Tag Archives: medicare advantage

How New Medicare Cards Deter ID Theft

There are big changes Medicare has planned in 2018 that will help protect the identity of seniors and continue proper health benefits. The biggest and best change will be the new Medicare ID cards.

When Medicare recipients receive their Medicare card, they are typically shocked to see that their Medicare Identification number is the same as their Social Security number. Medicare beneficiaries run the risk of identity theft when they have their Medicare card in their wallet or purse; it would be comparable to walking around with their Social Security card in their possession.

Identity theft is a major issue; when someone has the Social Security number of another person the thief can apply for loans, open bank accounts and possibly gain employment. When someone has your Social Security number, the person has the key to your credit and identity.

The Social Security administration and the Federal Trade Commission have been urging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to change the Medicare Identifier for years.

Finally, after years of requesting that changes be made, CMS has made the decision to move to updated cards that do not have a Social Security number as the Medicare identifier. These updated cards were sent via mail in the beginning of April 2018. CMS anticipates all Medicare beneficiaries will have a new, updated card by April 2019.

What to Expect from the New Medicare Cards

The updated Medicare cards will feature a new Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI) number. The card will display a randomly assigned number for all Medicare recipients.

Healthcare providers and Medicare beneficiaries will be able to securely access tools that will allow them to look up MBIs as needed.

During the 21-month transition period, it will be possible for providers to use a patient’s Social Security number or the new MBI number. The transition period was put in place to help things run smoothly for providers and patients across the nation. The issuance of a new card will not affect Medicare benefits.

The new MBI number will have 11 characters, with a combination of numbers and uppercase letters. These new numbers will have no special meaning, making it safe to keep in your wallet or purse.

The new cards will be mailed to you based on your geographical location; however, it is possible that you and your neighbor will get a new card at different times.

See also: Identity Theft Can Be Double Whammy

The Transition Period

CMS is trying to make the transition smooth for caregivers, patients and others who need accurate Medicare information. The transition period will allow beneficiaries and providers to exchange Medicare information with CMS using MBI or a Health Insurance Claim Number; this period is scheduled from April 1, 2018, until Dec. 31, 2019.

On Jan. 1, 2020, beneficiaries and caregivers will be required to use an MBI for most situations. It is suggested that beneficiaries keep an eye out for their updated Medicare card, and when it comes they should get into the habit of using their new MBI early.

Obtaining an Updated Card

Beneficiaries should destroy their old cards immediately after receiving their updated Medicare card. Once the new card is in possession, you can start using it at once. It is important that you keep your new MBI number confidential and watch the mail carefully so that you are aware when the new card is delivered.

The new cards are going to be made of paper, making it easier for providers to use and copy. If you are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan, the Plan ID card is the main card you show to your providers, although a healthcare provider may ask to see your MBI card, so keep it with you.

How to Protect Your Identity Now

Identity thieves have noticed seniors as ideal victims for identity fraud. Seniors typically have more money in their checking and savings accounts, and they have paid off their major financial obligations.

Because seniors usually receive Medicare benefits, the door for identity theft in the medical industry is wide open. Because most seniors are not purchasing a new home or taking out a large loan, they have no reason to stay informed and therefore check their credit score less often.

How to Keep Important Documents Safe:

  • Make copies of your insurance cards
    • Make a copy of your insurance card and remove the last four digits of your Social Security number.
    • Leave the original at home.
    • If you do need to take an original, remove the card from your wallet after the appointment and store it in a safe place.
  • Keep important documents safe:
    • A home safe can allow you to store important documents; if you have highly important documents, you might want to consider a bank safety deposit box for documents you do not need often.
    • Never carry around extra bank cards, credit cards you don’t frequently use, any health insurance card or your Social Security card.
  • Protect computer and internet access:
    • Be sure you use anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall software to combat hacking programs that are designed to steal personal information.
    • Be creative with passwords and never use the same passcode for multiple accounts. Changing passwords regularly can ensure privacy.
    • Never send personal or financial information through an email, no matter the situation or company.
    • Be sure to have your Wi-Fi network password protected and secure. Your internet installation service rep can help make sure your wireless network is protected.
  • Check your credit frequently: Per the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), every 12 months a free credit report can be provided for you from each of the nationwide credit reporting agencies.
  • Destroy old documents:
    • Some documents need to be stored safely; others can be destroyed.
    • You should be destroying credit card statements, receipts, bank statements, tax documents, canceled checks and old driver’s licenses.

The Reason Behind a New Medicare Number

The current Medicare number for many beneficiaries is their Social Security number. The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, state Medicaid agencies, Social Security, healthcare providers and health plans all use this number.

There are great dangers that can occur when a Social Security number is in the hands of a criminal. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorizations ACT of 2015 is requiring CMS to replace the old numbers with a new updated Medicare Beneficiary Identifier.

These cards are being released for one primary reason, to better prevent seniors from being the victim of identity theft.

See also: 8 Questions on Medicare Set Aside

Be Aware of Scams

The reason for new Medicare ID cards was to prevent seniors from being the victims of identity fraud. Unfortunately, the change has inspired criminals to take a new approach. There have been attempts to mislead Medicare recipients, and more attempts are likely to be made through the transition. It is important that beneficiaries be aware of possible scams.

