首页 > 最新文献

JAMA Health Forum最新文献

英文 中文
Pursuing Equity With Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5031
Kevin B Johnson, Ivor B Horn, Eric Horvitz
{"title":"Pursuing Equity With Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.","authors":"Kevin B Johnson, Ivor B Horn, Eric Horvitz","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5031","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"e245031"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143069080","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}
引用次数: 0
Reflections on the First 5 Years of JAMA Health Forum. JAMA健康论坛前5年的思考
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4944
John Z Ayanian
{"title":"Reflections on the First 5 Years of JAMA Health Forum.","authors":"John Z Ayanian","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4944","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244944"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142900387","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}
引用次数: 0
Patient-Clinician Communication Interventions Across Multiple Primary Care Sites: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. 跨多个初级医疗机构的患者与医生沟通干预:集群随机临床试验。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4436
Ming Tai-Seale, Michael Cheung, Florin Vaida, Bernice Ruo, Amanda Walker, Rebecca L Rosen, Michael Hogarth, Kimberly A Fisher, Sonal Singh, Robert A Yood, Lawrence Garber, Cassandra Saphirak, Martina Li, Albert S Chan, Edward E Yu, Gene Kallenberg, Christopher A Longhurst, Marlene Millen, Cheryl D Stults, Kathleen M Mazor
<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Despite various attempts to improve patient-clinician communication, there has been limited head-to-head comparison of these efforts.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether clinician coaching (mobile application or in-person) is more effective than reminder posters in examination rooms and whether mobile app use is noninferior to in-person coaching.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>A cluster randomized clinical trial with 3 arms. A total of 21 primary care clinics participated in 3 health systems in the US; participants were patients and primary care clinicians with clinic visits between August 28, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from August 4, 2022, to November 10, 2024. Data analysis was based on intention to treat.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>In-person coaching of clinicians with standardized patient instructor training (high-touch), mobile application-based coaching (high-tech), and posters placed in examination rooms encouraging shared decision-making (AskShareKnow [ASK]). Before visits, patients in the high-touch and high-tech groups were prompted to inform their clinicians of the most important matter for discussion using online check-in.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was a patient engagement measure (CollaboRATE) of patient perceptions of communication and shared decision-making during the visit. Difference-in-differences mixed-effect regression with random intercepts for primary care clinician were used for analyses. Secondary outcomes included the net promoter score (patient's likelihood of recommending this clinician to others) and patient's confidence in managing their health.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants included 4852 patients with a median age of 54 years (IQR, 39-66 years); 63.6% were women. A total of 114 clinicians (median age range, 40-59 years; 48 were women [42.1%]) participated. The 3 interventions did not differ significantly in probability of CollaboRATE top score (marginal difference, high-tech vs ASK, -0.021; 95% CI, -0.073 to 0.030; high-touch vs ASK, -0.018, 95% CI, -0.069 to 0.033; high-tech vs high-touch, -0.003, 95% CI, -0.057 to 0.052; P = .14). Patients in the high-tech group were less likely to recommend their clinician to others than patients in the high-touch group (difference in marginal probability, -0.056; 95% CI, -0.118 to 0.019; P = .04). After 3 months, patients in the high-tech group had a significantly lower score than patients in the high-touch group (mean difference, -0.176; 95% CI, -0.341 to -0.011; P = .04) in confidence in managing their health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cluster randomized clinical trial found no evidence of intervention effects, although there were differences across systems. Some secondary outcomes suggested positive effect of clinicians receiving in-person coaching. Alternative outcome measures of pat
