<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265806457622"
                     
      When it comes to predicting chronic disease, body mass index doesn&apos;t tell the whole story, according to a population-based study that found elevated risk with obesity and other metabolic risk factors independently.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically-healthy obese people tended toward being at least twice as likely to develop multiple metabolic risk factors and diabetes as healthy, normal weight individuals over the subsequent 3.5 years of a study led by Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide, Australia.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, normal weight individuals with metabolic risk factors  --  a group the researchers called &quot;metabolically obese&quot;  --  were at greater risk, she told attendees at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong, a conference sponsored by the International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Overall, just 4.1% of the 3,743 adults in the population-based, North West Adelaide Health Study were in the normal body mass index range at baseline but had at least two of the following metabolic risk factors:&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Triglyceride levels of 1.7 mmol/L or greater&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;HDL cholesterol under 1.0mmol/L for men or 1.3 mmol/L for women&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A fasting plasma glucose of at least 5.6mmol/L or self-reported diabetes&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Treatment for any of these disorders &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although free of cardiovascular disease when they entered the study through a random population sample of the northwest region of Adelaide, after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, this group was 2.48 times at risk of incident cardiovascular disease or stroke events (95% CI 1.1 to 5.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals, those with metabolic risk factors tended to be&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;3.27 times as likely to develop diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Identifying these individuals for prevention efforts may require less emphasis on BMI and increased surveillance of central obesity in primary care, the researchers told the congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The problem with BMI is it doesn&apos;t tell you where the fat is,&quot; Appleton added in an interview. &quot;Visceral fat is really bad for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Obese individuals without multiple metabolic risk factors at baseline comprised a larger group (12.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were more likely to be middle age, live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, have smoked at some point, and get less exercise than their metabolically similar, but slimmer peers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the subsequent 3.5 years, they were 2.82 times more likely to develop more than one metabolic risk factor than metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals (95% CI 2.0 to 4.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The metabolically-normal obese also tended to be 2.36 times more likely to develop diabetes (95% CI 0.8 to 7.1). On the other hand, their risk of cardiovascular disease wasn&apos;t elevated, &quot;which likely related to the younger age of that group,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, abdominal obesity as determined by a waist circumference of 80 cm and over for men or 95 cm and greater for women was 6.1 times more likely among metabolically healthy individuals if their BMI was in the obese versus normal range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But those who were in the normal BMI range were 2.2-fold more likely to be overweight or obese according to waist circumference if they had metabolic risk factors, which was statistically significant as well and likely contributed to the health risks they faced over the short-term future, Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maintenance of metabolic health in the obese population was more likely for younger individuals (OR 2.83 for age 40 or younger, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6) and those who were at least moderately physically active (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton noted that these findings generally fit with data from the U.S. National Health Assessment Survey and Examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether patients have abdominal obesity, BMI obesity, or other metabolic risk factors, the solution is likely similar  --  improved diet and exercise, she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Department of Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appleton reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_346"
                     title="Daytime Sleepiness More Common in Young (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/SleepDisorders/tb/18221?impressionId=1265806457622"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Compared with 20-somethings and seniors, middle-age adults are less likely to suffer daytime sleepiness when they don&apos;t get a good night&apos;s sleep, according to a small study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When three groups of healthy adults  --  young (20 to 30 years old), middle-age (40 to 55) and older (66 to 83)  --  were studied over four nights, slow wave sleep decreased and the number of nocturnal awakenings progressively increased with age, wrote Derk-Jan Dijk, PhD, of the Surrey Sleep Center at the University of Surrey in Guildford, England, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of &lt;em&gt;Sleep.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As the likelihood for eight hours of uninterrupted deep sleep decreased with age, there was no increase in the likelihood of daytime sleepiness, which led Dijk and colleagues to conclude that as people age there may be a change in the &quot;sleep (duration and depth) required to maintain alertness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on that observation, the authors wrote that it could be argued that &quot;an eight-hour episode rich in [slow wave sleep] is insufficient for young adults but that an eight-hour sleep episode with less [slow wave sleep] is sufficient for older adults.