Provider and Patient-panel Characteristics Associated With Initial Adoption and Sustained Prescribing of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Limited information is available regarding provider- and patient panel-level factors associated with primary care provider (PCP) adoption/prescribing of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). METHODS: We assessed a retrospective cohort from 2015 to 2018 within the Pennsylvania Medicaid Program. Participants included PCPs who were Medicaid providers, with no history of MOUD provision, and who treated ≥10 Medicaid enrollees annually. We assessed initial MOUD adoption, defined as an index buprenorphine/buprenorphine-naloxone or oral/extended release naltrexone fill and sustained prescribing, defined as ≥1 MOUD prescription(s) for 3 consecutive quarters from the PCP. Independent variables included provider- and patient panel-level characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 113 rural and 782 urban PCPs who engaged in initial adoption and 36 rural and 288 urban PCPs who engaged in sustained prescribing. Rural/urban PCPs who issued increasingly larger numbers of antidepressant and antipsychotic medication prescriptions had greater odds of initial adoption and sustained prescribing (P < 0.05) compared to those that did not prescribe these medications. Further, each additional patient out of 100 with opioid use disorder diagnosed before MOUD adoption increased the adjusted odds for initial adoption 2% to 4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.08) and sustained prescribing by 4% to 7% (95% CI = 1.01-1.08). New Medicaid providers in rural areas were 2.52 (95% CI = 1.04-6.11) and in urban areas were 2.66 (95% CI = 1.94, 3.64) more likely to engage in initial MOUD adoption compared to established PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: MOUD prescribing adoption was concentrated among PCPs prescribing mental health medications, caring for those with OUD, and new Medicaid providers. These results should be leveraged to test/implement interventions targeting MOUD adoption among PCPs.

Patterns of clinic switching and continuity of medication for opioid use disorder in a Medicaid-enrolled population.

BACKGROUND: Many persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) initiate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with one clinic and switch to another clinic during their course of treatment. These switches may occur for referrals or for unplanned reasons. It is unknown, however, what effect switching MOUD clinics has on continuity of MOUD treatment or on overdoses. OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of switching MOUD clinics and its association with the proportion of days covered (PDC) by MOUD, and opioid-related overdose. DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of Pennsylvania Medicaid claims data. MAIN MEASURES: MOUD clinic switches (i.e., filling a MOUD prescription from a prescriber located in a different clinic than the previous prescriber), PDC, and opioid-related overdose. RESULTS: Among 14,107 enrollees, 43.2 % switched clinics for MOUD at least once during the 270 day period. In multivariate regression results, enrollees who were Non-Hispanic black (IRR = 1.43; 95 % CI = 1.24-1.65; p < 0.001), had previous methadone use (IRR = 1.32; 95 % CI = 1.13-1.55; p < 0.001), and a higher total number of office visits (IRR = 1.01; CI = 1.01-1.01; p < 0.001) had more switches. The number of clinic switches was positively associated with PDC (OR = 1.12; 95 % CI = 1.10-1.13). In secondary analyses, we found that switches for only one MOUD fill were associated with lower PDC (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI = 0.95-0.99), while switches for more than one MOUD fill were associated with higher PDC (OR = 1.40; 95 % CI = 1.36-1.44). We did not observe a relationship between opioid-related overdose and clinic switches. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of prescriber continuity for receiving MOUD may not be problematic as it is for other conditions, insofar as it is related to overdose and PDC.

The Role of Primary Care in Improving Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment for Rural Medicaid Enrollees with Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected rural areas, where a limited number of health care providers offer medication-assisted treatment (MAT), the mainstay of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Rural residents with OUD may face multiple barriers to engagement in MAT including long travel distances. OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which rural residents with OUD are engaged with primary care providers (PCPs), describe the role of rural PCPs in MAT delivery, and estimate the association between enrollee distance to MAT prescribers and MAT utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid-enrolled adults diagnosed with OUD in 23 rural Pennsylvania counties. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care utilization, MAT utilization, distance to nearest possible MAT prescriber, mean distance traveled to actual MAT prescribers, and continuity of pharmacotherapy. KEY RESULTS: Of the 7930 Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of OUD, a minority (18.6%) received their diagnosis during a PCP visit even though enrollees with OUD had 4.1 visits to PCPs per person-year in 2015. Among enrollees with an OUD diagnosis recorded during a PCP visit, about half (751, 50.8%) received MAT, most of whom (508, 67.6%) received MAT from a PCP. Enrollees with OUD with at least one PCP visit were more likely than those without a PCP visit to receive MAT (32.7% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and filled more buprenorphine and naltrexone prescriptions (mean = 11.1 vs. 9.3; p < 0.001). The median of the distances traveled to actual MAT prescribers was 48.8 miles, compared to a median of 4.2 miles to the nearest available MAT prescriber. Enrollees traveling a mean distance greater than 45 miles to MAT prescribers were less likely to receive continuity of pharmacotherapy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.91, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: PCP utilization among rural Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with OUD is high, presenting a potential intervention point to treat OUD, particularly if the enrollee's PCP is located nearer than their MAT prescriber.