重要性:尽管为改善患者与医生之间的沟通进行了各种尝试,但对这些尝试进行正面比较的情况却很有限:目的:评估临床医生指导(手机应用或面对面指导)是否比在检查室张贴提醒海报更有效,以及手机应用的使用是否不逊于面对面指导:群组随机临床试验,共分为 3 组。美国3个医疗系统共21家初级保健诊所参与了该试验;参与者为在2019年8月28日至2021年12月31日期间就诊的患者和初级保健临床医生。数据分析时间为 2022 年 8 月 4 日至 2024 年 11 月 10 日。数据分析基于意向治疗:通过标准化患者指导员培训对临床医生进行面对面指导(高接触)、基于移动应用程序的指导(高科技),以及在检查室张贴鼓励共同决策的海报(AskShareKnow [ASK])。在就诊前,高接触组和高科技组的患者会被提示通过在线签到告知临床医生最重要的讨论事项:主要结果和测量指标:主要结果是患者参与度测量指标(CollaboRATE),即患者对就诊期间沟通和共同决策的看法。分析采用差分混合效应回归法,并对初级保健临床医生进行随机截距。次要结果包括净促进者得分(患者向他人推荐该临床医生的可能性)和患者对管理自身健康的信心:参与者包括 4852 名患者,中位年龄为 54 岁(IQR,39-66 岁);63.6% 为女性。共有 114 名临床医生(年龄中位数为 40-59 岁;女性 48 名 [42.1%])参与了此次研究。3 种干预措施在 CollaboRATE 最高得分概率方面没有显著差异(边际差异,高科技 vs ASK,-0.021;95% CI,-0.073 至 0.030;高接触 vs ASK,-0.018,95% CI,-0.069 至 0.033;高科技 vs 高接触,-0.003,95% CI,-0.057 至 0.052;P = .14)。高科技组患者向他人推荐其临床医生的可能性低于高接触组患者(边际概率差异为-0.056;95% CI 为-0.118 至 0.019;P = .04)。3 个月后,高科技组患者在管理自己健康的信心方面的得分明显低于高接触组患者(平均差异为-0.176;95% CI 为-0.341 至-0.011;P = .04):这项分组随机临床试验没有发现干预效果的证据,尽管不同系统之间存在差异。一些次要结果表明,临床医生接受面对面指导具有积极作用。可能需要对患者参与度进行其他结果测量:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03385512.
{"title":"Patient-Clinician Communication Interventions Across Multiple Primary Care Sites: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Ming Tai-Seale, Michael Cheung, Florin Vaida, Bernice Ruo, Amanda Walker, Rebecca L Rosen, Michael Hogarth, Kimberly A Fisher, Sonal Singh, Robert A Yood, Lawrence Garber, Cassandra Saphirak, Martina Li, Albert S Chan, Edward E Yu, Gene Kallenberg, Christopher A Longhurst, Marlene Millen, Cheryl D Stults, Kathleen M Mazor","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4436","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4436","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Importance: &lt;/strong&gt;Despite various attempts to improve patient-clinician communication, there has been limited head-to-head comparison of these efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess whether clinician coaching (mobile application or in-person) is more effective than reminder posters in examination rooms and whether mobile app use is noninferior to in-person coaching.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design, setting, and participants: &lt;/strong&gt;A cluster randomized clinical trial with 3 arms. A total of 21 primary care clinics participated in 3 health systems in the US; participants were patients and primary care clinicians with clinic visits between August 28, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from August 4, 2022, to November 10, 2024. Data analysis was based on intention to treat.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interventions: &lt;/strong&gt;In-person coaching of clinicians with standardized patient instructor training (high-touch), mobile application-based coaching (high-tech), and posters placed in examination rooms encouraging shared decision-making (AskShareKnow [ASK]). Before visits, patients in the high-touch and high-tech groups were prompted to inform their clinicians of the most important matter for discussion using online check-in.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main outcomes and measures: &lt;/strong&gt;The primary outcome was a patient engagement measure (CollaboRATE) of patient perceptions of communication and shared decision-making during the visit. Difference-in-differences mixed-effect regression with random intercepts for primary care clinician were used for analyses. Secondary outcomes included the net promoter score (patient's likelihood of recommending this clinician to others) and patient's confidence in managing their health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Participants included 4852 patients with a median age of 54 years (IQR, 39-66 years); 63.6% were women. A total of 114 clinicians (median age range, 40-59 years; 48 were women [42.1%]) participated. The 3 interventions did not differ significantly in probability of CollaboRATE top score (marginal difference, high-tech vs ASK, -0.021; 95% CI, -0.073 to 0.030; high-touch vs ASK, -0.018, 95% CI, -0.069 to 0.033; high-tech vs high-touch, -0.003, 