Association of Opioid and Concurrent Benzodiazepine, Skeletal Muscle Relaxant, and Gabapentinoid Usage on Healthcare Expenditure and Resource Utilization: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study, 2009 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers may be utilizing central nervous system (CNS) depressants to reduce opioid use due to recent changes in public policy. Combination use of these agents with opioids increases the risk of respiratory depression and death. Healthcare expenditures by individuals using these drug combinations have not been previously quantified. We sought to characterize healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population reporting concurrent CNS depressants and opioid use compared with nonopioid analgesics in the United States from 2009 to 2019. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the healthcare expenditures of adult Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents who were prescribed nonopioid analgesics, opioids only, opioids/benzodiazepines (BZD), opioids/BZD/skeletal muscle relaxants (SMR), or opioids/gabapentin (gaba) using pooled data from 2009 to 2019. Expenditure (cost and resource utilization) categories included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, and prescription medicine. Average marginal effects were used to compare survey-weighted annual costs and resource utilizations across the groups as compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: A weighted total of 34 241 838 individuals were identified. Most were opioid-only respondents (46.5%), followed by nonopioid analgesic (43.4%), opioid/BZD (5.3%), opioid-gaba (3.5%), and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents (1.3%). In comparison to the study groups with nonopioid analgesics, opioid-gaba users had the highest significant incremental cost difference among the different pairings (+$11 684, P < .001). Opioid-gaba, opioid/BZD, and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents had significantly higher inpatient, emergency department, and prescription drug costs and use compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. Opioid-only respondents had higher outpatient and office-based costs and visits compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare providers seek to utilize fewer opioids for pain management, attention must be paid to ensuring safe and effective use of concurrent CNS depressants to mitigate high healthcare costs and burden.

Burnout assessment among pharmacist-academic detailers at the US Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among clinical pharmacist practitioners has been well established, but not among those who perform academic detailing. OBJECTIVES: To measure burnout among clinical pharmacist practitioners who perform academic detailing (pharmacist-academic detailers) at the United States Veterans Health Administration and compare the findings using 2 validated burnout instruments for healthcare professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was performed to measure burnout in VHA pharmacist-academic detailers across all VA regions between April 2023 and May 2023. Burnout was measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and a validated single-item burnout measure (SIMB). OLBI has 2 domains (exhaustion and disengagement) and categorizes burnout into Low, Moderate, and High based on scores above or below 1 standard deviation (SD) of the mean. The validated SIMB categorized burnout as having a score of 3 or greater (range: 1-5). Interrater reliability testing between the OLBI and the SIMB at detecting burnout among pharmacist-academic detailers was performed using the kappa test. Correlation between the 2 burnout instruments was assessed using the Spearman rho test. RESULTS: A total of 50 pharmacist-academic detailers completed the burnout survey. A large proportion of respondents had Moderate levels of burnout for the total (72%) burnout score, disengagement (64%) domain, and exhaustion (74%) domain. In total, 86% of pharmacist-academic detailers reported having Moderate to High levels of burnout on the total OLBI score. On the SIMB, a total of 14 (28%) pharmacist-academic detailers reported having one or more symptoms of burnout. Interrater reliability was considered poor/slight agreement between the OLBI and SIMB. Correlation between the 2 burnout instruments was considered moderately correlated (rho = 0.67, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provides an empirical analysis of burnout among pharmacist-academic detailers; however, the ability to detect burnout among pharmacist-academic detailers may be impacted by the selection of burnout instrument used.

Despair and hope: Is the retail community pharmacy workforce in danger of becoming a monopsony labor market?