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, middle-age and older adults are less likely to build up &quot;sleep debt&quot; during the daylight hours, so they manage with less time in deep sleep at night, less homeostatic sleep pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors hypothesized that this apparent need for less sleep may be a factor in age-related insomnia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If older adults are unaware of the need for less sleep, &quot;their self-selected time in bed, which provides an input to the sleep homeostat, may become maladaptive and lead to reduced sleep consolidation and associated complaints.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dijk and colleagues recruited 44 young adults, 35 middle-age adults, and 31 older adults for their study. All were healthy at baseline and all were initially assessed for an eight-hour nocturnal sleep episode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were then randomized to two nights of either selective short wave sleep interruption by acoustic stimuli or sleep without disruption, followed by one night of recovery sleep.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two standardized measurement tools, the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), were used to assess objective and subjective sleep propensity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Total sleep time per eight hour time in bed decreased significantly and progressively across the age groups such that older adults slept approximately 20 minutes less than middle-aged, who slept 23 minutes less than young adults,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reduction in total sleep time &quot;was primarily related to an increase in the number of awakenings and the duration of wakefulness after sleep onset, rather than an increase in latency to sleep onset.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, sleep efficiency decreased significantly from 92.1% for the youngest group, to 82% for the older group (effect of age, &lt;em&gt;P&amp;lt;&lt;/em&gt;0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The subjective sleep propensity tests revealed that &quot;young people were significantly sleepier than the middle-age people, who were the least sleepy of the three groups.&quot; Daytime sleepiness for the oldest group &quot;fell in between the other two groups [and] was not significantly different from either.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All three groups, regardless of age, demonstrated increased daytime sleepiness following a night of experimental disruption of slow wave sleep, but when the participants had an uninterrupted eight hours of deep sleep, it was only the youngest group that was drowsy during the daytime hours.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that although there was less daytime sleepiness among middle-age and older adults in this study, sleep propensity was not measured during the evening hours, so it was possible that the age-related difference might diminish at twilight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was sponsored by H. Lundbeck A/S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dijk reported receiving research support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline, H. Lundbeck A/S, Merck, Pfizer, Philips Lighting, sanofi-aventis, and Takeda.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_323"
                     title="Peptide Predicts Heart Failure in Older Patients (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.007"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/CHF/tb/18193?impressionId=1265806457622"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Serial measurement of a natriuretic peptide predicted the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular death in older patients who were initially free of heart failure, data from a longitudinal cohort study showed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An increase of more than 25% in levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) doubled the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular death. In contrast, a more than 25% decrease in NT-proBNP was associated with a greater than 40% reduction in the risk of both end points.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;NT-proBNP levels frequently change over time, and these fluctuations reflect dynamic changes in cardiovascular risk,&quot; Christopher R. deFilippi, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore, and co-authors concluded in an article in the Feb. 2 issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American College of Cardiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This change in [NT-proBNP] level reflects a significant change in patient risk independent of cardiovascular risk factors, ejection fraction, or medication use,&quot; they added. &quot;Ultimately, NT-proBNP levels may guide further diagnostic testing or potential preventive measures to reduce the risk of developing heart failure or dying of cardiovascular disease.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About 80% of cardiovascular deaths occur in older adults. Assessing cardiovascular risk in older patients is challenging because traditional cardiovascular risk factors are less predictive in older versus middle-age populations, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subclinical cardiovascular disease is common among older adults and increases the risk of cardiovascular events, including heart failure. Repeated measures of traditional markers of cardiovascular disease in patients with subclinical disease are associated with increased risk compared with patients who remain free of identifiable disease, the authors continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Levels of BNP and NT-proBNP are associated with long-term cardiovascular outcomes in the general population. However, the peptides&apos; ability to provide additional prognostic information beyond that of traditional risk factors remained controversial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the prognostic value of NT-proBNP in an older population, deFilippi and colleagues analyzed data on 3,000 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. The authors hypothesized that NT-proBNP levels in an ambulatory population of older patients would independently predict new-onset heart failure and cardiovascular death.