WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, SCM, FAHA Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH Stephanie E. Chiuve, ScD Mary Cushman, MD, MSc, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, FAHA Rajat Deo, MD, MTR Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH James Floyd, MD, MS Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Cathleen Gillespie, MS Carmen R. Isasi, MD, PhD, FAHA Monik C. Jiménez, ScD, SM Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD Suzanne E. Judd, PhD Daniel Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, MPH, FAHA Simin Liu, MD, ScD, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Rachel H. Mackey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, FAHA Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, FAHA Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA Dilip K. Pandey, MBBS, MS, PhD, FAHA Ravi R. Thiagarajan, MD, MPH Mathew J. Reeves, PhD Matthew Ritchey, PT, DPT, OCS, MPH Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, FAHA Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, FAHA Amytis Towfighi, MD Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH Melanie B. Turner, MPH Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD Joshua Z. Willey, MD, MS John T. Wilkins, MD Jason HY. Wu, MSc, PhD, FAHA Heather M. Alger, PhD Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Paul Muntner, PhD, MHSc On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine

March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Each chapter listed in the Table of Contents (see next page) is a hyperlink to that chapter. The reader clicks the chapter name to access that chapter.

Each chapter listed here is a hyperlink. Click on the chapter name to be taken to that chapter. 

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together in a single document the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and the cardiovascular risk factors listed in the AHA’s My Life Check - Life’s Simple 7 (Figure1), which include core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure [BP], and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update represents …

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2018 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.

Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovas...

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

We use data from the Health and Retirement Study to examine the elderly’s out-of-pocket health care spending. We find that Medicare HMOs, employer supplements, and Medicaid effectively insulate against the risk of high expenditures. At the ninetieth percentile, Medicare beneficiaries with employer supplements or enrolled in Medicare HMOs spend $1,600 less out of pocket than beneficiaries with traditional Medicare spend. For the poor elderly, Medicaid offers similar protection. Among the near-poor elderly, there is little employer coverage, so Medicare HMOs provide most of the protection against financial risk. There is evidence that Medicare HMO benefits have eroded since 1998, raising the question of whether the near-poor have lost financial protection since then.

High Out-Of-Pocket Health Care Spending By The Elderly

Objective. —To understand how medical savings account (MSA) legislation for the nonelderly would affect health care costs. Design. —Economic policy evaluation based on the RAND Health Expenditures Simulation Model. Setting. —National probability sample of nonelderly noninstitutionalized households. Participants. —Persons in 23157 sampled households from the 1993 Current Population Survey. Interventions. —Medical savings account legislation would allow all Americans who are covered only by a catastrophic health care plan to set up a tax-exempt account that they can use to pay medical bills not covered by their health insurance. The interventions we evaluate differ in the deductibles of the catastrophic plan and in whether the employee or employer funds the MSA. Main Outcome Measures. —Changes in national health expenditures and net societal benefits of health care. Results. —If all insured nonelderly Americans switched to MSAs, their health care expenditures would decline by between 0% and 13%, depending on how the MSAs are designed. However, not all nonelderly Americans would choose MSAs; taking into account selection patterns, health spending would change by +1% to -2%. Conclusions. —Medical savings account legislation would have little impact on health care costs of Americans with employer-provided insurance. However, depending on the size of the catastrophic limit, waste from the excessive use of generously insured care could be reduced, and MSAs would be attractive to both sick and healthy people. ( JAMA . 1996;275:1666-1671)

https://jamanetwork.com/HttpHandlers/ArticlePdfHandler.ashx?journal=jama&articleId=403187&pdfFileName=jama_275_21_033.pdf

Can medical savings accounts for the nonelderly reduce health care costs

Importance Use of opioids during and shortly after an acute hospitalization is warranted in some clinical settings. However, given the potential of opioids for short-term adverse events and long-term physiologic tolerance, it is important to understand the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge, hospital variation, and patient and hospital factors associated with opioid prescribing, which is currently unknown in the United States. Objective To estimate the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among Medicare beneficiaries without an opioid prescription claim 60 days prior to hospitalization; to document hospital variation in prescribing; and to analyze patient and hospital factors associated with prescribing, including hospital average performance on pain-related Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures. Design, Setting, and Participants Analysis of pharmacy claims of a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2011 without an opioid prescription claim in the 60 days before hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures Our main outcome was a new opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge. We estimated a multivariable linear probability model of patient factors associated with new opioid use and described hospital variation in adjusted rates of new opioid use. In multivariable linear regression analysis, we also analyzed hospital factors associated with average adjusted new opioid use at the hospital level, including the percentage of each hospital’s patients who reported that their pain during hospitalization was always well controlled in the 2011 HCAHPS surveys. Results Among 623 957 hospitalizations, 92 882 (14.9%) were associated with a new opioid claim. Among those hospitalizations with an associated opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge, 32 731 (42.5%) of 77 092 were associated with an opioid claim after 90 days postdischarge. Across 2512 hospitals, the average adjusted rate of new opioid use within 7 days of hospitalization was 15.1% (interquartile range, 12.3%-17.4%; interdecile range, 10.5%-20.0%). A hospital’s adjusted rate of new opioid use was modestly positively associated with the percentage of its inpatients reporting that their pain was always well managed (increase from 25th to the 75th percentile in the HCAHPS measure was associated with an absolute increase in new opioid use of 0.89 percentage points or a relative increase of 6.0%; P Conclusions and Relevance New opioid use after hospitalization is common among Medicare beneficiaries, with substantial variation across hospitals and a large proportion of patients using a prescription opioid 90 days after hospitalization. The degree to which observed hospital variation in short- and longer-term opioid use reflects variation in inappropriate prescribing at hospital discharge is unknown.

/pdf/hospital-prescribing-of-opioids-to-medicare-beneficiaries-4rud5jowdj.pdf

Hospital Prescribing of Opioids to Medicare Beneficiaries

Objective 
To examine the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and racial and ethnic disparities in medication adherence for three widely prescribed therapeutic classes


Methods 
We linked longitudinal claims data from a large US-based insurance provider (2011–2013) to detailed SES information to identify patients treated with oral antidiabetic (N = 56,720), antihypertensive (N = 156,468) or antihyperlipidemic (N = 144,673) medications. We measured adherence and discontinuation by therapeutic class, and conducted regression analysis to quantify the contributions of different factors in the association between race/ethnicity and medication adherence.


Results 
During an average follow-up period of 2.5 years, average adherence rates of Blacks and Hispanics were at least 7.5 percentage points lower than those of Whites. Controlling for demographics, health status, out-of-pocket costs, convenience of refilling prescriptions and SES attenuated the association by 30 to 50 percent, nonetheless substantial racial disparities persisted (4.1–5.8 percentage points), particularly for asymptomatic conditions. Separating adherence among existing users from those that discontinued therapies indicates that racial/ethnic disparities in adherence reflect inconsistent pill-taking rather than differential rates of discontinuation.


Conclusions 
Racial/ethnic disparities in adherence are mitigated, but persist after controlling for detailed socioeconomic measures. Interventions should focus more on improving medication adherence of existing users, particularly in treating asymptomatic conditions.

/pdf/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-medication-adherence-among-40kvhj4rgh.pdf

Racial and ethnic disparities in medication adherence among privately insured patients in the United States.

ContextConcern about additional costs for direct patient care impedes efforts
to enroll patients in clinical trials. But generalizable evidence substantiating
these concerns is lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the additional cost of treating cancer patients in the National
Cancer Institute (NCI)–sponsored clinical trials in the United States
across a range of trial phases, treatment modalities, and patient care settings.DesignRetrospective cost study using a multistage, stratified, random sample
of patients enrolled in 1 of 35 active phase 3 trials or phase 1 or any phase
2 trials between October 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999. Unadjusted and adjusted
costs were compared and related to trial phase, institution type, and vital
status.Setting and ParticipantsA representative sample of 932 cancer patients enrolled in nonpediatric,
NCI-sponsored clinical trials and 696 nonparticipants with a similar stage
of disease not enrolled in a research protocol from 83 cancer clinical research
institutions across the United States.Main Outcome MeasuresDirect treatment costs as measured using a combination of medical records,
telephone survey, and Medicare claims data. Administrative and other research
costs were excluded.ResultsThe incremental costs of direct care in trials were modest. Over approximately
a 2.5-year period, adjusted costs were 6.5% higher for trial participants
than nonparticipants ($35 418 vs $33 248; P =
.11). Cost differences for phase 3 studies were 3.5% (P = .22), lower than for phase 1 or 2 trials (12.8%; P = .20). Trial participants who died had higher costs than nonparticipants
who died (17.9%; $39 420 vs $33 432, respectively; P = .15).ConclusionsTreatment costs for nonpediatric clinical trial participants are on
average 6.5% higher than what they would be if patients did not enroll. This
implies total incremental treatment costs for NCI–sponsored trials of
$16 million in 1999. Incremental costs were higher for patients who died and
who were in early phase studies although these findings deserve further scrutiny.
Overall, the additional treatment costs of an open reimbursement policy for
government-sponsored cancer clinical trials appear minimal.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/196715/joc30054.pdf

Dana P. Goldman

Papers

High Out-Of-Pocket Health Care Spending By The Elderly

Can medical savings accounts for the nonelderly reduce health care costs

Hospital Prescribing of Opioids to Medicare Beneficiaries

Racial and ethnic disparities in medication adherence among privately insured patients in the United States.

Incremental Treatment Costs in National Cancer Institute–Sponsored Clinical Trials