Association between treatment setting and outcomes among oregon medicaid patients with opioid use disorder: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Residential treatment is a common approach for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), however, few studies have directly compared it to outpatient treatment. The objective of this study was to compare OUD outcomes among individuals receiving residential and outpatient treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study used linked data from a state Medicaid program, vital statistics, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Treatment Episodes Dataset (TEDS) to compare OUD-related health outcomes among individuals treated in a residential or outpatient setting between 2014 and 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models examined the association between treatment setting and outcomes (i.e., opioid overdose, non-overdose opioid-related and all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and treatment retention) controlling for patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and use of medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD). Interaction models evaluated how MOUD use modified associations between treatment setting and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3293 individuals treated for OUD, 957 (29%) received treatment in a residential facility. MOUD use was higher among those treated as an outpatient (43%) compared to residential (19%). The risk of opioid overdose (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 0.73-2.64) or an opioid-related emergency department encounter or admission (aHR 1.02; 95% CI 0.80-1.29) did not differ between treatment settings. Independent of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in overdose risk (aHR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.89). Residential care was associated with greater odds of retention at 6-months (aOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32-2.21) but not 1-year. Residential treatment was only associated with improved retention for individuals not receiving MOUD (6-month aOR 2.05; 95% CI 1.56-2.71) with no benefit observed in those who received MOUD (aOR 0.75; 95% CI 0.46-1.29; interaction p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to outpatient treatment, residential treatment was not associated with reductions in opioid overdose or opioid-related ED encounters/hospitalizations. Regardless of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in opioid overdose risk.

Closing the Part D Coverage Gap and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Multiple Sclerosis Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether closing the Part D coverage gap (donut hole) between 2010 and 2019 lowered patients' out-of-pocket costs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Using nationwide Medicare Formulary and Drug Pricing Files, we analyzed Part D drug benefit design and DMT prices in 2010, 2016, and 2019. We calculated average monthly list prices for DMTs available in each year (4 DMTs in 2010, 11 DMTs in 2016, and 14 DMTs in 2019). We projected patients' annual out-of-pocket cost for each DMT alone under a standard Part D plan in that year. We estimated potential savings attributable to closing the coverage gap between 2010 and 2019 (beneficiaries' cost sharing dropped from 100% to 25%) under 3 scenarios: no increase in price, an inflation-indexed price increase (3% annually), and the observed price increase. RESULTS: Median monthly DMT prices rose from $2,804 to $5,987 to $7,009 over the years 2010, 2016, and 2019, respectively. Median projected annual out-of-pocket costs rose from $5,916 to $6,229 to $6,618. With unchanged or inflation-indexed DMT price changes, closing the coverage gap would have reduced annual out-of-pocket costs by $2,260 (38% reduction) and $1,744 (29% reduction), respectively. Despite having the lowest monthly price, generic glatiramer acetate had among the highest out-of-pocket costs ($6,731 to $6,939 a year) in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part D beneficiaries can pay thousands of dollars yearly out of pocket for DMTs. Closing the Part D coverage gap did not reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients because of simultaneous increases in DMT prices.

Identifying opioid dose reductions and discontinuation among patients with chronic opioid therapy.

PURPOSE: To identify and systematically categorize opioid dose reductions and discontinuations in large administrative datasets. METHODS: Using a dataset of Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries linked with prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data between 2014 and 2017, we identified patients with high-dose chronic opioid therapy (COT), ≥84 consecutive days with an average daily MME of ≥50 on each of those days. We categorized patients into four mutually exclusive groups based on the trajectory of opioid use in the year after COT: abrupt discontinuation, dose reduction and discontinuation, dose reduction without discontinuation, and stable or increasing dose. Finally, we examined prescription patterns in each category. RESULTS: Among individuals with high-dose COT, 7636 (37.1%) had an abrupt discontinuation, 2577 (12.5%) had a dose reduction and discontinuation, 7739 (37.6%) had a dose reduction without discontinuation, and 2623 (12.8%) had a stable or increasing dose in the year following the COT episode. Among those who discontinued opioid use (n = 10 213, 49.6%), three in four (74.8%) did so without evidence of tapering. Patients who discontinued opioid use were younger, had higher daily MME during COT, and were more likely to have filled a benzodiazepine or had a multiple provider or multiple pharmacy episode compared to patients who did not discontinue opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Dose reductions and discontinuations after a COT episode can be identified in large administrative datasets. Those with a discontinuation were more likely to have riskier prescription profiles during their COT episode.