OBJECTIVE: Mergers of big chain retail community pharmacies can affect the competitiveness of the pharmacy workforce to negotiate better wages and work conditions. However, it is unclear whether these types of mergers are generalizable to the U.S. pharmacy workforce. We should observe this effect when comparing annual wage trends between retail community pharmacy workers and nonretail community pharmacy workers. In the absence of this effect, annual wage trends would be similar. To examine this theory, annual wage trends for community pharmacy workers were compared with hospital pharmacy workers between 2012 and 2022. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A serial cross-sectional study was performed to compare the annual wages between retail community pharmacy workers and hospital pharmacy workers between 2012 and 2022 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). Pharmacy workforce was categorized as pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy aides (clerks) and grouped into retail or hospital pharmacy settings based on the North American Industry Classification System. Pharmacy workers' annual wages were based on the U.S. BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual wages. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, statistically significant annual wage reduction was greater among pharmacists in the retail than pharmacists in the hospital setting by -$1974 (95% CI -$2921 to -$1026) per year. However, these trends were not statistically significant among pharmacy technicians and pharmacy aides. Pharmacy technicians in the retail and hospital settings had a 3.4% and 7.0% increase in average annual wages, respectively. Pharmacy aides in the retail and hospital settings had a 16.8% and 21.6% increase in average annual wages, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although pharmacists' annual wages decreased, it is unclear whether this was caused by the monopsony labor market. These findings suggest that there may be inefficiencies in the retail community pharmacy labor market, which may stimulate policies to improve pharmacy workforce conditions and patient safety.

Costs of implementing a multi-site facilitation intervention to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The United States has been grappling with the opioid epidemic, which has resulted in over 75,000 opioid-related deaths between April 2020 and 2021. Evidence-based pharmaceutical interventions (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) are available to reduce opioid-related overdoses and deaths. However, adoption of these medications for opioid use disorder has been stifled due to individual- and system-level barriers. External facilitation is an evidence-based implementation intervention that has been used to increase access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), but the implementation costs of external facilitation have not been assessed. We sought to measure the facility-level direct costs of implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD to provide decision makers with estimates of the resources needed to implement this evidence-based program. METHODS: We performed a cost analysis of the pre-implementation and implementation phases, including an itemization of external facilitation team and local site labor costs. We used labor estimates from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and sensitivity analyses were performed using labor estimates from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Financial Management System general ledger data. RESULTS: The average total costs for implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD per site was $18,847 (SD 6717) and ranged between $11,320 and $31,592. This translates to approximately $48 per patient with OUD. Sites with more encounters and participants with higher salaries in attendance had higher costs. This was driven mostly by the labor involved in planning and implementation activities. The average total cost of the pre-implementation and implementation activities were $1031 and $17,816 per site, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, costs for VHA were higher than BLS estimates likely due to higher wages. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing external facilitation to increase MOUD prescribing may be affordable depending on the payer's budget constraints. Our study reported that there were variations in the time invested at each phase of implementation and the number and type of participants involved with implementing an external facilitation intervention. Participant composition played an important role in total implementation costs, and decision makers will need to identify the most efficient and optimal number of stakeholders to involve in their implementation plans.

Healthcare costs and use before and after opioid overdose in Veterans Health Administration patients with opioid use disorder.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs and use between United States (US) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who experienced an opioid overdose (OD cohort) and patients with OUD who did not experience an opioid overdose (non-OD cohort). DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of administrative and clinical data. SETTING: The largest integrated national health-care system is the US Veterans Health Administration's healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: We included VHA patients diagnosed with OUD from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. We identified the index date of overdose for patients who had an overdose. Our control group, which included patients with OUD who did not have an overdose, was randomly assigned an index date. A total of 66 513 patients with OUD were included for analysis (OD cohort: n = 1413; non-OD cohort: n = 65 100). MEASUREMENTS: Monthly adjusted healthcare-related costs and use in the year before and after the index date. We used generalized estimating equation models to compare patients with an opioid overdose and controls in a difference-in-differences framework. FINDINGS: Compared with the non-OD cohort, an opioid overdose was associated with an increase of $16 890 [95% confidence interval (CI) = $15 611-18 169; P < 0.001] in healthcare costs for an estimated $23.9 million in direct costs to VHA (95% CI = $22.1 million, $25.7 million) within the 30 days following overdose after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Inpatient costs ($13 515; 95% CI = $12 378-14 652; P < 0.001) reflected most of this increase. Inpatient days (+6.15 days; 95% CI, = 5.33-6.97; P < 0.001), inpatient admissions (+1.01 admissions; 95% CI = 0.93-1.10; P < 0.001) and outpatient visits (+1.59 visits; 95% CI = 1.34-1.84; P < 0.001) also increased in the month after opioid overdose. Within the overdose cohort, healthcare costs and use remained higher in the year after overdose compared with pre-overdose trends. CONCLUSIONS: The US Veterans Health Administration patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have experienced an opioid overdose have increased healthcare costs and use that remain significantly higher in the month and continuing through the year after overdose than OUD patients who have not experienced an overdose.