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Furthermore, we anticipated that serial measurements of NT-proBNP, as a possible surrogate for change in subclinical disease status, identify a dynamic change in long-term risk of incident heart failure and cardiovascular mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stored serum samples obtained at enrollment and two to three years later were used to measure NT-proBNP levels. Median follow-up for the cohort was 11.9 years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After separating the study group into quintiles of NT-proBNP levels, investigators found that patients with the highest baseline levels of the peptide (&amp;gt;267.7 pg/mL) had a threefold greater risk of new-onset heart failure (HR 3.05, 95% CI 2.46 to 3.78) and cardiovascular death (HR 3.02, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.86) compared with patients in the lowest NT-proBNP quintile (&amp;lt;47.5 pg/mL).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers identified 190 pg/mL as the NT-proBNP threshold for increased risk. Among study participants with baseline levels less than 190 pg/mL, an increase greater than 25% to a level above 190 pg/mL had a twofold increased risk of heart failure (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.71) and cardiovascular death (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.53) compared with participants whose NT-proBNP levels remained below 190 pg/mL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among study participants with elevated baseline NT-proBNP levels, an increase greater than 25% also doubled the risk of heart failure (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.72) and cardiovascular disease (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.57).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A decrease greater than 25% from baseline significantly reduced the risk of heart failure (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) and cardiovascular death (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.01) compared with participants whose baseline levels remained elevated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The investigators noted limitations of the study including the fact that a quarter of the participants did not have a follow-up blood sample and those who did were younger and had fewer cardiac risk factors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the length of follow-up could not account for differences in treatment over time, and the accuracy of NT-proBNP levels in samples as much as 20 years old cannot be assured.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study is noteworthy for highlighting the concept of dynamic risk assessment based on serial measurement of NT-proBNP, Richard W. Troughton, MB ChB, PhD, Matthew G. Daly, MB ChB, and Christopher M. Frampton, PhD, of the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote in an editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The findings confirm a modest improvement in risk stratification by including a single measurement of NT-proBNP levels,&quot; they wrote &quot;The investigators take this a step further by showing that serial NT-proBNP measurement at a later time provides a further modest improvement in risk stratification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether the improvement in risk stratification achieved by performing serial NT-proBNP testing crosses a threshold of definite clinical value needs further evaluation, with particular consideration of the cost-effectiveness of such a strategy,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, University of Pittsburgh, and Roche Diagnostics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;DeFilippi disclosed relationships with Siemens, Roche Diagnostics, BG Medicine, and Critical Diagnostics. Co-author Robert H. Christenson disclosed relationships with Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, and Response Biomedical. Co-author Stephen L. Seliger disclosed a relationship with Roche.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_315"
                     title="A Few Extra Pounds May Benefit Older People (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265806457622"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A little excess weight after age 70 could do the body some good, according to results of a study involving 9,000 older patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overweight participants in the cohort study had the lowest 10-year mortality. Normal-weight and obese participants ages 70 to 75 had a similar and slightly higher risk of death, Leon Flicker, PhD, of the Western Australian Center for Health and Aging in Perth, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to evidence suggesting that being overweight in older age is not such a bad thing and might even be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results lend further credence to claims that the body mass index [BMI] thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people,&quot; the researchers concluded in an article in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Geriatrics Society&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors also found that a sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for older women but did not affect survival of older men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The World Health Organization has established four BMI thresholds to characterize body weight: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;lt;18.5 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, underweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;18.5 to 24.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, normal weight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;25 to 29.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, overweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;#8805;30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, obese&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the thresholds were derived primarily from studies of younger and middle-age adults. Whether the cut points for overweight and obese are appropriate for older individuals has remained unclear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis showed no increased mortality risk associated with a BMI in the overweight range for older people (&lt;em&gt;Arch Intern Med&lt;/em&gt; 2001; 161: 1194-1203, &lt;em&gt;Obesity Rev&lt;/em&gt; 2007; 8: 41-59). However, methodologic differences complicated the comparison of different studies, Flicker and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they sought to address some of the uncertainty by analyzing data from two large Australian cohort studies involving more than 9,000 individuals ages 70 to 75 (4,677 men, 4,563 women).