Background

The US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommends routine lipid screening beginning age 35 for men [1]. For women age 20 and older, as well as men age 20-34, screening is recommended if cardiovascular risk factors are present. Prior research has focused on underutilization but not overuse of lipid testing. The objective is to document over- and under-use of lipid testing in an insured population of persons at low, moderate and high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for persons not already on statins.

Methods

The study is a retrospective cohort study that included all adults without prior CVD who were continuously enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system from 2005 to 2010. Measures included lipid test frequency extracted from administrative data and Framingham cardiovascular risk equations applied using electronic medical record data. Five year lipid testing patterns were examined by age, sex and CVD risk. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the relative risk for over testing associated with patient characteristics.

Results

Among males and females for whom testing is not recommended, 35.8 % and 61.5 % received at least one lipid test in the prior 5 years and 8.4 % and 24.4 % had two or more. Over-testing was associated with age, race, comorbidity, primary care use and neighborhood income. Among individuals at moderate and high-risk (not already treated with statins) and for whom screening is recommended, between 21.4 % and 25.1 % of individuals received no screening in the prior 5 years.

Conclusions

Based on USPSTF lipid screening recommendations, this study documents substantial over-testing among individuals with low CVD risk and under-testing among individuals with moderate to high-risk not already on statins. Opportunity exists to better focus lipid screening efforts appropriate to CVD risk.

Background

Health systems are increasingly implementing remote telephone and Internet refill systems to enhance patient access to medication refills. Remote refill systems may provide an effective approach for improving medication non-adherence, but more research is needed among patients with limited English proficiency with poor access to remote refill systems.

Objective

To compare the use of remote medication refill systems among limited-English-proficiency (LEP) and English-proficient (EP) patients with chronic conditions.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey in six languages/dialects (English, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, and Spanish) of 509 adults with diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Primary study outcomes were self-reported use of 1) Internet refills, 2) telephone refills, and 3) any remote refill system. LEP was measured by patient self-identification of a primary language other than English and a claims record of use of an interpreter. Other measures were age, gender, education, years in the U.S., insurance, health status, chronic conditions, and number of prescribed medications. Analyses included multivariable logistic regression weighted for survey non-response.

Results

Overall, 33.1 % of patients refilled their medications by telephone and 31.6 % by Internet. Among LEP patients (n = 328), 31.5 % refilled by telephone and 21.2 % by Internet, compared with 36.7 % by telephone and 52.7 % by Internet among EP patients (n = 181). Internet refill by language groups were as follows: English (52.7 %), Cantonese (34.9 %), Mandarin (17.4 %), Korean (16.7 %), Vietnamese (24.4 %), and Spanish (12.6 %). Compared to EP patients, LEP patients had lower use of any remote refill system (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.18; p < 0.001), CONCLUSIONS: LEP patients are significantly less likely than EP patients to use any remote medication refill system. Increased reliance on current systems for remote medication refills may increase disparities in health outcomes affecting LEP patients with poor access to telephone and Internet medication refills.