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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.3%
2
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.1%
3
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
4
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
5
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
6
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
9
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
11
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
13
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
16
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
17
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
21
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
22
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%