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The principal objectives were to determine the BMI threshold associated with the lowest mortality in older people and to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality differed between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data for the analysis came from self-reported measures of height and weight, which the authors used to calculate BMI for the study participants. Participants also provided demographic, lifestyle, and health information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the WHO criteria for BMI, the authors found that 1.3% of men and 3.1% of women were underweight; 43.5% of men and 50.3% of women were normal weight; 44.3% of men and 33.5% of women were overweight; and 11% of men and 13.1% of women were obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During 10 years of follow-up, overweight study participants had a 13% lower risk of death compared with normal-weight participants (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Obese participants had a mortality risk similar to that of normal-weight participants (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Self-reported sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for women across all BMI categories (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.41). In contrast, sedentary lifestyle increased the mortality risk for men by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.44).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Separate analyses involving common causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, showed similar relationships between BMI and mortality risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even after removing the effects of early mortality, those who were overweight were still at lowest risk, a finding consistent with the observation that weight loss in older age groups is associated with greater mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk, and there is little evidence that dieting in this age group confers any benefit,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no relevant disclosures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_309"
                     title="Increasing Copays: Penny-Wise but Pound-Foolish? (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18173?impressionId=1265806457622"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Raising seniors&apos; copayments for ambulatory care to offset increasing healthcare costs may backfire on insurers, researchers asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Seniors enrolled in Medicare plans that increased copayments had significantly fewer outpatient visits but spent more time in the hospital than patients in plans that left copayments untouched, according to Amal Trivedi, MD, MPH, of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming an average reimbursement of $60 for an outpatient visit, seven annual visits per enrollee, and an average copay increase of $8.50 per visit, a plan should save $7,150 for every 100 enrollees, they noted in the Jan. 28 &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, assuming an average cost of $11,065 per hospitalization of a person 65 to 84, the researchers estimated that the costs for inpatient care would actually increase by $24,000 for every 100 enrollees in the year after copays are increased.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even using more conservative criteria, the increased costs for inpatient care would nearly double any savings from increasing copays, they argued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cost-sharing has generally been thought to reduce total healthcare spending without harming health for the average person,&quot; the researchers wrote, but these results suggest increasing copays in Medicare beneficiaries &quot;may be a particularly ill-advised cost-containment strategy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Increasing copayments may be particularly harmful to older patients, they said, because they have lower incomes and are more likely to have poor health and greater out-of-pocket healthcare expenses than younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To explore the issue in a Medicare population, Trivedi and colleagues compared the use of outpatient and inpatient care between enrollees in 18 plans that increased copays for ambulatory care and 18 that did not. The study included 899,060 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to data from the Medicare Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mean copays increased during the study period for both primary care ($7.38 to $14.38) and specialty care ($12.66 to $22.05) in the case plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean copays remained stable at $8.33 and $11.38 for primary and specialty care, respectively, in the control plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both groups, there were increases in the number of ambulatory visits over time, but the increase was smaller in the plans that raised copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There was also a rise in the number of hospitalizations, the proportion of patients who were hospitalized, and the length of time spent in the hospital in both groups, but there were larger increases in the plans that increased copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with the control plans, in the year after the increase in copays, case plans had: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;19.8 fewer annual outpatient visits per 100 enrollees (95% CI 16.6 to 23.1)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.2 additional annual hospital admissions per 100 enrollees (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;13.4 more annual inpatient days per 100 enrollees (95% CI 10.2 to 16.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A 0.7% increase in the proportion of enrollees who were hospitalized (95% CI 0.51% to 0.95%)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings were amplified among enrollees living in areas of lower income and education, black patients, and those who had hypertension, diabetes, or a history of myocardial infarction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trivedi and colleagues noted some limitations of the analysis: it was not randomized, and unmeasured differences could have influenced the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the case and control plans could not be matched in a geographic area smaller than census region because of the small number of Medicare plans, and data were lacking on diagnoses, procedures, and costs associated with hospital admissions and outpatient visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trivedi is the recipient of a Pfizer Health Policy Scholars Award and a career development award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>