Purpose

To describe the frequency and variation of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab use for branch retinal vein occlusion (BVO) in the United States (US).

Methods

We obtained a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from the Medicare Denominator and Physician/Supplier Part B claims files from 2010 to 2013 and identified all beneficiaries with an ICD-9-CM code for branch retinal vein occlusion (BVO, 362.36). Patient age, gender, race, state of residence and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were collected. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HSCPS) codes for bevacizumab (J3590, J9035, and J3490) and for ranibizumab (J2778) were used to identify the mode of treatment for each patient. Patients who met the following criteria were excluded from this study: (1) under 65 years of age; (2) residence outside of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia; (3) no Part-B coverage or with HMO coverage that was not processed by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); (4) concomitant diagnosis of diabetic edema (ICD-9: 362.07) or central retinal vein occlusion (ICD-9: 362.35); and (5) received both or none of the above two treatments. Geographic variation was examined by comparing injection frequencies across the nine US census divisions using Chi-squared analysis.

Results

During 2010-2013, a majority of the 3944 BVO patients who met the inclusion criteria received bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab (76.7% vs 23.3%). Most patients were aged 75-79 (22.0%) or 80-84 (22.0%), female (61.5%), white (88.3%), and had a CCI score of 1-2 (39.8%). The frequencies of bevacizumab and ranibizumab injections for BVO varied significantly between the US census divisions (p < 0.0001). The highest frequencies of bevacizumab use were in the Mountain (90.6%) and Pacific (82.7%) divisions while the highest frequencies of ranibizumab use were in the West North Central (37.9%) and Mid Atlantic (32.7%) divisions.

Conclusions and importance

A majority of Medicare beneficiaries with BVO received bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab from 2010 to 2013, with significant geographic variation in the use of the two anti-VEGF agents. Future research into factors driving geographic variation in the use of these agents may help direct cost-effective strategies for the management of BVO.

Purpose

To describe the frequency and variation of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab use for branch retinal vein occlusion (BVO) in the United States (US).

Methods

We obtained a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from the Medicare Denominator and Physician/Supplier Part B claims files from 2010 to 2013 and identified all beneficiaries with an ICD-9-CM code for branch retinal vein occlusion (BVO, 362.36). Patient age, gender, race, state of residence and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were collected. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HSCPS) codes for bevacizumab (J3590, J9035, and J3490) and for ranibizumab (J2778) were used to identify the mode of treatment for each patient. Patients who met the following criteria were excluded from this study: (1) under 65 years of age; (2) residence outside of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia; (3) no Part-B coverage or with HMO coverage that was not processed by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); (4) concomitant diagnosis of diabetic edema (ICD-9: 362.07) or central retinal vein occlusion (ICD-9: 362.35); and (5) received both or none of the above two treatments. Geographic variation was examined by comparing injection frequencies across the nine US census divisions using Chi-squared analysis.

Results

During 2010-2013, a majority of the 3944 BVO patients who met the inclusion criteria received bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab (76.7% vs 23.3%). Most patients were aged 75-79 (22.0%) or 80-84 (22.0%), female (61.5%), white (88.3%), and had a CCI score of 1-2 (39.8%). The frequencies of bevacizumab and ranibizumab injections for BVO varied significantly between the US census divisions (p < 0.0001). The highest frequencies of bevacizumab use were in the Mountain (90.6%) and Pacific (82.7%) divisions while the highest frequencies of ranibizumab use were in the West North Central (37.9%) and Mid Atlantic (32.7%) divisions.

Conclusions and importance

A majority of Medicare beneficiaries with BVO received bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab from 2010 to 2013, with significant geographic variation in the use of the two anti-VEGF agents. Future research into factors driving geographic variation in the use of these agents may help direct cost-effective strategies for the management of BVO.

Objective

To describe what information is or is not included in health care claims data, provide an overview of the main advantages and limitations of performing analyses using health care claims data, and offer general guidance on how to report and interpret findings of ophthalmology-related claims data analyses.

Design

Systematic review.

Participants

Not applicable.

Methods

A literature review and synthesis of methods for claims-based data analyses.

Main outcome measures

Not applicable.