The effect of out-of-pocket costs on initiation of disease-modifying therapies among medicare beneficiaries with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries with multiple sclerosis (MS) often face high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). It is unclear how cost-sharing affects therapy initiation. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of patient cost-sharing on initiation of a DMT among Medicare beneficiaries with a new diagnosis code for MS. METHODS: Using Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2014, we identified a cohort of individuals with at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic claims for MS. We restricted this group to beneficiaries with continuous Part A, B, and D coverage in the year before and after their initial diagnosis. To estimate the effect of cost-sharing on time to self-administered DMT initiation, we compared beneficiaries with a Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), who are shielded from cost-sharing, to those without LIS using multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards models adjusting for potential demographic and health-related confounders. RESULTS: There were 39,661 Medicare beneficiaries who met inclusion criteria; 3827 had full LIS benefits throughout the study period. Beneficiaries were predominately White (36,447, 91.9%) and female (29,406, 74.1%). LIS recipients were generally younger (55 vs 67 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be enrolled through disability eligibility (79% vs 36%, p<0.001). In the year after their index diagnosis, 434 LIS recipients initiated DMT versus 1682 non-LIS (11% vs 5%; p<0.001). Among those who started a DMT, the average time to initiation was 115 days in those with LIS and 137 days for non-LIS (p<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, individuals with LIS benefits were significantly more likely to initiate a DMT in the year following their diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.57). The effect of OOP costs on initiation did not differ by demographic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with MS who are shielded from traditional cost-sharing are more likely to initiate a DMT in the year following receipt of their first diagnosis code. Future work should examine the effect of cost-related treatment delays on relapse rates and disability progression.

A comparison of trends in opioid dispensing patterns between Medicaid pharmacy claims and prescription drug monitoring program data.

PURPOSE: Public and private payers have implemented benefit limitations to reduce high-risk opioid prescriptions. The effect of these policies on the increase of out-pocket payment is unclear. To understand this gap, we compared the discrepancies in trends between opioid prescription fills vs claims among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Data from the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and Oregon Medicaid administrative claims were used to identify Medicaid beneficiaries 18 years and older enrolled at least one full month from 2015 to 2017. Generalized linear models assessed the trends in the monthly rates of opioid PDMP prescription fills and pharmacy claims per 1000 eligible members. Rates by morphine equivalent dose (MED) tier (<50, 50-89, 90-120, >120 MED) and co-prescribed opioid and benzodiazepine were also assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, an average of 495 355 Medicaid members had 2 797 054 opioid PDMP fills and 2 472 155 opioid Medicaid pharmacy claims. Study participants had 15.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.6 to 17.0; P < .001) more prescriptions per 1000 member per month in the PDMP data (114.1 [SD 7.4]) compared with the Medicaid claims data (98.7 [SD 7.9]). Similarly, there were 1.9 more co-occurring opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions per 1000 members per month observed in the PDMP data than the Medicaid claims data (95% CI 1.7 to 2.1; P < .001). At each MED tier, the PDMP fills were consistently higher than the claims (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher rate of fills in the PDMP compared to pharmacy claims suggests that there may be an increasing trend of out-of-pocket payment among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Prescription Opioid Dispensing Patterns Prior to Heroin Overdose in a State Medicaid Program: a Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of individuals who use heroin report initiating opioid use with prescription opioids. However, patterns of prescription opioid use preceding heroin-related overdose have not been described. OBJECTIVE: To describe prescription opioid use in the year preceding heroin overdose. DESIGN: Case-control study comparing prescription opioid use with a heroin-involved overdose, non-heroin-involved opioid overdose, and non-overdose controls from 2015 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries with linked administrative claims, vital statistics, and prescription drug monitoring program data. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid, benzodiazepine, and other central nervous system depressant prescriptions preceding overdose; among individuals with one or more opioid prescription, we assessed morphine milligram equivalents per day, overlapping prescriptions, prescriptions from multiple prescribers, long-term use, and discontinuation of long-term use. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1458 heroin-involved overdoses (191 fatal) and 2050 non-heroin-involved opioid overdoses (266 fatal). In the 365 days prior to their overdose, 45% of individuals with a heroin-involved overdose received at least one prescribed opioid compared with 78% of individuals who experienced a non-heroin-involved opioid overdose (p < 0.001). For both heroin- and non-heroin-involved overdose cases, the likelihood of receiving an opioid increased with age. Among heroin overdose cases with an opioid dispensed, the rate of multiple pharmacy use was the only high-risk opioid pattern that was greater than non-overdose controls (adjusted odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 6.95). Discontinuation of long-term opioid use was not common prior to heroin overdose and not higher than discontinuation rates among non-overdose controls. CONCLUSIONS: Although individuals with a heroin-involved overdose were less likely to receive prescribed opioids in the year preceding their overdose relative to non-heroin opioid overdose cases, prescription opioid use was relatively common and increased with age. Discontinuation of long-term prescription opioid use was not associated with heroin-involved overdose.