Comparison of hospitalization costs for the same adverse reaction associated with different medications.

PURPOSE: Costs of hospitalization due to severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were previously estimated within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), but additional analyses are needed to infer potential interventions to mitigate these negative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare specific adverse reaction-related hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications. METHODS: Mean hospitalization costs associated with the same ADR symptom were compared for different drugs with similar indications using adjusted generalized linear models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons as well as a gamma distribution. RESULTS: Overall, hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications were not significantly different for specific adverse reactions. However, gastrointestinal hemorrhage-associated costs were higher for warfarin versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (model estimate of mean cost, $18,114 [range of lower and upper model estimates, $12,522-$26,202] vs $14,255 [estimate range, $9,710-$20,929]). Similarly, the estimated mean hospitalization cost associated with angioedema was higher for losartan versus lisinopril or lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide: $14,591 (range, $9467-$22,488) versus $8,935 (range, $6,301-$12,669) and $8,022 (range, $5,424-$11,865), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although we found few differences in the cost of hospitalization when comparing drugs with similar indications and the same adverse reaction, there were specific drug-ADR pairs that merit attention and consideration of interventions to improve safe and appropriate medication use. Evaluation of the effect of those interventions on the incidence of ADRs is an area for future study.

Predicted Health Literacy Disparities Between Immigrant and US-Born Racial/Ethnic Minorities: a Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minorities in the USA exhibit reduced health literacy (HL) proficiency, leading to increased health disparities. It is unclear how the effect of birth status (immigrant/US-born) affects HL proficiency among racial/ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: To identify the direct, indirect, and total effects of birth status on HL proficiency among a nationally representative population of racial/ethnic minority adults in the USA. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of 2019 data from the Medial Expenditure Panel Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Participants aged 18 or older reporting as racial/ethnic minorities (Black, Asian, or Hispanic) with non-missing data. MAIN MEASURES: We predicted HL proficiency for each participant using a previously published model. Path analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and total effects of birth status on HL proficiency, accounting for several other covariates. Prevalence ratios were estimated using adjusted Poisson regression to evaluate differences in the "Below Basic" HL category. KEY RESULTS: An estimated weighted 81,092,505 participants were included (57.5% US-born, 42.5% immigrant). More racial/ethnic minority immigrant participants fell into the lowest category of HL proficiency, "Below Basic" (14.3% vs 5.5%, p < 0.05). Results of the path analysis indicated a significant, negative direct effect of birth status on HL proficiency (standardized coefficient = - 0.24, SE = 0.01, 95%CI: - 0.26, - 0.23) in addition to an indirect effect mediated through insurance status, health-system resource use, and English proficiency. The total effect of birth status on HL proficiency was found to be - 0.29. The immigrant participant group had 81% higher prevalence of falling into the "Below Basic" HL category compared to US-born participants (prevalence ratio = 1.81, 95%CI: 1.52, 2.16). CONCLUSIONS: Immigrant status has a strong, negative, direct effect on HL proficiency among racial/ethnic minorities in the USA. This may be a result of barriers that prevent equitable access to resources that improve proper HL proficiency. US policymakers may consider several methods to reduce this disparity at the health-system-, provider-, and patient-levels.

