Back

Geographical disparities and differences in medical specialty prescribing of dronabinol in Medicare from 2014 to 2019

DeSalve, D. S.; McCall, K. L.; Piper, B. J.

2022-07-22 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2022.07.20.22277818 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThe purpose of our study was to investigate dronabinol prescribing in Medicare from 2014 to 2019 by provider specialty and state. MethodsData was collected and analyzed from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services databases from 2014 to 2019. The mean number of prescriptions for each area of practice, each individual year, and for 2014 to 2019 overall for the 50 United States and District of Columbia was determined. The prescriptions were separated by state and the state totals were determined. Individual states with dronabinol prescriptions [&ge;]1.96 standard deviations (SD) from the mean were identified as significant. ResultsThe total number of dronabinol prescriptions decreased 9.1% from 2014 to 2019. Dronabinol prescriptions were more concentrated in the eastern United States in 2019 than compared to 2014 [Tennessee (107.2), Kentucky (94.2), and West Virginia (87.6) (>1.96 SD)]. The largest portion of dronabinol prescriptions originated from primary care (1,736) compared to specialty areas of practice (1,233). Internal medicine (789.5), family medicine (608.8), hematology-oncology (343.3), nurse practitioners (337.3), and infectious disease (271.0) had the highest average number of dronabinol prescriptions per year (p<0.05). The areas of practice with the highest ratio of percent dronabinol prescriptions to percent Medicare utilization were infectious disease (15.8), hematology-oncology (12.2), and medical oncology (12.1). ConclusionDronabinol usage declined among Medicare patients and became more concentrated in the eastern United States. Most prescriptions originated from primary care, although after accounting for Medicare patient utilization, the highest ratios originated from infectious disease, hematology-oncology, and medical oncology.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.8%
2
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
3
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
4
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
6
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Nicotine and Tobacco Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.2%
10
Drug Safety
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
12
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
13
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
Journal of General Internal Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
15
Schizophrenia
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
41 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
17
Schizophrenia Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Pain Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
Pharmaceutics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Psychopharmacology
69 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%