The new Medicare ID does not cost beneficiaries money. The new card has the same benefits as the current card. Do not give the new card to anyone other than a healthcare provider. Many identity thefts are committed by friends and family.

Medicare will not ask you to give personal information to obtain your new number and card. Nobody should contact you about the new Medicare card, your new number or any personal information.

Medicare does not make uninvited calls to beneficiaries. If you think you are a victim of medical identity theft, contact the Federal Trade Commission about what to do next.

Advantages of Change

Because the new cards will not have a Social Security number, scammers will find it more difficult to commit fraud. Beneficiaries need to keep MBI numbers confidential and treat the numbers like personal identifiable information.

If a beneficiary forgets the new card at home, healthcare staff can search the new Medicare ID number on a secure site. All existing Medicare information will continue to be available to your doctor.

More than 57 million Americans will be provided with greater identity protection from the new Medicare ID cards. CMS intends a successful transition to the MBI for all people with Medicare and for their doctors.

Noncompliance: a $290 Billion Problem

Noncompliance is one of the greatest challenges and opportunities for savings and improved medical outcomes.

One reason noncompliance has been such a difficult issue is its complexity. Patients don’t take their medications for a multitude of reasons. Reasons for noncompliance vary from patient to patient. That rules out a one-size-fits-all solution.

Noncompliance can be more of a challenge for workers’ compensation claims, potentially because of perceived HIPAA privacy rules. Because of an approach that appears to mirror “don’t ask, don’t tell,” little is known by many of the workers’ compensation physicians about the drugs that are being prescribed for chronic or underlying conditions to their industrially injured patients. Or, if doctors do discuss such issues with the patients, few if any include such information in their reports to the insurance companies.  Claims examiners also do not want to know about underlying medical conditions because of their fear of being roped into paying for this kind of treatment even if it may facilitate a faster recovery from an industrial injury. (Not knowing about underlying conditions, they are also limiting their ability to identify potential catastrophic claims early in the age of the claim.)

Here are some of my thoughts and commentary on noncompliance:

  • Compliance problems are one of the many reasons that the medications are doled out in a plastic weekly (with individual days) dispensing device.
  • There are many new “apps” being developed for phones and computers that are designed to insure compliance.
  • There are also new technologies being developed that will insure compliance for many of the chronic drugs. For instance, Proteus (http://www.proteus.com/) has a chip that is attached to the pill. It gives out a signal when the pill is taken. I was particularly impressed with these folks.
  • Noncompliance is also tied to pharmacy fraud. This is particularly true for physicians who are allowed to dispense out of their offices as well as for those who are involved in prescribing and dispensing opiates.
  • Compliance is significantly different for pain drugs vs. chronic drugs (such as heart medications or statins for cholesterol maintenance). We generally prefer that patients not use pain drugs unless those drugs are needed to maximize the recovery of the patient. Yet we want every patient to take the right medications at the right times to help them maintain appropriate blood pressure, sugar blood levels or anti-convulsive drugs needed to maintain a productive and healthy worker.
  • Noncompliance is one of the problems that has helped fuel the opioid epidemic. A result of the reluctance of many to take all of the pain medication that was prescribed is the filling of medicine cabinets with dangerous pain pills (which are easily accessed by children and visiting friends). One interesting comment from a good friend: “Every time I have a party, my medicine cabinet is completely cleaned out.”
  • I believe that many physicians are unable to keep up with the variety and nature of all the new drugs brought to market. This can result in poorer-quality drugs or poorly targeted drugs being prescribed, with no one the wiser. Education can be problematic with pharmacy, because there is really no independent body providing the education on the drugs.
  • In Canada, some pharmacists are allowed to prescribe as well as dispense certain drugs. There are no studies on the impact of this in prescribing or dispensing patterns. But studies in the U.S. have shown that, if there is a potential financial incentive, then more drugs are prescribed. As more baby boom doctors retire, and they are not replaced through our teaching system, more of the medical care will responsibility will be demanded of pharmacists, PAs and NPs. With more prescriptions being written by the pharmacists, compliance can be even more problematic because far less time is spent with the patients by pharmacists than by the doctors.
  • Off-label use of pharmacy is more problematic with regard to compliance because of the lack of evidence-based medicine (or any research at all) supporting the new uses of the existing drugs.
  • Blood, urine or oral swab testing for compliance is expensive and problematic but can be useful.
  • One of my favorite stories of noncompliance was the case where the prescribing physician was confronted with a blood test that demonstrated that the patient was not taking any of the prescribed (and dispensed) opiates. The doctor’s response was that the blood test proved that the patient was not abusing the drugs, and he continued to prescribe the same dose and volume for the next three months. (I believe that the patient was selling the drugs.)
  • The advent and expansion of universal medical records will assist treating physicians overcome the siloed medical approach that has existed in WC for years.
  • Some of the reasons for noncompliance are also the same reasons that we find it so hard to help injured workers recover.
  • I did not see any statistics, but I am willing to bet that noncompliance is higher with the 20% subset of population who have had ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and are the ones we have designated as at risk for delayed recovery in the workers’ compensation system.