Cost Effectiveness of Letermovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Compared with Pre-Emptive Therapy in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients in the United States.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of letermovir prophylaxis with the option for subsequent pre-emptive therapy (PET) for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection compared with a PET-only scenario in adult allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A publicly available decision tree model was constructed using a commercial third-party payer perspective to simulate an allo-HCT recipient's clinical trajectory in the first-year post-transplant, followed by entry to a Markov model to simulate years 2 through 10. Clinical inputs and utility estimates were derived from published literature. Costs were derived from published literature and US Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule drug pricing. Outcomes assessed included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Compared with PET alone, letermovir prophylaxis was projected to increase life-years per person (4.99 vs. 4.70 life-years), and increase QALYs (3.29 vs. 3.08) and costs (US$83.411 vs. US$70,698), yielding an ICER of US$59,356 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated our model was sensitive to mortality (ICER: $164,771/QALY) and utility (letermovir ICER: $117,447/QALY; PET ICER: $107,290/QALY) in the first-year post-transplant. In 57.1% of the PSA simulations, letermovir was a cost-effective option using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir prophylaxis is cost effective compared with PET alone with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis results indicate future research is required to understand the impact of mortality and quality of life in the first-year post-transplant to arrive at a conclusive decision on letermovir adoption.

Risk of Negative Health Outcomes and High Costs for People With Diabetes and Unmet Psychological Needs in the United States.

Measuring the population-level relationship between compromised mental health and diabetes care remains an important goal for clinicians and health care decision-makers. We evaluated the impact of self-reported unmet psychological need on health care resource utilization and total health care expenditure in people with type 2 diabetes. Patients who reported unmet psychological needs were more likely than those who did not to incur a higher annual medical expenditure, have greater resource utilization, and have a higher risk of all-cause mortality.

Cancer history, insurance coverage, and cost-related medication nonadherence in Medicare beneficiaries, 2013-2018.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at risk of financial hardships and cost-related medication nonadherence, particularly among those without adequate insurance coverage. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between cancer history and cost-related medication nonadherence, as well as the association between insurance coverage and nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We used the 2013-2018 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Public Use File, a survey on the health, health service utilization, access to care, and satisfaction among a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Cost-related medication nonadherence was defined as often or sometimes reporting any of the following: (1) took smaller dose of medication, (2) skipped doses to make medication last, (3) delayed medication because of cost, and (4) not get medication because of cost. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of cost-related nonadherence associated with cancer history, adjusting for survey year and sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, highest grade completed, income level, marital status, and number of chronic conditions. We also included Medicare Part D, an interaction between Part D and the low-income subsidy, and Medicare Advantage in the model to examine the effect of insurance coverage on cost-related nonadherence. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, there were 12,492 cancer survivors and 53,262 respondents without a history of cancer in our sample, and 16.5% reported cost-related medication nonadherence. After adjusting for characteristics of the respondents, cancer survivors were more likely than those without a history of cancer to report cost-related medication nonadherence (adjusted OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.02-1.19). Having unsubsidized Part D-Part D without the low-income subsidy-was associated with a greater likelihood of reporting cost-related medication nonadherence (adjusted OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.49-1.78), while having subsidized Part D was not (adjusted OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.85-1.08). Finally, being on Medicare Advantage was associated with lower likelihood of reporting cost-related nonadherence compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (adjusted OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.80-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the low-income subsidy and capping out-of-pocket drug expenditure can be effective policy options to reduce cost-sharing burden and cost-related nonadherence. DISCLOSURES: For this study, Li was partially supported by a research grant from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA225647). The sponsor had no role in the design or implementation of the study, analysis or interpretation of the data, or drafting or approval the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Trends in healthcare expenditures and resource utilization among a nationally representative population with opioids in the United States: a serial cross-sectional study, 2008 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports on healthcare costs and expenditures associated with populations prescribed an opioid primarily focused on populations who chronically use opioids or have opioid use disorder. However, studies that characterize the healthcare and expenditures costs among the wider number of people prescribed opioids in a nationally representative population are unavailable. We sought to characterize the healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population prescribed an opioid in the U.S. from 2008 to 2017. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the economic burden of adult household respondents who were prescribed and not prescribed an opioid using pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) between 2008 and 2017. Respondents with an opioid prescription were matched to respondents without an opioid prescription using propensity score match methods with survey weights. Two-part generalized linear models were used to estimate the survey-weighted annual healthcare expenditures and resource utilization adjusting for multiple covariates. Additionally, 10-year trend comparisons between the groups were performed. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: There was a weighted total of 31,696,671 respondents with an opioid and 31,536,639 respondents without an opioid after propensity score matching. The sample had a mean (SD) age of 50.63 years (18.03), 58.9% females, and 81.6% Whites. Total annual economic burden among RPOs was $524 billion. Annual total expenditures per respondent with and without an opioid were $16,542 and $7067, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, adjusted prescription, outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient expenditures were significantly higher for respondents with an opioid compared to respondents without an opioid. Average annual increases in expenditures were significantly greater among respondents with an opioid compared to respondents without an opioid for total (+$185; 95% CI: $37-$334) and prescription (+$78; 95% CI: $28-$128) expenditures. There were no differences in the average annual trends for outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient expenditures between respondents with and without an opioid. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with an opioid prescription had higher healthcare expenditures and resource utilization compared to respondents without an opioid prescription from 2008 to 2017. Specifically, significant annual increases were observed for total and prescription expenditures. Additionally, 10-year trends in total and prescription expenditures were higher among respondents with an opioid than respondents without an opioid.

