Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

Importance: Medicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care. Objective: To describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included. Exposure: Receiving MOUD care in an OTP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022. Results: The share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states. Conclusions and Relevance: This study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.

Medicare Fee-For-Service Spending for Fall Injury and Nonfall Events: The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study.

Background and Objectives: Fall injuries are prevalent in older adults, yet whether higher spending occurs after nonfracture (NFFI) and fracture is unknown. We examined whether incident fall injuries, including NFFI and fractures, were associated with higher Medicare spending in 12 months after incident events in older adults. Research Design and Methods: The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study included 1 595 community-dwelling adults (53% women, 37% Black; 76.7 ±â€…2.9 years) with linked Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims at 2000/01 exam. Incident outpatient and inpatient fall injuries (N = 448) from 2000/01 exam to December 31, 2008 were identified using the first claim with a nonfracture injury diagnosis code with a fall E-code, or a fracture diagnosis code with/without an E-code. Up to 3 participants without fall injuries (N = 1 147) were matched on nonfall events to 448 participants in the fall injury month. We calculated the change in monthly FFS spending in 12 months before versus after index events in both groups. Generalized linear regression with centered outcomes and gamma distributions examined the association of prepost expenditure changes with fall injuries (including NFFI and fractures) adjusting for related covariates. Results: Monthly spending increased after versus before fall injuries (USD$2 261 vs $981), nonfracture (N = 105; USD$2 083 vs $1 277), and fracture (N = 343; USD$2 315 vs $890) injuries (all p < .0001). However, after adjusting for covariates in final models, fall injuries were not significantly associated with larger increases in spending/month versus nonfall events (differential increase: USD$399.58 [95% CI: -USD$44.95 to $844.11]). Fracture prepost change in monthly spending was similar versus NFFI (differential increase: USD$471.93 [95% CI: -USD$21.17 to $965.02]). Discussion and Implications: Although substantial increases occurred after injuries, with fracture and NFFI increasing similarly, changes in monthly spending after fall injury were not different compared to nonfall events. Our results contribute to the understanding of subsequent spending after fall injury that may inform further research on fall injury-related health care spending.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Dispensing by Medicaid-Participating Community Retail Pharmacies.

Importance: Controlled substances have regulatory requirements under the US Federal Controlled Substance Act that must be met before pharmacies can stock and dispense them. However, emerging evidence suggests there are pharmacy-level barriers in access to buprenorphine for treatment for opioid use disorder even among pharmacies that dispense other opioids. Objective: To estimate the proportion of Medicaid-participating community retail pharmacies that dispense buprenorphine, out of Medicaid-participating community retail pharmacies that dispense other opioids and assess if the proportion dispensing buprenorphine varies by Medicaid patient volume or rural-urban location. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study included Medicaid pharmacy claims (2016-2019) data from 6 states (Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) participating in the Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network (MODRN). Community retail pharmacies serving Medicaid-enrolled patients were included, mail-order pharmacies were excluded. Analyses were conducted from September 2022 to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine approved for opioid use disorder among pharmacies dispensing an opioid analgesic or buprenorphine prescription to at least 1 Medicaid enrollee in each state. Pharmacies were categorized by median Medicaid patient volume (by state and year) and rurality (urban vs rural location according to zip code). Results: In 2016, 72.0% (95% CI, 70.9%-73.0%) of the 7038 pharmacies that dispensed opioids also dispensed buprenorphine to Medicaid enrollees, increasing to 80.4% (95% CI, 79.5%-81.3%) of 7437 pharmacies in 2019. States varied in the percent of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine in Medicaid (range, 73.8%-96.4%), with significant differences between several states found in 2019 (χ2 P < .05), when states were most similar in the percent of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine. A lower percent of pharmacies with Medicaid patient volume below the median dispensed buprenorphine (69.1% vs 91.7% in 2019), compared with pharmacies with above-median patient volume (χ2 P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of Medicaid-participating pharmacies, buprenorphine was not accessible in up to 20% of community retail pharmacies, presenting pharmacy-level barriers to patients with Medicaid seeking buprenorphine treatment. That some pharmacies dispensed opioid analgesics but not buprenorphine suggests that factors other than compliance with the Controlled Substance Act influence pharmacy dispensing decisions.

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT. METHODS: Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04921787.

Do Medicaid Expenditures Increase After Adults Exit Permanent Supportive Housing?

The effects of homelessness and permanent supportive housing (PSH) on health care utilization have been well documented. Prior research on the association between PSH entry and Medicaid expenditures have indicated that such housing support could result in savings to Medicaid programs; however, whether changes occur in health care use and expenditures after individuals exit PSH is unknown. If efficiency gains from PSH persist after the individual leaves PSH, the savings to payers such as Medicaid may continue even after the costs to provide housing for a PSH recipient have ended. We used linked Medicaid and housing data from Pennsylvania to examine changes in the level and composition of Medicaid expenditures for 580 adult enrollees during the 12 months before and after exit from PSH adjusting for relevant covariates. In adjusted analyses, we estimated that monthly spending declined by $200.32 (95% CI: $323.50, $75.15) in the first quarter post-exit and by $267.63 (95% CI: $406.10, $127.10) in the third quarter. Our findings suggest that PSH may have sustained budgetary benefits to state Medicaid agencies even for beneficiaries exiting the program. However, more research is needed to understand if these reductions in expenditures last beyond 12 months and do not reflect under-use of care that may be important for managing health over the long-term.

Changes in Medication Utilization and Adherence Associated with Homeless Adults' Entry into Permanent Supportive Housing.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) programs, which have grown over the last decade, have been associated with changes in health care utilization and spending. However, little is known about the impact of such programs on use of prescription drugs critical for managing chronic diseases prevalent among those with unstable housing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of PSH on medication utilization and adherence among Medicaid enrollees in Pennsylvania. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences study comparing medication utilization and adherence between PSH participants and a matched comparison cohort from 7 to 18 months before PSH entry to 12 months post PSH entry. SUBJECTS: Pennsylvania Medicaid enrollees (n = 1375) who entered PSH during 2011-2016, and a propensity-matched comparison cohort of 5405 enrollees experiencing housing instability who did not receive PSH but received other housing services indicative of episodic or chronic homelessness (e.g., emergency shelter stays). MAIN MEASURES: Proportion with prescription fill, mean proportion of days covered (PDC), and percent adherent (PDC ≥ 80%) for antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-asthmatics, and diabetes medications. KEY RESULTS: The PSH cohort saw a 4.77% (95% CI 2.87% to 6.67%) relative increase in the proportion filling any prescription, compared to the comparison cohort. Percent adherent among antidepressant users in the PSH cohort rose 7.41% (95% CI 0.26% to 14.57%) compared to the comparison cohort. While utilization increased in the other medication classes among the PSH cohort, differences from the comparison cohort were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PSH participation is associated with increases in filling prescription medications overall and improved adherence to antidepressant medications. These results can inform state and federal policy to increase PSH placement among Medicaid enrollees experiencing homelessness.

Variation of Clozapine Use for Treatment of Schizophrenia: Evidence from Pennsylvania Medicaid and Dually Eligible Enrollees.

While clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, it remains underutilized across the United States, warranting a more comprehensive understanding of variation in use at the county level, as well as characterization of existing prescribing patterns. Here, we examined both Medicaid and Medicare databases to (1) characterize temporal and geographic variation in clozapine prescribing and, (2) identify patient-level characteristics associated with clozapine use. We included Medicaid and Fee for Service Medicare data in the state of Pennsylvania from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. We focused on individuals with continuous enrollment, schizophrenia diagnosis, and multiple antipsychotic trials. Geographic variation was examined across counties of Pennsylvania. Regression models were constructed to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with clozapine use. Out of 8,255 individuals who may benefit from clozapine, 642 received treatment. We observed high medication burden, overall, including multiple antipsychotic trials. We also identified variation in clozapine use across regions in Pennsylvania with a disproportionate number of prescribers in urban areas and several counties with no identified clozapine prescribers. Finally, demographic, and clinical determinants of clozapine use were observed including less use in people identified as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or with a substance use disorder. In addition, greater medical comorbidity was associated with increased clozapine use. Our work leveraged both Medicaid and Medicare data to characterize and surveil clozapine prescribing. Our findings support efforts monitor disparities and opportunities for the optimization of clozapine within municipalities to enhance clinical outcomes.

Churn in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Changes in Medicaid Expenditure and Acute Care Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides financial assistance to low-income individuals and families to help them purchase food. However, when participants experience short-term disenrollment from the program, known as churn, it can disrupt their health care usage patterns or result in acute health care needs due to the loss of financial benefits and time burden required to reapply for SNAP. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the changes in health care expenditures and acute care utilization during periods of SNAP churn compared with nonchurn periods among those who churn during the study period. RESEARCH DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of Pennsylvania Medicaid claims data for enrollees participating in SNAP between 2016 and 2018 using individual fixed-effects models. We add to the literature by estimating whether these changes varied based on the amount of SNAP benefit lost, or differed between adults and children. RESULTS: We found that SNAP churn was associated with reductions in pharmacy and primary care spending across all SNAP benefit levels and age groups. Specifically, our findings indicate a reduction of 4%-6% in pharmacy expenditures for adults and 2%-4% for children. Moreover, there was a 3%-4% decrease in primary care expenditures for adults and a 4%-6% decrease for children. Acute care utilization did not significantly change during a SNAP churn period. CONCLUSION: Our findings of decreases in pharmacy and primary care spending suggest that preventing SNAP churn may help reduce instances where adult and child participants forgo necessary care.