Here is an article from Doug Benner, which is worth the read for good insight into this very complex issue:

The number of patients who are noncompliant with regard to their pharmacy usage has reached epidemic proportions, and doctors’ inability to provide optimal care as a result has mushroomed into one of the most pressing problems in healthcare today.

  • In the U.S., some 3.8 billion prescriptions are written every year, yet more than 50% of them are taken incorrectly or not at all.
  • In a survey of 1,000 patients, nearly 75% admitted to not always taking their medications as directed. A study of more than 75,000 commercially insured patients found that 30% failed to fill a new prescription, and new prescriptions for chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol were not filled 20% to 22% of the time.
  • Even among chronically ill patients who regularly fill their prescriptions, only about half the doses taken are taken as their physicians intend.
  • Poor compliance accounts for 33%  to 69% of drug-related adverse events that result in hospital admissions.
  • Poor compliance with medication regimens is associated with as much as 40% of nursing home admissions.
  • In a study of more than 8,400 senior health plan enrollees, only one in three of those who began treatment with concurrent antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs were taking both medications as directed or at all at six months.
  • In a study of more than 240,000 patients who were given a new prescription for an antidepressant, less than 30% were still taking the medication six months later.
  • Compared with patients who follow instructions, patients who don’t take their medications as intended have a risk for hospitalization, re-hospitalization and premature death that is 5.4 times higher if they have hypertension, 2.8 times higher if they have dyslipidemia and 1.5 times higher if they have heart disease.
  • The number of patients with serious cardiac conditions who don’t take their medications is especially baffling and problematic. In a study of 34,501 patients age 65 or older, only 26% of those who began a statin regimen to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease maintained a high level of use five years later; the greatest decline occurred during the first six months of treatment.
  • Even after a life-threatening event, compliance with medication regimens remains surprisingly poor. Within two years of initiating therapy, only half of patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI) were still taking their prescribed statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).

One upshot: Poor medication compliance is implicated in more than 125,000 U.S. deaths per year.

Yet compliance — which is used interchangeably with the term “adherence,” although the latter term is gaining ground — has been exhaustively studied. More than 40,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject have been published, “yet the rates of poor adherence have not changed significantly over the past several decades and continue to remain at an unacceptable level,” observes URAC, a healthcare accreditation organization, in a white paper prepared for industry leaders.

Or, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once put it with his customary forthrightness, “Drugs don’t work in people who don’t take them.”

The $290 billion question — $290 billion being how much poor compliance is estimated to cost the U.S. healthcare system each year — is: Why?

See also: How to Pick a Health Plan (Carefully)  

An unbelievably complicated problem

One reason noncompliance has been such a tough nut to crack is its daunting complexity. Patients don’t take their medications for a multitude of reasons, many of them emanating from the murky depths of human psychology and many of which the patients (not to mention medical researchers) may not fully understand.

To complicate matters, these reasons vary from patient to patient. That rules out a one-size-fits-all solution. Internist William Shrank, MD, MSHS, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer of Provider Innovation and Analytics at CVS Caremark, has served as lead author or coauthor in more than 100 studies on patient compliance with medication. His conclusion: “There is no silver bullet.”

Researchers have analyzed the steps involved in compliance to better understand where the process breaks down. First, the patient must receive the right prescription from a doctor or another provider. The new prescription must then be filled, a seemingly simple act that can be a major barrier to compliance. The patient must then make it through the first six months on the medication, when the risk for noncompliance is highest. If the medication is for a chronic condition, it must then be taken as intended — indefinitely.

“Adherence is the result of getting through these four steps successfully,” notes the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, in a report aimed at policymakers in Washington, “and a single policy option is not going to address each of these challenges to adherence.”

To thicken the plot, a patient’s unique cluster of reasons for not complying at any given time isn’t stable. With the loss of a job, for example, medications may become unaffordable, so the patient stops taking them, cuts the pills in half to make them last longer or skips some doses.

After a divorce, job loss or any traumatic event, depression may set in; taking medication as directed may then be the last thing on the patient’s mind.

Or, a compliant patient may suffer a medication-related adverse event. As a result, she may stop taking her pills, as up to 20% of patients do because of perceived side effects.

Does the patient tell the doctor? Probably not. Why? The doctor is so busy; she doesn’t want to be a bother. Or, she doesn’t like the doctor, so this is how she retaliates. Or, she decides that her ill effects are a sign that she’s taking too many drugs, so she goes off-regimen. Or, she consults with a friend on a social networking website for patients with similar chronic conditions, and the friend advises her to try alternative medicine instead.

“Is it widely known that adherence is a cluster of behaviors and not a single construct?” asks internist John F. Steiner, MD, MPH, research director at Kaiser Permanente’s Institute for Health Research in Denver and a thought leader on medication compliance issues. “No, that’s actually a radical claim.”

