022 and November 2022 to April 2023.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>The survey included 41 multipart questions capturing information about the respondent, company, company interactions with benefits consulting firms and benefits administrators, and company approach to managing employee health benefits.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Main outcomes were proportion of financially oriented measures that internal benefits administrators and external benefits consultants use and importance of financial vs other factors in companies' choice of third-party administrators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1159 companies sampled, 251 (22%) responded; 30 with less than 50 employees were excluded. Of the 221 remaining companies, 147 (67%) used a benefits consulting firm. The companies and their benefits consultants focused on financial over nonfinancial performance dimensions in decision-making. While 125 companies (74%) tracked trends in health benefits costs and 109 (64%) tracked spending on the highest cost cases, only 14 (8%) tracked time employees spent having questions answered, and 12 (7%) tracked how often employees delayed receiving care because of an insurance company's actions. This financial focus was largely independent of organizational characteristics and other potential explanatory factors. Of 37 paired differences comparisons in the proportion of financial vs nonfinancial items, only 6 proportions (16%) differed significantly, with differences in proportions of 0.22 or less.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this survey study, US employers emphasized financial over nonfinancial criteria in their measurement and decision-making about health benefits. To improve health plan performance, employer measurement and decision-making must emphasize both nonfinancial and financial criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e245229"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786228/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143069722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measures to Prevent and Control COVID-19 in Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Benjamin E Canter, Agne Ulyte, Brian E McGarry, Michael L Barnett","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5175","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5175","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) experienced high mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading them to adopt preventive measures to counteract viral spread. A critical appraisal of these measures is essential to support SNFs in managing future infectious disease outbreaks.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To perform a scoping review of data and evidence on the use and effectiveness of preventive measures implemented from 2020 to 2024 to prevent COVID-19 infection in SNFs in the US.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>Two analyses were performed. First, an analysis of the federal COVID-19 SNF Database was conducted to describe time trends in COVID-19 incidence, deaths, testing, vaccination, and treatment among SNF residents and staff, as well as shortages in staff and personal protective equipment (PPE). Then, a comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2023 to April 2024 to identify high-quality evidence on the use and effectiveness of modifiable preventive measures used among SNF residents. Both nonpharmacologic (facility characteristics, PPE, cohorting, and isolation, visitation, staffing, testing) and pharmacologic (vaccination, treatment) measures were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Nationwide data indicated early shortages of PPE, infrequent testing, and persistent staff shortages in SNFs. Other nonpharmacologic measures, such as visitor restrictions or ventilation modifications, were widely adopted but there were no available national data to quantify their effectiveness. These nonpharmacologic measures lacked high-quality studies to verify effectiveness. In contrast, the effectiveness of vaccination and antiviral treatment was shown in multiple studies. Evidence also showed associations between COVID-19 outcomes in residents and crowding, staff size, hours per residents and networks, and surveillance testing of residents and staff. Despite high initial uptake, up-to-date vaccination status was suboptimal in residents and staff from 2022 to 2024. Only a minority of infected residents received antiviral treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This scoping review found that although many preventive measures were implemented in SNFs in the US throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, few were based on clear evidence of their effectiveness. Pharmacologic measures, such as vaccination and antiviral treatment, had more robust evidence supporting their efficacy than nonpharmacologic interventions. Using the scarce resources and staff of SNFs on measures of questionable effectiveness could distract from known effective ones such as vaccination and antiviral treatment. When possible, implementation efforts should be commensurate with the demonstrated effectiveness of available preventive measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e245175"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786235/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143069065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Role of School Nurses in the Health and Education of Children.","authors":"Elizabeth Dickson, Robin Cogan, Rosa M Gonzalez-Guarda","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0116","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e250116"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143025744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"High-Cost Cancer Drug Use in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.","authors":"Cathy J Bradley, Rifei Liang, Richard C Lindrooth, Lindsay M Sabik, Marcelo C Perraillon","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4868","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4868","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are designed to incentivize the use of less expensive drugs through capitated payments, formulary control, and preauthorizations for certain drugs. These conditions may reduce spending on high-cost therapies for conditions such as cancer, a condition that is among the most expensive to treat.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether patients insured by MA plans receive less high-cost drugs than those insured by traditional Medicare (TM).</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cohort study used data from the linked Colorado All Payer Claims Database and Colorado Central Cancer Registry. This population-based cohort included adults 65 years and older insured by Medicare with prescription coverage who reside in Colorado and were diagnosed with colorectal (CRC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between January 2012 and December 2021. The data were analyzed between December 2023 and August 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Enrollment in TM or MA insurance plans.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Claims for chemotherapy and oral targeted agents were identified. Thresholds for high-cost drugs were based on the distribution of drug costs. Inverse probability weighted logistic regression for receiving any cancer drug and for receiving a high-cost cancer drug was estimated, controlling for patient and ecological characteristics. The sample was stratified by cancer site and local/regional and distant stage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4240 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 75 [7] years; 2327 [54.9%] female), 1991 were diagnosed with CRC and 2249 with NSCLC. A total of 1647 patients had local or regional CRC, and 344 had distant CRC; 1351 patients had local or regional NSCLC, and 898 had distant NSCLC. In the covariate-adjusted analysis, patients diagnosed with local or regional CRC who were insured by MA were 6.0 percentage points less likely to receive a cancer drug than similar patients insured by TM. Patients diagnosed with distant NSCLC were 10.0 percentage points less likely to receive a cancer drug if insured by MA. Among patients who received a cancer drug, patients insured by MA were less likely to receive a high-cost drug for local or regional CRC (by 10.0 percentage points) and distant CRC (by 9.0 percentage points).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cohort study, high-cost drugs were more commonly prescribed among patients enrolled in TM and diagnosed with CRC. A similar pattern was not observed for patients with NSCLC, perhaps because clinical evidence suggests survival benefits to be associated only with certain drugs, all of which are expensive. Nonetheless, MA was modestly associated with reduced high-cost drug utilization and may reduce overall treatment costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e244868"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724345/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142958797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using Compounded GLP-1 Receptor Agonists-Informing and Protecting Consumers.","authors":"Julie M Donohue","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e245012"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143016122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Use of and Steering to Pharmacies Owned by Insurers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers in Medicare.","authors":"Pragya Kakani, Swayami Navangul, Christie Lee Luo, Kayla N Tormohlen, Genevieve P Kanter, Mary Beth Landrum, Nancy L Keating, Amelia M Bond","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4874","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4874","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The prevalence of pharmacies owned by integrated insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or insurer-PBMs, is of growing regulatory concern. However, little is known about the role of these pharmacies in Medicare, in which pharmacy network protections may influence market dynamics.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the prevalence of insurer-PBM-owned pharmacies and the extent to which insurer-PBMs steer patients to pharmacies they own in Medicare.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cross-sectional study used Medicare Part D claims data on prescription fills for a 20% random sample of US beneficiaries enrolled from January 1 through December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from March to November 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Prescription fills.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcome was the share of spending filled by insurer-PBM-owned pharmacies overall, by pharmacy type (specialty and nonspecialty), and by drug class. For the top 100 specialty and nonspecialty molecules by claim volume, 2 quantities were identified for 4 major insurer-PBMs (Cigna, CVS, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group): share of the index firm's insurer claims filled by its owned pharmacies and share of other firms' insurer claims filled by the index firm's owned pharmacies. Differences between these quantities were assessed to evaluate the degree to which insurer-PBMs steered patients to their own pharmacies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 10 455 726 patients (54.8% women; mean [SD] age, 71.8 [10.7] years), 34.1% of all pharmacy and 37.1% of specialty pharmacy spending occurred through Cigna, CVS, Humana, or UnitedHealth Group pharmacies. Among specialty molecules, market shares varied by drug class (antivirals: 18.5%; antipsychotics: 29.5%; cancer: 32.5%; disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 41.1%; multiple sclerosis: 64.8%; pulmonary arterial hypertension and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: 89.7%). Across molecule-firm combinations, a 19.8 (95% CI, 18.0-21.6)-percentage point and 13.9 (95% CI, 13.1-14.7)-percentage point greater share of claims were filled at insurer-PBM-owned pharmacies than would be expected without steering for specialty and nonspecialty categories, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cross-sectional study found that insurer-PBM firms represented an important portion of the Medicare Part D market, especially for certain drug classes, and that insurer-PBM firms steered patients to their own pharmacies, despite certain pharmacy network protections in Medicare. These findings underscore the need to understand the impacts of insurer-PBM and pharmacy integration on medication access and costs for Medicare patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e244874"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724340/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142958826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Flaws in the Medicare Advantage Star Ratings.","authors":"David J Meyers, Amal N Trivedi, Andrew M Ryan","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4802","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e244802"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143034916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Growth of Private Equity and Hospital Consolidation in Primary Care and Price Implications.","authors":"Yashaswini Singh, Nandita Radhakrishnan, Loren Adler, Christopher Whaley","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4935","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4935","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Consolidation of physician practices by hospitals and private equity (PE) firms has increased rapidly. This trend is of particular importance within primary care. Despite its significance, there is no systematic evidence on the emerging trends in ownership affiliation of primary care physicians (PCPs) and its association with prices paid for physician services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe trends in hospital affiliation and PE affiliation in primary care and examine variation in negotiated prices paid by commercial insurers to hospital-affiliated, PE-affiliated, and independent PCPs.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Data from PitchBook and IQVIA were used to examine hospital and PE affiliation PCPs. PCPs and their affiliations were linked to novel cross-sectional Transparency in Coverage data. A total of 226.6 million negotiated prices were analyzed for evaluation and management office visits (Current Procedural Terminology codes 99202 to 99205 and 99212 to 99215) across 4 national insurers (Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, and United Healthcare). Linear regressions were used to examine the association between hospital-affiliated, PE-affiliated, and independent PCPs and cross-sectional prices paid for physician services, with fixed effects for service, state, and insurers. Data were collected from January to June 2024, and data were analyzed from July to October 2024.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The proportion of PCPs that are affiliated with hospitals and PE from 2009 to 2022. Using cross-sectional data from 2022, negotiated prices paid to physicians (physician professional fee) for office visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 198 097 PCPs were analyzed. PCPs affiliated with hospitals increased from 25.2% (28 216 of 111 793) in 2009 to 47.9% in 2022 (82 890 of 172 964). Over the same period, 1.5% (2483 of 172 964) of PCPs became affiliated with PE firms. Relative to independent PCPs, negotiated prices for office visits were $14.91 (95% CI, 8.92-27.64) or 10.7% (95% CI, 10.1-11.4) higher for hospital-affiliated PCPs (P < .001) and $9.56 (95% CI, 2.24-14.55) or 7.8% (95% CI, 4.7-10.8) higher for PE-affiliated PCPs (P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, nearly one-half of all PCPs were affiliated with hospitals, while PE-affiliated PCPs were growing and concentrated in certain regional markets. Relative to PCPs in independent settings, hospital-affiliated PCPs and PE-affiliated PCPs had higher prices for the same services.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e244935"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742525/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143016117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Error in Text.","authors":"","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5626","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5626","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e245626"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786222/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143068685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Firearms Industry Immunity From Safety Regulation-A Call to Action.","authors":"Benjamin L Cavataro, Maya L Seshan, Stephen W Hargarten","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4570","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e244570"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142958795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}