Effect of generic glatiramer acetate on spending and use of drugs for multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in costs and utilization trends for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) from 2011 to 2017 in the US Medicaid program. METHODS: Using quarterly Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data from 2011 to 2017, we summarize trends in spending, utilization, and costs per prescription for 15 multiple sclerosis (MS) DMTs including brand and generic versions of glatiramer acetate. We use interrupted time series regression to estimate the effect of market entry of generic glatiramer acetate on cost per prescription of other self-administered DMTs. RESULTS: Gross annual expenditures on MS DMTs increased from $453 million to $1.32 billion between 2011 and 2017 within the Medicaid program. Increased spending was primarily driven by increases in per prescription costs, which doubled during the study period. Although total utilization was stable, product specific utilization shifted from injectable to oral DMTs. However, throughout the study, the plurality of utilization was glatiramer acetate. The introduction of generic glatiramer acetate in Q2 of 2015 was associated with an immediate increase of $441 (95% confidence interval [CI] $184-$697; p < 0.001) in the cost per prescription of branded glatiramer acetate followed by a gradual $52 per prescription reduction (95% CI -$86 to -$18) over time. There were minimal changes in the costs for the other DMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Spending on MS DMTs in the Medicaid program have more than doubled over the last 7 years primarily as a function of higher costs per prescription. Introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate product in 2015 had nominal effects on overall price trajectories and utilization within the class.

Qualitative study on the price of drugs for multiple sclerosis: Gaming the system.

OBJECTIVE: To describe pricing decisions, justifications, and attitudes among current and former biotech industry executives for companies that manufacture multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies. METHODS: Four leaders in biotech who have been directly involved in multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapy pricing or marketing volunteered to participate in 30-minute semistructured interviews conducted via telephone. An expert in qualitative methods moderated and analyzed the interviews alongside the principal investigator. Brief, preinterview online surveys were also administered to provide additional context and insight for discussion. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. RESULTS: Participants consistently stated that initial price decisions were dictated by the price of existing competitors in the market. Revenue maximization and corporate growth were drivers of price escalations in the absence of continued market penetration. Lower revenue predictions outside the United States also informed pricing strategies. The growing complexity and clout of drug distribution and supply channels were also cited as contributing factors. Although decisions to raise prices were motivated by the need to attract investment for future innovation, recouping drug-specific research and development costs as a justification was not strongly endorsed as having a significant influence on pricing decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prevailing narratives that underscore drug development costs, findings from our interviews suggest that the existing price ecosystem, overall corporate growth, international pricing disparities, and supply chain-related distortions may play a more central role in drug pricing decision.