It may be radical, but researchers are putting patients, doctors and the healthcare system itself under a microscope to better understand this ever-shifting cluster of behaviors and why it so often results in noncompliance. While many questions remain unanswered, here’s what has been learned to date.

Patient beliefs and behaviors are often barriers

Patients with chronic conditions may spend only a few hours a year in your office, but they spend roughly 5,000 waking hours each year living the rest of their lives. During that time, out of touch with their doctors and generally unmonitored by the healthcare system, many are allowed to quietly, invisibly slip off their regimens.

In 2009, a team of researchers at Kaiser Permanente combed through much of the vast literature on compliance and distilled the sea of data down to several important patient-related barriers. They include forgetfulness; lack of knowledge about the medication and its use; cultural, health and religious beliefs about the medication; denial or ambivalence regarding the state of their health; financial challenges; lack of health literacy; and lack of social support.

Forgetfulness is the No. 1 barrier to compliance, experts believe, although a survey of 10,000 patients found that only 24% ascribed noncompliance to forgetfulness. Up to 20% failed to take medications because of perceived side effects, 17% had cost issues and 14% didn’t feel the need to take medication because they believed it would have little to no effect on their disease.

Among patients with chronic conditions (such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol), noncompliance tends to be highest if symptoms aren’t experienced.

Myopic? Perhaps. But when doctors are patients, they tend to act just like everyone else. Steiner likes to ask an audience of physicians for a show of hands of who has ever taken an antibiotic. Many hands are raised. He then asks how many doctors took the full course of antibiotics even after their symptoms abated. Many hands go down.

Even the Sickest Patients May Not Take Their Drugs

Noncompliance is plentiful in patients who exhibit symptoms, too — even for life-threatening conditions. Not even a brush with death is enough to get some patients to stick to their regimens. According to one study, after hospitalization for acute MI, about 24% of patients still hadn’t filled their cardiac medication prescription a week after being discharged.

In another study, among patients discharged with prescriptions for aspirin, statins and beta-blockers after an episode of acute MI, about 34% stopped at least one medication and 12% stopped all three medications within a month.

A third study found that only about 40% of patients were still taking statins two years after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Compliance was even lower for patients taking statins for chronic coronary artery disease.

A major reason why many patients go off-regimen is the cost of drugs. But even when patients are given drugs gratis, compliance improves only slightly. One much-discussed study looked at 2,845 Aetna health plan members discharged from the hospital after an acute MI episode who were given all of their drugs — statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, ARBs — for free. That was then compared with 3,020 Aetna enrollees who had the usual prescription coverage. In the usual-coverage group, compliance rates were 36% 49%. But without the cost barrier, the rates were only 4% to 6% higher.

What could account for this underwhelming result? Could depression play a role? Although the investigators noted cardiac-related comorbidities of patients at baseline, they didn’t ask about depression. Yet a meta-analysis of 31 studies that collectively included 18,000 people found that depressed patients with a variety of chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease, had 76% greater odds of being noncompliant compared with patients who weren’t depressed.

At least you can understand why depressed patients may lack the motivation to stay on regimen, but, confoundingly, so do many patients who aren’t depressed. As Shrank and cardiologist Lisa Rosenbaum, MD, noted in a 2013 paper:

“Though patients may be forthcoming about the more practical challenges (to adherence), the psychological barriers are tougher to identify and articulate. Patients don’t generally tell their physicians, ‘Every time I look at that pill bottle, it reminds me that I’m ill,’ or ‘I tend to discount future benefits as long as I feel well today.’ Such underlying psychological mechanisms probably contribute to nonadherence far more than we realize and help explain why existing interventions have brought only modest improvements.”

In reality, however, the teamwork concept isn’t working out too well. One reason is a chronic lack of time. The mean duration of a primary care visit ranges from 7.6-17.6 minutes. To be efficient, the doctor must control the conversation, with less time for listening and discussing topics such as medication reviews and preventive care.

Even if more time were available, it’s not what every patient wants. In one study of doctor-patient relationships, behavioral economists used game-theory techniques to identify the factors affecting treatment decisions in patients with a life-threatening disease — in this case, breast cancer — who were considering adjuvant therapy. They found that when patients disregarded their doctor’s treatment recommendations, the doctors responded by telling them in more detail about the benefits of treatment. However, this produced a perplexing result: The more information the patients received, the less likely they were to be compliant.

The researchers conceded that, “Patients want more specific disease and treatment information,” but “the provision of this information might lead to therapy decisions which diverge from the physicians’ recommendations.”

But the larger problem is that too little information is offered to patients who want — and need — more. The average time that a doctor spends discussing all aspects of a newly prescribed medication is a mere 49 seconds. Surveys show that no medication instructions are given by physicians in 19% to 39% of prescriptions; in observational studies, 17% to 25% of prescriptions are not accompanied by instructions from the doctor. For a new prescription, doctors discuss dosing directions in fewer than 60% of cases and review potential adverse events — a major reason why patients quit taking their drugs — only 33% of the time.

Nor do busy doctors typically have the time or skill to sit down with a patient and tease out his or her unique personal barriers to compliance, which is why so much of their advice goes in one ear and out the other, contends behavioral psychologist Kim Lavoie, PhD, associate professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal, co-director of the Montreal Behavioral Medicine Centre and an expert on motivating patients to stick to their regimens.

“Health is not necessarily the patient’s main priority,” Lavoie observes. “If you have a 40-year-old woman who smokes, and you want to get her to quit, what’s likely to be her No. 1 concern? The answer,” she says, “is weight gain. If the conversation doesn’t address that obstacle, my prediction is that she’s not going to quit.”

The authors of a paper that analyzes the doctor-patient interaction note, “Doctors’ communication style can positively influence (patient) beliefs and therefore lead to better adherence to recommendations. However, they are often unable to understand differences in patient preferences regarding information and participation during consultations. They often fail to listen to patients and explore their views on their disease and medication.”

Explore their views? Who has the time for that? But doctors’ failure to listen may not be just a function of time. Doctors, after all, are also psychological beings, who may, at times, act irrationally in counterproductive ways.

“The doctor, just as the patient, also experiences feelings during the consultation such as anxiety or anger, which have been shown to decrease the overall satisfaction of both parties with the consultation and also the patient’s adherence to recommendations,” researchers have discovered.

See also: Is the ACA Repeal Taking Shape?  

Conflicting perspectives on compliance

When you prescribe drugs for patients with chronic conditions or advise them to go on a diet, it’s natural to assume that because patients come to you as their medical expert you share the same goal: the patients’ long-term health.

But this may not be the case. In fact, doctors and patients tend to have conflicting perspectives on the burden of adhering to the medication and lifestyle regimens the doctors prescribe. Doctors “want to maximize patients’ health outcomes in the future and are less interested in patients’ anticipatory feelings in the present,” one paper points out.  Patients “put more weight on leading an easier life now rather than thinking of the consequences of their future health status.”

It might be easier to bridge this gap if the doctor-patient relationship still had the influence it once did, but with many patients switching health plans — and, often, doctors — on a yearly basis as premiums are raised, the relationship now is often perfunctory. The more patients you are forced to see to pay the bills, the less time you have to explore and address patient barriers to compliance.

Too-brief visits with doctors and leaving with more questions than answers may be a reason why many patients seek medical advice elsewhere. The prospect of patients visiting healthcare websites (where the quality of information can be highly variable) rather than trusting doctors to know what they’re doing may make smoke come out of your ears. But now patients are visiting social networking sites, specifically for patients with chronic diseases, where they compare notes. They discuss their medications, dosages and adverse events with each other, give each other advice and often take that advice.

One study found that 55% of patients rely entirely on their physician to make treatment decisions. That means 45% are seeking advice elsewhere. In another study, 68% of patients turned to other sources to validate information received from their doctors. These other sources, needless to say, aren’t other physicians.

Even when doctors take the time to explain things to patients, many patients have little or no idea of what the doctors are talking about. Nearly half of all adults in the U.S. — 90 million people — have trouble understanding what the doctor tells them about why they are sick and about how to adhere to medication regimens, according to the Institute of Medicine.

“Each patient, in reality, has his or her own unique barriers, which can vary by disease and medication,” a team of RAND researchers concluded. “Programs for improving adherence must find a balance between ‘customized’ interventions and effective programs that work for large groups or classes of patients.

“This is not to say that society needs thousands of different programs for each barrier,” the researchers continued, “but it needs programs that can identify these barriers and take the diversity of individuals and barriers into account.”

We are not there yet.

Medication regimens can be too complicated

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that, especially when doctors are dashing off prescriptions every 15 minutes, the drug regimens being prescribed — even though they may be evidence-based — may not be easy for patients to follow, even if they wanted to.

In a 2012 paper, Kaiser Permanente’s John Steiner calculated how many behaviors per year are required of a hypothetical 67-year-old patient with well-controlled hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia. It came to more than 3,000 behaviors. “And that’s a conservative estimate,” he says.

Writing in the New York Times, internist Danielle Ofri, MD, associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine, told of a small experiment she conducted with a group of medical students. They wrote up prescriptions for several common medications: metformin, furosemide, albuterol, lisinopril and rantidine. Each student received two prescriptions and two boxes of Tic Tacs and was instructed to take the “medicines” for a week.

“When we met for our next session, I asked them how they did, and they all had abashed expressions on their faces,” Ofri writes. “Not one was able to take every single pill as directed for seven days.”

Compliance, it turns out, is inversely proportional to the number of times a patient must take medication each day. For medication taken only once daily, the average compliance rate is nearly 80%; for medication that must be taken four times a day, the average rate drops to about 50%.

See also: Potential Key to Tackling Opioid Issues  

One study found that the average patient who takes a statin for dyslipidemia currently takes a total of 11 medications, makes five pharmacy visits over a three-month period and synchronizes — that is, picks up multiple prescriptions at the same time — just half of his or her refills. However, 10% of statin users take 23 or more medications, make 11 or more pharmacy visits to two or more pharmacies over 90 days, have four or more prescribers and only synchronize 10% of their refills.

Picture a Medicare patient whose memory may not be what it once was and who may lack the social support to get to the pharmacy regularly trying to adhere to all of this.

“We’re asking patients to adopt obsessive-compulsive behavior,” admits internist Edmund Pezalla, MD, MPH, national medical director of Pharmacy Policy and Strategy for the health insurer Aetna. “Taking medication every day is hard to do. We’re asking people to deal with the same boring situation over and over again. We’re not programmed to do that. Machines do that. Humans don’t do it very well.”

Fragmented care is a culprit

Even if doctors had more time to spend with patients and if patients were more willing to take their doctors’ advice, the healthcare system creates numerous obstacles to subvert their efforts. A major obstacle is fragmented care.

“In decades past, community-based physicians not only authorized a patient’s admission to the hospital, they performed regular hospital rounds, supervised overall patient care and authorized the patient’s discharge,” notes a report by the New England Health Policy Institute (NEHI). “In theory, medication management was seamless because the admitting physician, the discharging physician and the ‘receiving’ physician in the community were the same individual.”

That’s not the situation today. Patients with chronic conditions now see primary doctors, who, in turn, refer them to specialists. If the patients are hospitalized, a hospitalist likely as not will take over their care. Many patients are discharged, not to their homes, but to long-term acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals or skilled nursing facilities, where more doctors will prescribe medications for them.

“Transferring patients from short-term acute care hospitals to post-acute providers increases the number of times information needs to be passed between providers and increases the opportunity for errors and medication errors in particular,” the NEHI report points out.

Other systemic barriers to compliance include lack of access to healthcare, inconvenience in obtaining prescription refills, wide variations in the cost of the same drugs from one health plan to another and pharmacy policies that limit prescription size and require frequent refills.

Access to pharmacy data is a problem

Even in accountable care organizations and integrated delivery systems, with resources far beyond those of the average doctor, care teams typically lack access to pharmacy data, such as the rate at which a prescription is filled and refilled by a given patient. If you knew which of your patients weren’t picking up their drugs, you would know who needs help with medication compliance.

“For patients with coexisting conditions who take multiple medications prescribed by multiple physicians, there is a vital need to reconcile the prescribed regimen with what a patient is actually taking and to understand why there is a difference between the two,” note David M. Cutler, PhD, and Wendy Everett, ScD, in a 2010 paper. “But optimizing and reconciling medications require substantial investments of time by a skilled healthcare practitioner, as well as electronic data sharing among practitioners — neither of which is widely available in today’s model of healthcare delivery.”

Even if time, skill and electronic-data-sharing were widely available, the complexity of each patient’s barriers and the ever-shifting nature of those barriers would probably still thwart many efforts to improve medication compliance.

“Although the multifactorial nature of nonadherence means there will never be a one-size-fits-all solution, interventions ranging from education to elimination of selected copayments to telephone-based counseling have achieved modest improvements in clinical trials,” Rosenbaum and Shrank point out. “But even if we had more robust interventions,” they write, “we’d lack simple, cost-effective ways of targeting the right intervention to the right patient.”

Why research hasn’t been more helpful

Advances in medicine generally stem from peer-reviewed studies that produce statistically compelling, evidence-based data for doing one thing or another. The more studies, the better and more refined the evidence — or so one would think.

This hasn’t, by and large, been the case with compliance. The ocean of data on the subject has stubbornly resisted attempts at synthesis into a statistically compelling, evidence-based, systematized plan or plans of action for overcoming barriers to compliance across a range of patients, drugs and diseases.

A 2007 Cochrane review of interventions for enhancing medication compliance didn’t mince words: “With the astonishing advances in medical therapeutics during the past two decades, one would think that studies of the nature of non-adherence and the effectiveness of strategies to help patients overcome it would flourish,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, the literature concerning interventions to improve adherence with medications remains surprisingly weak.”

“There probably is a set of general principles that might emerge from the literature,” suspects Kaiser Permanente’s John Steiner, “but they’re not intuitively evident because of the way the studies are designed and carried out.”

Even the definition of compliance is subject to debate. Is compliance mainly taking one’s medications as instructed — a narrow definition adopted by most researchers because it simplifies research to study only one variable at a time, even if it sacrifices environmental complexity? Or should the definition be broader: “The extent to which a person’s behavior — taking medication, following a diet or executing lifestyle changes — corresponds with the agreed recommendations from a healthcare provider,” as WHO maintains?

Steiner tells of his 93-year-old father, who embodies this definitional dilemma: “He discovered to his great delight that, as long as he took his statin, he could eat anything he wanted,” Steiner says. “By being adherent with his medication, he didn’t need to be adherent with his diet. Those are different adherence behaviors, but, in his case, one trumps the other.”

“The problem is with the way the scientific literature evolves,” Steiner reflects. “It’s reductionistic. You want to do a study on adherence with antihypertensive drugs, for example, and you disregard the six other drugs that the patient is taking.

“That can make the literature seem fragmented,” he says. “We don’t tackle the adherence problem at the patient level. We tackle it at the drug or disease level. It’s easier to study at that level. Measurements are easier. Costs are lower.”