95% CI, -0.057 to 0.052; P = .14). Patients in the high-tech group were less likely to recommend their clinician to others than patients in the high-touch group (difference in marginal probability, -0.056; 95% CI, -0.118 to 0.019; P = .04). After 3 months, patients in the high-tech group had a significantly lower score than patients in the high-touch group (mean difference, -0.176; 95% CI, -0.341 to -0.011; P = .04) in confidence in managing their health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions and relevance: &lt;/strong&gt;This cluster randomized clinical trial found no evidence of intervention effects, although there were differences across systems. Some secondary outcomes suggested positive effect of clinicians receiving in-person coaching. Alternative outcome measures of pat","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244436"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645648/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142820050","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}
引用次数: 0
Cost Shifting for Emergency Care of Veterans With Medicare After MISSION Act Implementation. 任务法案实施后医疗保险退伍军人紧急护理的成本转移。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4312
Laura G Burke, Yanlei Ma, Jessica Phelan, Ellen Latsko, Austin B Frakt, Steven D Pizer, Jose F Figueroa
{"title":"Cost Shifting for Emergency Care of Veterans With Medicare After MISSION Act Implementation.","authors":"Laura G Burke, Yanlei Ma, Jessica Phelan, Ellen Latsko, Austin B Frakt, Steven D Pizer, Jose F Figueroa","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4312","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4312","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244312"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11681371/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142900367","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}
引用次数: 0
Medicare to Veterans Affairs Cost Shifting-A Challenging Conundrum. 医疗保险到退伍军人事务的成本转移——一个具有挑战性的难题。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4319
Kenneth W Kizer, Said Ibrahim
{"title":"Medicare to Veterans Affairs Cost Shifting-A Challenging Conundrum.","authors":"Kenneth W Kizer, Said Ibrahim","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4319","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4319","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244319"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142900386","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}
引用次数: 0
Error in Introduction and Figure 1. 在介绍和图1中出现错误。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5090
{"title":"Error in Introduction and Figure 1.","authors":"","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5090","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5090","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e245090"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662249/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142866442","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}
引用次数: 0
The Oregon Medicaid Guideline on Smoking Abstinence Prior to Elective Surgery. 择期手术前戒烟的俄勒冈医疗补助指南。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4019
Steffani R Bailey, Nathalie Huguet, Hilary A Tindle
{"title":"The Oregon Medicaid Guideline on Smoking Abstinence Prior to Elective Surgery.","authors":"Steffani R Bailey, Nathalie Huguet, Hilary A Tindle","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4019","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244019"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11816830/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142787780","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}
引用次数: 0
Mitigating Clinical Algorithmic Discrimination. 减少临床算法歧视。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4190
Anirban Basu
{"title":"Mitigating Clinical Algorithmic Discrimination.","authors":"Anirban Basu","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4190","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244190"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142820047","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}
引用次数: 0
Drug Overdose Deaths Among Medicaid Beneficiaries. 医疗补助受益人中药物过量死亡。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4365
Tami L Mark, Benjamin D Huber

