Suchergebnisse

PURPOSE: Despite mandated reporting laws that require physicians to report elder abuse, physicians have low rates of reporting. The purpose of this study was to identify physician's perspectives on mandated reporting of elder abuse. METHODS: Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 primary care physicians practicing in a variety of settings and caring for a diverse patient population in the Los Angeles area. Interviewers collected information on physicians' perspectives about factors that may influence physicians' likelihood to report elder abuse. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach based on the constant comparative method and the emergence of the core category of paradox to best account for the most problematic elder abuse situations faced by physicians. RESULTS: During the interviews 3 paradoxes were expressed by physicians about the mandatory reporting of elder abuse. Specifically, mandatory reporting was related to both perceptions of increases and decreases in physician-patient rapport, patient quality of life, and physician control or ability to decide what is in the best interest of the patient. These paradoxes appear to be primarily hidden or unconscious, yet they influence the conscious decision process of whether to report. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians appear to be subject to paradoxes of reporting that contribute to the underreporting of elder abuse. These paradoxes and alternative modes of managing paradoxes are important and should be addressed in educational and training programs for physicians, and systematic evaluation of these issues may help to inform future legislation in this area. Further studies are needed to assess the generalizability of these findings to other groups of clinicians.

Drug substitution is a promising approach to reducing medication costs. To calculate the potential savings in a Medicare Part D plan from generic or therapeutic substitution for commonly prescribed drugs. Cross-sectional, simulation analysis. Low-income subsidy (LIS) beneficiaries (n = 145,056) and non low-income subsidy (non-LIS) beneficiaries (n = 1,040,030) enrolled in a large, national Part D health insurer in 2007 and eligible for a possible substitution. Using administrative data from 2007, we identified claims filled for brand-name drugs for which a direct generic substitute was available. We also identified the 50 highest cost drugs separately for LIS and non-LIS beneficiaries, and reached consensus on which drugs had possible therapeutic substitutes (27 for LIS, 30 for non-LIS). For each possible substitution, we used average daily costs of the original and substitute drugs to calculate the potential out-of-pocket savings, health plan savings, and when applicable, savings for the government/LIS subsidy. Overall, 39 % of LIS beneficiaries and 51 % of non-LIS beneficiaries were eligible for a generic and/or therapeutic substitution. Generic substitutions resulted in an average annual savings of $160 in the case of LIS beneficiaries and $127 in the case of non-LIS beneficiaries. Therapeutic substitutions resulted in an average annual savings of $452 in the case of LIS beneficiaries and $389 in the case of non-LIS beneficiaries. Our findings indicate that drug substitution, particularly therapeutic substitution, could result in significant cost savings. There is a need for additional studies evaluating the acceptability of therapeutic substitution interventions within Medicare Part D.