Implementation science issues in understanding, collecting, and using cost estimates: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Understanding the resources needed to achieve desired implementation and effectiveness outcomes is essential to implementing and sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs). Despite this frequent observation, cost and economic measurement and reporting are rare, but becoming more frequent in implementation science, and when present is seldom reported from the perspective of multiple stakeholders (e.g., the organization, supervisory team), including those who will ultimately implement and sustain EBPs.Incorporating a multi-level framework is useful for understanding and integrating the perspectives and priorities of the diverse set of stakeholders involved in implementation. Stakeholders across levels, from patients to delivery staff to health systems, experience different economic impacts (costs, benefit, and value) related to EBP implementation and have different perspectives on these issues. Economic theory can aid in understanding multi-level perspectives and approaches to addressing potential conflict across perspectives.This paper provides examples of key cost components especially important to different types of stakeholders. It provides specific guidance and recommendations for cost assessment activities that address the concerns of various stakeholder groups, identifies areas of agreement and conflict in priorities, and outlines theoretically informed approaches to understanding conflicts among stakeholder groups and processes to address them. Involving stakeholders throughout the implementation process and presenting economic information in ways that are clear and meaningful to different stakeholder groups can aid in maximizing benefits within the context of limited resources. We posit that such approaches are vital to advancing economic evaluation in implementation science. Finally, we identify directions for future research and application.Considering a range of stakeholders is critical to informing economic evaluation that will support appropriate decisions about resource allocation across contexts to inform decisions about successful adoption, implementation, and sustainment. Not all perspectives need to be addressed in a given project but identifying and understanding perspectives of multiple groups of key stakeholders including patients and direct implementation staff not often explicitly considered in traditional economic evaluation are needed in implementation research.

Real-World Six-Year National Cost-Minimization Analysis of IncobotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA in the VA/DoD Healthcare Systems.