Importance: Medicaid programs have expanded coverage of substance use disorder treatment and undertaken many other initiatives to reduce drug overdoses among beneficiaries. However, to date, no information has been published that tracks overdose deaths among the Medicaid population.

Objective: To determine the rate of drug overdose among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Design, setting, and participants: In this cross-sectional study, US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from 2016 to 2020 that linked enrollment and demographic data from all Medicaid beneficiaries in the US with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Death Index were used to determine the rate of drug overdose death among Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicaid population rates were compared with those of the total US population, overall and by age and sex.

Exposure: Participation in the Medicaid program.

Main outcome: Death of a drug overdose.

Results: In 2020, the drug overdose death rate among Medicaid beneficiaries was 54.6 per 100 000, a rate that was twice as high as the drug overdose rate among all US residents (27.9 per 100 000). In 2020, Medicaid beneficiaries comprised 25.0% of the US population but 48% of all overdose deaths (44 277 of 91 783). For each age and sex group older than 15 years, overdose deaths were higher for the Medicaid population than for the US population, with the greatest difference occurring among adults ages 45 to 64 years. From 2016 to 2020, Medicaid overdose deaths increased by 54%.

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this study suggest that more research is needed to understand why Medicaid beneficiaries have higher rates of drug overdoses than all US residents. Additionally, research is needed to understand how best to prevent overdoses among Medicaid beneficiaries. The federal government should support these efforts by routinely linking Medicaid claims and enrollment data to death records.

重要性:医疗补助计划扩大了药物使用障碍治疗的覆盖范围,并采取了许多其他措施来减少受益人的药物过量。然而,到目前为止,还没有发布任何关于医疗补助人群中过量死亡的信息。目的:了解医疗补助受益人药物过量的发生率。设计、环境和参与者:在这项横断面研究中,美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心2016年至2020年的数据将美国所有医疗补助受益人的登记和人口统计数据与美国疾病控制和预防中心的国家死亡指数联系起来,用于确定医疗补助受益人的药物过量死亡率。将医疗补助人口比率与美国总人口比率进行比较,并按年龄和性别进行比较。经历:参加医疗补助计划。主要结局:药物过量死亡。结果:2020年,医疗补助受益人的药物过量死亡率为54.6 / 100000 000,是所有美国居民药物过量死亡率(27.9 / 100000 000)的两倍。2020年,医疗补助受益人占美国人口的25.0%,但占所有过量死亡人数的48%(44 277 / 91 783)。对于15岁以上的每个年龄和性别群体,医疗补助人群的过量死亡人数高于美国人口,最大的差异发生在45至64岁的成年人中。从2016年到2020年,医疗补助过量死亡人数增加了54%。结论和相关性:本研究的结果表明,需要更多的研究来理解为什么医疗补助受益人的药物过量率高于所有美国居民。此外,需要进行研究,以了解如何最好地防止医疗补助受益人服用过量药物。联邦政府应该支持这些努力,定期将医疗补助申请和登记数据与死亡记录联系起来。
{"title":"Drug Overdose Deaths Among Medicaid Beneficiaries.","authors":"Tami L Mark, Benjamin D Huber","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4365","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4365","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Medicaid programs have expanded coverage of substance use disorder treatment and undertaken many other initiatives to reduce drug overdoses among beneficiaries. However, to date, no information has been published that tracks overdose deaths among the Medicaid population.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the rate of drug overdose among Medicaid beneficiaries.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from 2016 to 2020 that linked enrollment and demographic data from all Medicaid beneficiaries in the US with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Death Index were used to determine the rate of drug overdose death among Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicaid population rates were compared with those of the total US population, overall and by age and sex.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Participation in the Medicaid program.</p><p><strong>Main outcome: </strong>Death of a drug overdose.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2020, the drug overdose death rate among Medicaid beneficiaries was 54.6 per 100 000, a rate that was twice as high as the drug overdose rate among all US residents (27.9 per 100 000). In 2020, Medicaid beneficiaries comprised 25.0% of the US population but 48% of all overdose deaths (44 277 of 91 783). For each age and sex group older than 15 years, overdose deaths were higher for the Medicaid population than for the US population, with the greatest difference occurring among adults ages 45 to 64 years. From 2016 to 2020, Medicaid overdose deaths increased by 54%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The results of this study suggest that more research is needed to understand why Medicaid beneficiaries have higher rates of drug overdoses than all US residents. Additionally, research is needed to understand how best to prevent overdoses among Medicaid beneficiaries. The federal government should support these efforts by routinely linking Medicaid claims and enrollment data to death records.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244365"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624576/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142787721","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}
引用次数: 0
High-Risk Opioid Prescribing and Nurse Practitioner Independence. 高危阿片类药物处方和执业护士独立性。
IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4544
Lucas D Cusimano, Nicole Maestas

Importance: Concerns around excessive opioid prescribing have been used to argue against the expansion of the scope of practice of nurse practitioners (NPs), but the association of NP practice independence with high-risk opioid prescribing is not well understood.

Objective: To assess whether the rates of high-risk opioid prescribing changed in association with NP independence legislation.

Design, setting, and participants: This difference-in-differences analysis compared rates of high-risk opioid prescribing in 6 states over 2 years following the adoption of NP independence compared with 10 neighboring nonadopting states from January 2012 to December 2021. Prescription insurance claims for 2 874 213 continuously enrolled individuals (members) aged 18 to 64 years from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis were analyzed. Data analysis was carried out from 2021 to 2024.