Trends In Coverage For Disease-Modifying Therapies For Multiple Sclerosis In Medicare Part D.

The high cost of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies can negatively affect access for patients through increased payer restrictions and higher out-of-pocket spending. Our objective was to describe changes in pharmacy benefit coverage and cost-sharing amounts for MS disease-modifying therapies in the Medicare Part D program, using enrollment-weighted Prescription Drug Plan Formulary files for the period 2007-16. Among therapies available throughout the study period, the rate of prior authorization use increased from 61-66 percent of plans to 84-90 percent. The share of plans with at least one therapy available without limitations declined from 39 percent to 17 percent. The projected cumulative out-of-pocket spending for 2019 was $6,894. The therapy with the highest out-of-pocket spending was generic glatiramer acetate. Policy makers need to consider both access restrictions and a growing cost-sharing burden as potential consequences of high and rising drug prices for people with MS.

Industry Payments to Physician Specialists Who Prescribe Repository Corticotropin.

Importance: Despite great expense and little evidence supporting use over corticosteroids, prescriptions for repository corticotropin (H. P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) have increased markedly. Aggressive sales tactics and payments from the manufacturer may influence prescribing behavior for this expensive medication. Objective: To characterize industry payments to physician specialists who prescribe corticotropin in the Medicare program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 Part D prescribing data linked to 2015 Open Payments data. Nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists with more than 10 corticotropin prescriptions (frequent prescribers) in 2015 were included. Exposures: Frequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt recorded in the Open Payments database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt, as well as corticotropin prescriptions and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. Results: Of the 235 included physicians, 65 were nephrologists; 59, neurologists; and 111, rheumatologists. A majority of frequent corticotropin prescribers (207 [88%]) received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. The median (range) total payment for 2015 was $189 ($11-$138 321), with the highest payments ranging from $56 549 to $138 321 across the specialties. More than 20% of frequent prescribers received more than $10 000 and the top quartile of recipients received a median (range) of $33 190 ($9934-$138 321) in total payments per prescriber. Payments for compensation for services other than consulting contributed the most to the total amount. Mallinckrodt payments were positively associated with greater Medicare spending on corticotropin (ß = 1.079; 95% CI, 1.044-1.115; P < .001), with every $10 000 in payments associated with a 7.9% increase (approximately $53 000) in Medicare spending on corticotropin. There was no association between corticotropin-related payments and spending on prescriptions for synthetic corticosteroids. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, most nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists who frequently prescribe corticotropin received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. These findings suggest that financial conflicts of interest may be driving use of corticotropin in the Medicare program.

Using prescription monitoring program data to characterize out-of-pocket payments for opioid prescriptions in a state Medicaid program.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket payment for prescription opioids is believed to be an indicator of abuse or diversion, but few studies describe its epidemiology. Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) collect controlled substance prescription fill data regardless of payment source and thus can be used to study this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency and characteristics of prescription fills for opioids that are likely paid out-of-pocket by individuals in the Oregon Medicaid program. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using Oregon Medicaid administrative claims and PDMP data (2012 to 2013). SUBJECTS: Continuously enrolled nondually eligible Medicaid beneficiaries who could be linked to the PDMP with two opioid fills covered by Oregon Medicaid. MEASURES: Patient characteristics and fill characteristics for opioid fills that lacked a Medicaid pharmacy claim. Fill characteristics included opioid name, type, and association with indicators of high-risk opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 33 592 Medicaid beneficiaries filled a total of 555 103 opioid prescriptions. Of these opioid fills, 74 953 (13.5%) could not be matched to a Medicaid claim. Hydromorphone (30%), fentanyl (18%), and methadone (15%) were the most likely to lack a matching claim. The 3 largest predictors for missing claims were opioid fills that overlapped with other opioids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-1.4), long-acting opioids (aOR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.47-1.57), and fills at multiple pharmacies (aOR 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid fills that were likely paid out-of-pocket were common and associated with several known indicators of high-risk opioid use.