Results

Some advantages of using claims data for analyses include large, diverse sample sizes, longitudinal follow-up, lack of selection bias, and potential for complex, multivariable modeling. The disadvantages include (a) the inherent limitations of claims data, such as incomplete, inaccurate, or missing data, or the lack of specific billing codes for some conditions; and (b) the inability, in some circumstances, to adequately evaluate the appropriateness of care. In general, reports of claims data analyses should include clear descriptions of the following methodological elements: the data source, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the specific billing codes used, and the potential confounding factors incorporated in the multivariable models.

Conclusions

The use of claims data for research is expected to increase with the enhanced availability of data from Medicare and other sources. The use of claims data to evaluate resource use and efficiency and to determine the basis for supplementary payment methods for physicians is anticipated. Thus, it will be increasingly important for eye care providers to use accurate and descriptive codes for billing. Adherence to general guidance on the reporting of claims data analyses, as outlined in this article, is important to enhance the credibility and applicability of findings. Guidance on optimal ways to conduct and report ophthalmology-related investigations using claims data will likely continue to evolve as health services researchers refine the metrics to analyze large administrative data sets.

Importance

Disorders of binocular vision are increasingly prevalent among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older. Visual impairment is a recognized risk factor for fractures. Despite the association of visual impairment and fracture risk, to our knowledge, no study has examined the influence that disorders of binocular vision (strabismus, amblyopia, diplopia, and nystagmus) may have on musculoskeletal injury and fracture risk in the elderly population.

Objective

To evaluate associations between disorders of binocular vision and musculoskeletal injury, fracture, and falls in the elderly.

Design, setting, and participants

A retrospective study of 10-year (2002-2011) musculoskeletal injury, fracture, or fall prevalence in a 5% random sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries with disorders of binocular vision. Participants included Medicare beneficiaries living in the general community who were 65 years or older with at least 1 year of Medicare Part B enrollment.

Exposures

Diagnosis of a disorder of binocular vision.

Main outcomes and measures

Ten-year prevalence of musculoskeletal injury, fracture, or fall in individuals with and without disorders of binocular vision. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, region of residence, systemic and ocular comorbidities, and duration of follow-up.

Results

There were 2,196,881 Medicare beneficiaries identified. Of these, 99,525 (4.5%) had at least 1 reported disorder of binocular vision (strabismus, 2.3%; diplopia, 2.2%; amblyopia, 0.9%; and nystagmus, 0.2%). During the 10-year study period, there were 1,272,948 (57.9%) patients with documented musculoskeletal injury, fracture, or fall. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for the association between disorders of binocular vision and any of the 3 injury types was 2.23 (95% CI, 2.20-2.27; P < .001). The adjusted OR was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.25-1.29; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

Medicare beneficiaries with a disorder of binocular vision have significantly higher odds of sustaining a musculoskeletal injury, fracture, or fall. This finding is an important step forward in understanding and developing strategies to prevent these injuries, which are associated with high morbidity in the elderly.

Purpose

To investigate ophthalmologists' rate of attestation to meaningful use (MU) of their electronic health record (EHR) systems in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program and their continuity and success in receiving payments in comparison with other specialties.

Design

Administrative database study.

Participants

Eligible professionals participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program.

Methods

Based on publicly available data sources, subsets of payment and attestation data were created for ophthalmologists and for other specialties. The number of eligible professionals attesting was determined using the attestation data for each year and stage of the program. The proportion of attestations by EHR vendor was calculated using all attestations for each vendor.

Main outcome measures

Numbers of ophthalmologists attesting by year and stage of the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, incentive payments, and number of attestations by EHR vendor.

Results

In the peak year of participation, 51.6% of ophthalmologists successfully attested to MU, compared with 37.1% of optometrists, 50.2% of dermatologists, 54.5% of otolaryngologists, and 64.4% of urologists. Across the 6 years of the program, ophthalmologists received an average of $17 942 in incentive payments compared with $11 105 for optometrists, $16 617 for dermatologists, $20 203 for otolaryngologists, and $23 821 for urologists. Epic and Nextgen were the most frequently used EHRs for attestation by ophthalmologists.

Conclusions

Ophthalmology as a specialty performed better than optometry and dermatology, but worse than otolaryngology and urology, in terms of the proportion of eligible professionals attesting to MU of EHRs. Ophthalmologists were more likely to remain in the program after their initial year of attestation compared with all eligible providers. The top 4 EHR vendors accounted for 50% of attestations by ophthalmologists.