How much compliance is enough?

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has introduced uniform standards for compliance outcomes with its five-star rating system for Medicare Advantage plans. The top rating is awarded to plans that achieve 70% to 80% compliance in hyperlipidemia, hypertension and cholesterol management in their members.

But this raises another niggling issue: From a population-based perspective, how much compliance is enough? Setting optimal compliance rates across the board at 80% is arbitrary and potentially counterproductive, Steiner believes.

“There’s almost no evidence that can allow us to set those sorts of thresholds in a scientific way,” he asserts. “For example, for first-generation antiretroviral drugs, studies showed that you needed adherence of 95% or greater to knock out the virus. An 80% adherence threshold would not have been stringent enough for those old drugs.

See also: EpiPen and the Prescription Crisis  

“The converse is also true. Years ago, when rheumatic fever was common, doctors prescribed penicillin to knock out strep throat, because that triggered rheumatic fever. However, studies showed that you only probably needed to take a third of the doses to knock out all the strep. So for that kind of situation, 30% to 40% adherence was probably just fine. If it were 80%, you would increase the risk for side effects, as well as the cost, without increasing the clinical benefit.”

In the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012, Steiner writes, “If lower levels of adherence are sufficient to achieve clinical goals, pursuit of higher adherence is wasteful. And if higher levels are required, even these adherence targets will not suffice.”

Moderate progress on compliance issues

Despite a tsunami of unanswered questions, the enormous amount of research that has gone into compliance has not been a waste of time. On the contrary, it has produced some valuable insights. The second article in this series looks at the healthcare industry’s initiatives to improve compliance on the basis of this research.

With more than 40,000 peer-reviewed studies on the subject conducted over several decades, you’d think we’d at least be at Compliance 2.0 by now in the state of our knowledge. In reality, it’s more like Compliance 1.5. We aren’t on the verge of solving this immensely complex problem. The outlines of what is, at best, a partial solution are only just starting to emerge.

Despite moderate progress, “The heterogeneity in how adherence is assessed, measured and defined is a major limitation to the data on barriers of adherence,” investigators at RAND concluded in 2009.

That continues to be the case.

Winning the War Against Opioid Addiction and Abuse

As we move forward with winning the war against opioid addiction, it can sometimes be challenging to read the daily headlines and stay positive, especially around the holidays. A December article titled “Drug Abusers May be Injuring Pets to Get Pain Killers” shared how police officers and community leaders informed the Ohio attorney general’s office that people have been abusing drugs rightfully prescribed to pets. The US News HealthDay story titled “Secure Your Prescription Drugs When Hosting Holiday Parties” warned readers about the importance of securing prescription drugs in a safe location before guests arrive. When stories deteriorate to addicts intentionally harming their dogs and to people worrying about holiday guests raiding medicine cabinets, rock bottom isn’t far away.

However, 2013 positioned us well for achieving improved results during 2014. Some of last year’s positive developments include:

1.   State law changes establishing clearer standards of care, reporting and tracking of controlled narcotics, bans on abused narcotics, etc.

2.   State and federal agencies aggressively prosecuting individuals who prescribe opioids illegally or  operate “pill mills,” revoking registrations of some pharmacies and compelling healthcare providers and pharmacies to surrender or forfeit their medical licenses to state medical/pharmacy boards

3.   Physician-led education efforts like the Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing

4.   Medical boards actively addressing the inappropriate and illegal dispensing of drugs

5.   Heightened awareness of the neonatal abstinence syndrome crisis in the U.S.

6.   Workers’ compensation insurers leveraging advanced analytics, physician education efforts, evidence-based pain diagnoses and utilization reviews to reduce injured worker reliance on addictive prescription drugs

7.   The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

8.   The issuance of the October 2013 Trust for America’s Health report titled “Prescription Drug Abuse: Strategies to Stop the Epidemic”

9.   Continuing prosecution and sentencing of healthcare providers

10. Efforts by national medical organizations

The first eight developments were addressed in the authors’ first quarter 2013 Physician Insurer magazine article titled “The Opioid Abuse Epidemic, Turning the Tide” and our Dec. 2, 2013 Property Casualty 360 Claims Magazine article titled “10 Strategies to Combat the Rx Abuse Epidemic – An Insurers Perspective.”

This article will expand on the last two developments and share some thoughts on what may be in our future when it comes to winning the war on opioid addiction and abuse.

Prosecution and sentencing of healthcare providers

2013 was marked by the successful prosecution and sentencing of healthcare professionals involved in various forms of prescription drug diversion. Arguably the most notable of these was the 39-year prison sentence given to David Kwiatkowski, the former New Hampshire hospital technician who caused dozens of people to become infected with hepatitis C when he injected himself with pain killers using syringes that were then used on patients. Kwiatkowski admitted in August to stealing the drugs and leaving used syringes for hospital use for years, despite knowing he was infected with hepatitis C. His case drew national attention to the problem of prescription drug diversion among healthcare workers; caused a number of institutions to finally take a fresh look at their human resource policies and systems being used to detect diversion; and, has, we hope, sent a strong message of deterrence to all healthcare drug diverters — it is only a matter of time before you get caught!