Exposure: Timing of the legislative effective date of NP independence in a state.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the rate of opioid prescriptions that overlapped with a prescription for a central nervous system (CNS) depressant. Secondary outcomes included the number of days of opioid-CNS depressant overlap, as well as the dosage and days supplied of opioids among all members and among opioid-naive members.

Results: Six states that adopted NP independence legislation and 10 nonadopting neighboring states were similar in terms of demographic characteristics and had comparable pretrends in prescribing. The estimated change in the rate of opioid prescriptions that overlapped with a CNS depressant was -0.03 per 100 members per month (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.05). Changes in the number of days of opioid-CNS depressant overlap and in the dosage and days supplied of opioids among all members and among opioid-naive members were also small and statistically insignificant.

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this difference-in-differences analysis suggest that there was no relative increase in rates of high-risk opioid prescribing during the 2 years following the adoption of independence for NPs.

重要性:对过量阿片类药物处方的担忧被用来反对护士执业者(NPs)执业范围的扩大,但NP执业独立性与高风险阿片类药物处方的关系尚不清楚。目的:评估高危阿片类药物处方率是否与NP独立立法相关。设计、环境和参与者:本差异中差异分析比较了2012年1月至2021年12月6个州采用NP独立后2年内与10个邻近未采用NP独立的州相比的高风险阿片类药物处方率。对2 874 213名年龄在18 - 64岁的蓝十字蓝盾连续登记个人(会员)的处方保险索赔进行了分析。数据分析时间为2021 - 2024年。曝光:国家党独立立法生效日期的时间。主要结局和措施:主要结局是阿片类药物处方与中枢神经系统(CNS)抑制剂处方重叠的比率。次要结局包括阿片类药物与中枢神经系统抑制剂重叠的天数,以及所有成员和未使用阿片类药物的成员中阿片类药物的剂量和供应天数。结果:采用NP独立立法的6个州和未采用NP独立立法的10个邻近州在人口统计学特征和处方前趋势方面相似。阿片类药物处方与中枢神经系统抑制剂重叠的估计变化率为每月每100名成员-0.03 (95% CI, -0.11至0.05)。阿片类药物-中枢神经系统抑制剂重叠的天数以及阿片类药物的剂量和供应天数的变化在所有成员和阿片类药物初始成员中也很小,统计学上不显著。结论和相关性:这种差异中差异分析的结果表明,在NPs采用独立治疗后的2年内,高危阿片类药物处方率没有相对增加。
{"title":"High-Risk Opioid Prescribing and Nurse Practitioner Independence.","authors":"Lucas D Cusimano, Nicole Maestas","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4544","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4544","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Concerns around excessive opioid prescribing have been used to argue against the expansion of the scope of practice of nurse practitioners (NPs), but the association of NP practice independence with high-risk opioid prescribing is not well understood.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether the rates of high-risk opioid prescribing changed in association with NP independence legislation.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This difference-in-differences analysis compared rates of high-risk opioid prescribing in 6 states over 2 years following the adoption of NP independence compared with 10 neighboring nonadopting states from January 2012 to December 2021. Prescription insurance claims for 2 874 213 continuously enrolled individuals (members) aged 18 to 64 years from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis were analyzed. Data analysis was carried out from 2021 to 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Timing of the legislative effective date of NP independence in a state.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the rate of opioid prescriptions that overlapped with a prescription for a central nervous system (CNS) depressant. Secondary outcomes included the number of days of opioid-CNS depressant overlap, as well as the dosage and days supplied of opioids among all members and among opioid-naive members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six states that adopted NP independence legislation and 10 nonadopting neighboring states were similar in terms of demographic characteristics and had comparable pretrends in prescribing. The estimated change in the rate of opioid prescriptions that overlapped with a CNS depressant was -0.03 per 100 members per month (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.05). Changes in the number of days of opioid-CNS depressant overlap and in the dosage and days supplied of opioids among all members and among opioid-naive members were also small and statistically insignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The results of this difference-in-differences analysis suggest that there was no relative increase in rates of high-risk opioid prescribing during the 2 years following the adoption of independence for NPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 12","pages":"e244544"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662257/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142866444","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}
引用次数: 0
期刊
JAMA Health Forum
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1