MyVA Access: An Evaluation of Changes in Access for a System-Wide Program Implemented in the Veterans Health Administration.

The current study evaluates changes in access as a result of the MyVA Access program-a system-wide effort to improve patient access in the Veterans Health Administration. Data on 20 different measures were collected, and changes were analyzed using t tests and Chow tests. Additionally, organizational health-how able a system is to create health care practice change-was evaluated for a sample of medical centers (n = 36) via phone interviews and surveys conducted with facility staff and technical assistance providers. An organizational health variable was created and correlated with the access measures. Results showed that, nationally, average wait times for urgent consults, new patient wait times for mental health and specialty care, and slot utilization for primary and specialty care patients improved. Patient satisfaction measures also improved, and patient complaints decreased. Better organizational health was associated with improvements in patient access.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in the Emergency Department: An Examination of Health Care Utilization and Costs.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in deploying screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) practices in emergency departments (ED) to intervene with patients at risk for substance use disorders. However, the current literature is inconclusive on whether SBIRT practices are effective in reducing costs and utilization. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the health care costs and health care utilization associated with SBIRT services in the ED. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study analyzed downstream health care utilization and costs for patients who were exposed to SBIRT services within an Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ED through a program titled Safe Landing compared with 3 control groups of ED patients (intervention hospital preintervention, and preintervention and postintervention time period at a comparable, nonintervention hospital). SUBJECTS: The subjects were patients who received ED SBIRT services from January 1 to December 31 in 2012 as part of the Safe Landing program. One control group received ED services at the same hospital during a previous year. Two other control groups were patients who received ED services at another comparable hospital. MEASURES: Measures include total health care costs, 30-day ED visits, 1-year ED visits, inpatient claims, and behavioral health claims. RESULTS: Results found that patients who received SBIRT services experienced a 21% reduction in health care costs and a significant reduction in 1-year ED visits (decrease of 3.3 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support that SBIRT programs are cost-effective and cost-beneficial approaches to substance use disorders management, important factors as policy advocates continue to disseminate SBIRT practices throughout the health care system.

Evaluating the Impact of Sample Medication on Subsequent Patient Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is problematic throughout health care practice. Patient nonadherence is a result of several factors, such as financial issues, confusion about the medication, or concerns about possible side effects. Efforts to improve adherence have been implemented, but new strategies are needed to ensure that patients fill their medication prescriptions and adhere to their prescribed use. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether providing patients with a free 30-day supply of medication at the point of care via a dispensing kiosk-a secure, computerized cabinet placed in the prescriber's office-that provides sample medication and educational materials had a measurable impact on adherence and health care cost. METHODS: The study sample consisted of patients drawn from the electronic health records of a large health care provider who were prescribed medications to treat diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. The comparison groups included a treatment group of patients who each received a 30-day generic sample of medication and a control group of patients who did not receive a sample. The study outcome was primary medication non-adherence (PMN), defined as whether a patient filled a prescription within 90, 180, or 365 days of prescribing. Only patients receiving a prescription for the first time were considered; patients on a medication before receipt of the sample were dropped. Postprescription medication adherence (PPMA), measured as proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of days covered ≥ 80% (PDC80), was also examined. Propensity score methods and multivariate regression models were used to examine the outcomes and group differences. Costs to the patient before and after the prescription were also analyzed. Key informant interviews were conducted with physicians, and qualitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: Patients who received a 30-day generic medication sample had a higher probability of filling a first prescription within 90 days (72.2% for treatment patients vs. 37.6% for controls, P < 0.001); 180 days (79.1% vs. 43.3%, respectively, P < 0.001); and 365 days (85.5% vs. 48.6%, P < 0.001). The medication sample had a positive effect on PDC for 90 days, with treatment patients having 72.8% adherent days versus 35.1% adherent days for controls (average treatment effect [ATE] = 37.5%, P < 0.001). At 180 days, PDC adherence was 57.1% for treatment patients versus 35.4% for controls (ATE = 21.5%, P < 0.001), and 43.6% versus 33.9%, respectively (ATE = 9.5%, P < 0.001) for the 365-day period. PDC80 was significantly better among treatment patients at 90 days (53.5% vs. 31.2%, respectively, ATE = 22.4%, P < 0.001) and 180 days (38.4% vs. 29.1%, ATE = 9.2%, P < 0.001), but not at 365 days (23.7% vs. 23.7%, ATE = -0.02, not significant). Costs were reduced by $395 for the treatment group. Interviews with clinicians indicated a positive view of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a free sample medication improved the probability of patients filling their initial prescriptions and adhering to those medications. This program can affect health care costs, as evidenced by lower costs for the treatment group. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this study was provided by MedVantx. UMPC Health Plan reviewed and commented on the manuscript. Hogue is an employee of MedVantx and also reviewed the manuscript. Manolis is employed by UPMC Health Plan. The remaining authors report no other conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Pringle. Aldridge took the lead in data collection, along with Kearney. Data interpretation was performed primarily by Radack, along with Kearney and Grasso. The manuscript was written by Kearney, Aldridge, and Radack and revised by Kearney, Manolis, Hogue, and Radack.