Efforts by national medical organizations (NMOs)

On an extremely positive note, we are beginning to see NMOs join the fight to help stem the opioid epidemic. On Dec. 10, 2013, the American College of Physicians released a position paper titled “Prescription Drug Abuse: A Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.” The goal of the paper was to provide physicians and policy-makers with 10 recommendations to address the significant human and financial costs related to prescription drug abuse. The recommendations include support for additional education, a national prescription drug monitoring program, establishment of evidence-based nonbinding guidelines regarding recommended maximum dosage and duration of therapy, consideration of patient-provider treatment agreements and the passage of legislation by all 50 states permitting electronic prescription for controlled substances.

In turn, in January 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Drugs and Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine issued a report titled “Recognition and Management of Iatrogenically Induced Opioid Dependence and Withdrawal in Children.” The clinical report recommended guidelines for prescribers to follow when weaning children from opioids. As noted by lead author Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, “[t]he key reason the AAP was keen to publish this paper and go forward with this guideline is that people are unaware that patients can get drug-specific withdrawal symptoms from opioids as early as five days to a week after having been on an opioid chronically.”

This recommendation was immediately followed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Jan. 10, 2014, Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 publication of proposed rules revising the Medicare Advantage (MA) regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to help combat fraud and abuse in these programs. The proposed rules include requiring prescribers of Part D drugs to enroll in Medicare, a feature that CMS believes will help ensure that Part D drugs are prescribed only by qualified individuals. As reported by Medscape Medical News, CMS is also seeking the authority to revoke a physician’s or eligible professional’s Medicare enrollment if:

• CMS determines that he or she has a pattern or practice of prescribing Part D drugs that is abusive and represents a threat to the health and safety of Medicare beneficiaries or otherwise fails to meet Medicare requirements; or

• His or her Drug Enforcement Administration certificate of registration is suspended or revoked; or

• The applicable licensing or administrative body for any state in which a physician or eligible professional practices has suspended or revoked the physician or eligible professional’s ability to prescribe drugs.

Furthermore, CMS proposes employing data analysis to identify prescribers and pharmacies that may be engaged in fraudulent or abusive activities. In Table 14 of Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7, CMS’ Office of the Actuary estimates the savings to the federal government from implementing its proposed provisions will be $83 million in calendar year 2015, $132 million in 2016, $171 million in 2017, $364 million in 2018 and $589 million in 2019.

Source: CMS

Innovation in our future

In addition to the above efforts, companies continue to innovate and research new ways to address historical challenges.

Vatex Explorations is building a real-time individual-dose monitoring system called Divert-X to reduce drug trafficking, misuse and addictions that result from routine medical care. Divert-X monitors a patient’s individual doses through the electronic transmission of data identifying the time of dose access, location and other measures. The analysis of the data in real time helps physicians and pharmacists identify drug-taking behaviors that fall outside of norms, allowing early intervention before misuse or addiction set in.

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration approved an ingestible sensor that can be used to track real time data about your pill consumptions habits. The sensor, developed by Proteus Digital Health, was first approved for use in Europe before coming to the U.S. The ingestible sensor is part of the digital health feedback system, which includes a wearable sensor and secure app and is largely focused on serving the transplant population and patients with chronic illnesses. The authors could envision a day when the system could help in the battle against opioid addiction.

Insurance companies are doing a better job of leveraging advanced analytics to understand their opioid-exposed population and the prescribing habits of the physicians treating their injured workers. Through the review of medical bills (e.g., date and types of service and payment, ICD-9 diagnosis codes, CPT-4 procedure codes, etc.) and pharmacy data (e.g., bill frequency,  aggressive refills, NDC drug codes, quantity used, generic vs. brand, supply days, use of prescriber, pharmacy name, etc.), insurance companies can identify usage and treatment patterns that fall outside of expectations using cluster analyses, association rules, anomaly detection and network “link” analyses.

Law enforcement continues to push the envelope in finding innovative ways to combat drug diversion. Take, for example, the strategy developed in consultation with the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators and Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics to curb false reporting of the loss or theft of prescription drugs in Stillwater. According to a police spokesman, most physicians in Stillwater require patients to obtain a police report before they will write a replacement prescription for lost or stolen medications. This requirement resulted in an increase in the number of police reports filed, but a new problem emerged. How could anyone determine whether those police reports were legitimate? In response, the Stillwater police department created a database to record the names of any individual who reported the loss or theft of a prescription drug. The department now requires the individual to take a polygraph test before it will accept any subsequent report of a lost or stolen prescription drug. Fail that polygraph, and criminal prosecution may follow. Query: If this strategy were employed nationwide, would the medicine cabinet at home be guarded more closely?

Conclusion

There is no doubt we have come a long way in the battle against opioid addiction in a relatively short time. Although there is a lot of road left to travel, 2014 is well-positioned to carry forward the effective efforts from last year. Given the innovative spirit of the U.S. and passion of everyone involved in winning this fight, a better long-term solution could be just around the corner.