ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health services research : an official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain2018
Predictive Value Positive of MTM Eligibility Criteria under MMA and ACA in Identifying Individuals with Medication Utilization Issues.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health services research : an official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the predictive value positives (PVP) of medication therapy management eligibility criteria under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in identifying individuals with medication utilization issues (MUI).
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of Medicare database (2012-2013). MUI were determined based on medication utilization measures related to Medicare Part D Star Ratings. PVP or proportions of individuals with MUI were compared between individuals eligible for MTM under MMA and ACA. Need-based and demand-based logistic regression was used to adjust for patient characteristics. MTM eligibility thresholds in 2009 and 2013 and proposed 2015 MTM eligibility thresholds under MMA were examined. Main/sensitivity/disease-specific analyses were conducted to cover the range of eligibility thresholds and combinations. KEY
findingsMMA has higher PVP in identifying patients with MUI than ACA. Proportions of individuals with MUI were higher based on MMA than ACA (e.g., 74.96% for 2009 MMA, 73.51% for 2013 MMA, and 62.46% for proposed 2015 MMA vs. 52.17% for ACA in main analysis; P<0.05). Adjusted findings were similar. For example, based on the demand-based model in the main analysis, the odds ratios were 2.474 (95% CI: 2.454-2.494) for 2013 MMA in comparison to ACA. These numbers indicate that the MMA MTM eligibility criteria for 2013 had 147.4% higher PVP in identifying patients with MUI than ACA. Similar patterns were found in most sensitivity and disease-specific analyses.
conclusionsMMA has higher PVP than ACA in identifying patients with MUI. This study may inform the government on future MTM policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.