PURPOSE: This study sought to perform a real-world, long-term cost-minimization analysis for incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) versus onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®), given the established non-inferiority when utilized at similar doses. METHODS: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) national healthcare systems were included in this analysis. Real-world purchase data for incobotulinumtoxinA were used to estimate the direct drug costs between calendar years 2014 and 2019. Publicly available federal pharmaceutical prices (Federal Supply Schedule and Big 4) were used. The primary outcome was the difference in total direct costs nationally for incobotulinumtoxinA (real-world) versus having hypothetically utilized onabotulinumtoxinA (projected) for similar utilization. Sites utilizing ≥100 vials (of 100 Unit equivalents) of incobotulinumtoxinA annually were categorized as "major adopters". IncobotulinumtoxinA 50 Unit vials were assumed to be an alternative to a 100 Unit vial of onabotulinumtoxinA for 50% of such vial purchases in the base case scenario to account for differences in wastage. RESULTS: Over the six-year study time frame, 156 sites (76.8%) utilized incobotulinumtoxinA of the 203 total VA healthcare systems and DoD medical centers. Of these sites, 67 were major adopters for at least one year, with a mean of 3.4 years spent as a major adopter over the study period. Average annual savings per major adopter was $105,782. IncobotulinumtoxinA costs for all VA/DoD sites was $46.39 million for the six-year period versus a projected $71.92 million onabotulinumtoxinA cost-a total savings of $25.53 million (35.5% relative reduction). Approximately, 82.8% of savings stemmed from lower drug acquisition cost ($21.14 million) and 17.2% of savings ($4.39 million) was related to reduced wastage. It was estimated that a total of 9958 extra onabotulinumtoxinA 100 Unit vials would have been wasted during the six-year period, translating to the need for a 5.9% increase in vial purchases versus incobotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSION: Meaningful cost savings were realized related to incobotulinumtoxinA adoption over a long-term time frame in the VA/DoD healthcare systems.

Cost-effectiveness of Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

Providers' perceptions on barriers and facilitators to prescribing naloxone for patients at risk for opioid overdose after implementation of a national academic detailing program: A qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an educational outreach program that aligns providers' prescribing with evidence-based practice. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) Program partnered with the VA Pharmacy Benefits Management National Academic Detailing Service to deliver naloxone education to providers who cared for patients at risk of opioid overdose. In this pilot study, we interviewed providers' who received academic detailing to capture their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to prescribing naloxone. OBJECTIVE: To identify providers' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to prescribing naloxone for patients at risk for opioid overdose after implementation of a national academic detailing program. METHODS: This was a hybrid inductive-deductive qualitative pilot using semi-structured interviews with VA providers to explore constructs associated with facilitators and barriers to prescribing take-home naloxone to patients at risk for opioid overdose from August 2017 to April 2018. RESULTS: Eleven participants were interviewed, six physicians, three clinical psychiatric pharmacists, and two nurse practitioners. Participants identified patient-level barriers (social stigma and lack of homeless patient support), poor data integration, and burden of data validation as barriers to prescribing naloxone. However, they also identified patient lists, repeat visits, and face-to-face/one-on-one video conferencing visits as important facilitators for naloxone prescribing. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: Academic detailing will need to address issues of social stigma regarding naloxone, educate providers about existing support systems for homeless veterans, and develop tools for data integration to improve naloxone access for veterans at risk for an opioid overdose.

Correction to: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer and Spironolactone Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia.

Correction to Bounthavong M, Butler J, Dolan CM, Dunn JD, Fisher KA, Oestreicher N, Pitt B, Hauptman PJ, Veenstra DL.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer and Spironolactone Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Certain patients with heart failure (HF) are unable to tolerate spironolactone therapy due to hyperkalemia. Patiromer is a novel agent used to treat hyperkalemia and has been shown to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated. The potential clinical outcomes and economic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with HF unable to otherwise tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia are unclear. The objective of this analysis was to model the potential pharmacoeconomic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with a history of hyperkalemia that prevents them from utilizing spironolactone. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with patiromer, spironolactone, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV HF compared with ACEI alone. A Markov model was constructed to simulate a cohort of 65-year-old patients diagnosed with HF from the payer perspective across the lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the RALES and OPAL-HK randomized trials of spironolactone and patiromer, respectively. Utility estimates and costs were derived from the literature and list prices. Outcomes assessed included hospitalization, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model findings. RESULTS: Treatment with patiromer-spironolactone-ACEI was projected to increase longevity compared with ACEI alone (5.29 vs. 4.62 life-years gained, respectively), greater QALYs (2.79 vs. 2.60), and costs (US$28,200 vs. US$18,200), giving an ICER of US$52,700 per QALY gained. The ICERs ranged from US$40,000 to US$85,800 per QALY gained in 1-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the use of spironolactone-patiromer-ACEI may provide clinical benefit and good economic value in patients with NYHA class III-IV HF unable to tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia.