Background Methamphetamine (MA) use has been linked anecdotally to rampant dental disease. The authors sought to determine the relative prevalence of dental comorbidities in MA users, verify whether MA users have more quantifiable dental disease and report having more dental problems than nonusers and establish the influence of mode of MA administration on oral health outcomes. Methods Participating physicians provided comprehensive medical and oral assessments for adults dependent on MA (n = 301). Trained interviewers collected patients' self-reports regarding oral health and substance-use behaviors. The authors used propensity score matching to create a matched comparison group of nonusers from participants in the the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Results Dental or oral disease was one of the most prevalent (41.3 percent) medical cormorbidities in MA users who otherwise were generally healthy. On average, MA users had significantly more missing teeth than did matched NHANES III control participants (4.58 versus 1.96, P < .001) and were more likely to report having oral health problems (P < .001). Significant subsets of MA users expressed concerns with their dental appearance (28.6 percent), problems with broken or loose teeth (23.3 percent) and tooth grinding (bruxism) or erosion (22.3 percent). The intravenous use of MA was significantly more likely to be associated with missing teeth than was smoking MA (odds ratio = 2.47; 95 percent confidence interval = 1.3-4.8). Conclusions Overt dental disease is one of the key distinguishing comorbidities in MA users. MA users have demonstrably higher rates of dental disease and report long-term unmet oral health needs. Contrary to common perception, users who smoke or inhale MA have lower rates of dental disease than do those who inject the drug. Many MA users are concerned with the cosmetic aspects of their dental disease, and these concerns could be used as behavioral triggers for targeted interventions. Clinical Implications Dental disease may provide a temporally stable MA-specific medical marker with discriminant utility in identifying MA users. Dentists can play a crucial role in the early detection of MA use and participate in the collaborative care of MA users.

Background Whether hospitals with the highest risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) subsequently experienced the greatest improvement after passage of the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is unknown. Objective To evaluate whether passage of the HRRP was followed by acceleration in improvement in 30-day RSRRs after hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia and whether the lowest-performing hospitals had faster acceleration in improvement after passage of the law than hospitals that were already performing well. Design Pre–post analysis stratified by hospital performance groups. Setting U.S. acute care hospitals. Patients 15 170 008 Medicare patients discharged alive from 2000 to 2013. Intervention Passage of the HRRP. Measurements 30-day readmission rates after hospitalization for AMI, CHF, or pneumonia for hospitals in the highest-performance (0% penalty), average-performance (>0% and <0.50% penalty), low-performance (≥0.50% and <0.99% penalty), and lowest-performance (≥0.99% penalty) groups. Results Of 2868 hospitals serving 1 109 530 Medicare discharges annually, 30.1% were highest performers, 44.0% were average performers, 16.8% were low performers, and 9.0% were lowest performers. After controlling for prelaw trends, an additional 67.6 (95% CI, 66.6 to 68.4), 74.8 (CI, 74.0 to 75.4), 85.4 (CI, 84.0 to 86.8), and 95.1 (CI, 92.6 to 97.5) readmissions per 10 000 discharges were found to have been averted per year in the highest-, average-, low-, and lowest-performance groups, respectively, after passage of the law. Limitation Inability to distinguish between improvement caused by the magnitude of the penalty or by different levels of health improvement in different patient populations. Conclusion After passage of the HRRP, 30-day RSRRs for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia decreased more rapidly than before the law’s passage. Improvement was most marked for hospitals with the lowest prelaw performance.

Summary Methods based on the propensity score comprise one set of valuable tools for comparative effectiveness research and for estimating causal effects more generally. These methods typically consist of two distinct stages: 1) a propensity score stage where a model is fit to predict the propensity to receive treatment (the propensity score), and 2) an outcome stage where responses are compared in treated and untreated units having similar values of the estimated propensity score. Traditional techniques conduct estimation in these two stages separately; estimates from the first stage are treated as fixed and known for use in the second stage. Bayesian methods have natural appeal in these settings because separate likelihoods for the two stages can be combined into a single joint likelihood, with estimation of the two stages carried out simultaneously. One key feature of joint estimation in this context is “feedback” between the outcome stage and the propensity score stage, meaning that quantities in a model for the outcome contribute information to posterior distributions of quantities in the model for the propensity score. We provide a rigorous assessment of Bayesian propensity score estimation to show that model feedback can produce poor estimates of causal effects absent strategies that augment propensity score adjustment with adjustment for individual covariates. We illustrate this phenomenon with a simulation study and with a comparative effectiveness investigation of carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy among 123,286 Medicare beneficiaries hospitlized for stroke in