User testing and performance evaluation of the Electronic Quality Improvement Platform for Plans and Pharmacies.

OBJECTIVE: To user-test and evaluate a performance information management platform that makes standardized, benchmarked medication use quality data available to both health plans and community pharmacy organizations. SETTING: Multiple health/drug plans and multiple chain and independent pharmacies across the United States. EVALUATION: During the first phase of the study, user experience was measured via user satisfaction surveys and interviews with key personnel (pharmacists, pharmacy leaders, and health plan leadership). Improvements were subsequently made to the platform based on these findings. During the second phase of the study, the platform was implemented in a greater number of pharmacies and by a greater number of payers. User experience was then reevaluated to gather information for further improvements. RESULTS: The surveys and interviews revealed that users found the Web-based platform easy to use and beneficial in terms of understanding and comparing performance metrics. Primary concerns included lack of access to real-time data and patient-specific data. Many users also expressed uncertainty as to how they could use the information and data provided by the platform. CONCLUSION: The study findings indicate that while information management platforms can be used effectively in both pharmacy and health plan settings, future development is needed to ensure that the provided data can be transferred to pharmacy best practices and improved quality care.

Implementation of targeted medication adherence interventions within a community chain pharmacy practice: The Pennsylvania Project.

OBJECTIVE: To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing targeted medication adherence interventions in community chain pharmacies, and describe adaptations of the targeted intervention and organizational structure within each individual pharmacy practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Central and western Pennsylvania from February to April 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Rite Aid pharmacists staffed at the 118 Pennsylvania Project intervention sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of pharmacists' perceptions of facilitators and barriers experienced, targeted intervention and organizational structure adaptations implemented, and training and preparation prior to implementation. RESULTS: A total of 15 key informant interviews were conducted from February to April 2012. Ten pharmacists from "early adopter" practices and five pharmacists from "traditionalist" practices were interviewed. Five themes emerged regarding the implementation of targeted interventions, including all pharmacists' need to understand the relationship of patient care programs to their corporation's vision; providing individualized, continual support and mentoring to pharmacists; anticipating barriers before implementation of patient care programs; encouraging active patient engagement; and establishing best practices regarding implementation of patient care services. CONCLUSION: This qualitative analysis revealed that there are a series of key steps that can be taken before the execution of targeted interventions that may promote successful implementation of medication therapy management in community chain pharmacies.

The Pennsylvania Project: pharmacist intervention improved medication adherence and reduced health care costs.

Improving medication adherence across the health care system is an ingredient that is vital to improving patient outcomes and reducing downstream health care costs. The Pennsylvania Project, a large-scale community pharmacy demonstration study, evaluated the impact of a pharmacy-based intervention on adherence to five chronic medication classes. To implement the study, 283 pharmacists from a national community pharmacy chain were assigned to the intervention group. Collectively, they screened 29,042 patients for poor adherence risk and provided brief interventions to people with an elevated risk. Compared to a control group of 295 pharmacists who screened 30,454 patients, the intervention significantly improved adherence for all medication classes, from 4.8 percent for oral diabetes medications to 3.1 percent for beta-blockers. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in per patient annual health care spending for patients taking statins ($241) and oral diabetes medications ($341). This study demonstrated that pharmacist-provided intervention is a cost-effective tool that may be applied in community pharmacies and health care sites across the country.

Physician perceptions of pharmacist-provided medication therapy management: qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify physician perceptions of community pharmacist-provided medication therapy management (MTM). METHODS: Three focus groups consisting of family and internal medicine physicians were conducted in Pittsburgh, York, and Philadelphia, PA, using a semistructured topic guide to facilitate discussions. Each participant completed an exit survey at session conclusion. RESULTS: 23 physicians participated in one of three focus groups conducted in Pittsburgh (n = 9), York (n = 6), and Philadelphia (n = 8). Participants identified common medication issues in their practices: nonadherence, adverse effects, drug interactions, medication costs, and incomplete patient understanding of the medication regimen. Receipt of a complete patient medication list was reported as the greatest potential benefit of MTM. Participants believed that physicians would be better suited as MTM providers than pharmacists. Concerns identified were the mechanism of pharmacist payment, reimbursement of time spent by physicians to coordinate care, and the training/preparation of the pharmacist. The need for a trusting relationship between a patient's primary care physician and the pharmacists providing MTM was identified. CONCLUSION: This study provides information to assist pharmacists when approaching physicians to propose collaboration through MTM. Pharmacists should tell physicians that they will receive an updated patient medication list after each visit and emphasize that direct communication is essential to coordinate care.