Why the increase? Examining the rise in prescription medication expenditures in the United States between 2011 and 2020.

The objective of this cross-sectional analysis was to identify determinants of increasing medicine expenditures in the US between 2011 and 2020. Prescription medication expenditures from the 2011-2020 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to calculate total annual medication expenditures by payer categories (Out-of-pocket, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE/Veterans Administration/CHAMPVA (TVAC), Other Government Sources, Private Insurance, and Other Sources). From here, expenditures were stratified by therapeutic category using Multum Lexicon Drug Class to examine trends in expenditures by therapeutic area. Linear regression was used to identify temporal trends in medication expenditures. From 2011 to 2020, total annual prescription medication expenditures rose from $341.49 to $473.12 billion per year with metabolic agents being the most costly category. Among the metabolic agents, antidiabetic agents were the most costly therapeutic area, with an increasing trend observed from $27.15 to $89.17 billion over the same period. Medicare, Medicaid, Private Insurance, TVAC, and Other Sources also saw an increasing trend in antidiabetic agent expenditure, while no trend was observed for Out-of-pocket and Other Government Sources. Insulin had the highest expenditure among antidiabetic agents. Further studies are warranted to explore specific factors contributing to the increasing trend.

Productivity Loss Among Opioid and Benzodiazepine Users in the United States: A Medical Expenditure Panel Survey From 2010 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to estimate the association between productivity losses and the use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines among employed US adults with painful conditions. METHODS: Using Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (2010-2019), we used two-part (logistic regression and generalized linear model with zero-truncated negative binomial link) model to compare missed workdays due to illness or injury among employed adults with a painful condition. RESULTS: Of the eligible sample of 57,413 working US individuals, 14.65% were prescription opioid users, 2.95% were benzodiazepine users, and 1.59% were both opioid and benzodiazepine users. The predicted missed workdays were 5.75 (95% Confidence Limit [CL]: 5.58-5.92) days for benzodiazepine users, 13.06 (95% CL: 12.88-13.23) days among opioid users, and 15.18 (95% CL: 14.46-15.90) days for opioid and benzodiazepine concomitant users. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines was significantly associated with having more missed workdays among employed adults with documented painful conditions.

Patients prefer free drug disposal options delivered by pharmacists at the point of care: Results of a decision tree analysis of a national factorial vignette panel survey.

BACKGROUND: Unused opioid medication in the home increases risk of medication diversion, misuse, and unintended harm. The United States Federal Food and Drug Administration is currently considering the implementation of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program that would require US pharmacists to provide drug disposal products with opioid prescriptions. Still, little is known about consumer preference for drug disposal method. The objective of this study was to identify product and program characteristics associated with consumer preference for at-home drug disposal products. METHODS: A 2x2x3x3 full-factorial design was employed to text-based vignettes representing opioid analgesic disposal scenarios. Each vignette varied on four characteristics: product cost (free vs paid), ease of use (a mail back envelope, bringing medication to a takeback site, and an at-home drug deactivation pouch), potential environmental impact (incineration), and point of access (pharmacy, community organization, and prescriber). Of the 36 possible vignettes, 12 were removed as they represented a non-realistic combination of vignette characteristics. The remaining 24 were administered to a panel of patients with controlled-substance use in the past six-months. Decision tree modeling and general linear mixed (GLM) models were used sequentially to identify product characteristics associated with patient drug preferences RESULTS: A total of 1,006 participants completed all vignette drug disposal scenarios. Regression tree analysis found that the most important predictor of use was cost followed by ease of access and product design. GLM showed that takeback programs offered at a pharmacy were the most preferred disposal option followed by at-home products (mailed envelope or deactivation system) dispensed with the prescription. CONCLUSION: Programs that provide disposal resources directly to the patient at no cost with their prescription are likely to optimize willingness to dispose. Findings support the FDA's plan for a REMS program requiring pharmacies to distribute mail-back envelopes to patients when dispensed opioids.

Comparing Two Databases to Identify Access to Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the differences in buprenorphine prescribers from a county level in the state of Texas by comparing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator to the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Controlled Substance Act (CSA) database. METHODS: County-level counts of buprenorphine prescribers were calculated from both the publicly available SAMHSA buprenorphine practitioner locator list and the DEA CSA database. These were then used to estimate the number of providers per 100,000 residents in each county. Regional variation in access to buprenorphine was compared descriptively across the state using poverty data from the US Census and county-level demography from the Texas Demographic Center. RESULTS: This study found 68.8% more X-waivered providers on the DEA CSA database (n = 2,622) with at least one provider reported in 125 of 144 counties in the state (49.2%) compared to the SAMHSA Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator (n = 1,553) with at least one provider reported in 103 counties (40.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a complete public registry of buprenorphine prescribers can inhibit the ability of patients to identify a convenient treatment. More work is needed to quantify the gap between treatment capacity and treatment need.

Association of cash payment with intensity of opioid prescriptions.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to track use and outcomes in patients who pay cash for their prescriptions at the pharmacy. In Texas, 14% of all opioid prescriptions are paid with cash, often by uninsured patients and pharmacy shoppers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of cash payment with intensity of opioid prescriptions. METHODS: Using a prescription drug monitoring program and the U.S. Census data for the 2019 calendar year, this cross-sectional descriptive study analyzed more than 4 million opioid prescriptions in Texas residents aged 18-64 years. The payment type was coded as insurance if the prescription was paid in whole or in part by a health plan and as cash otherwise. Daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose was used to compare the intensity of opioid prescriptions. The association of uninsured rates with mean daily MME and the number of opioid prescriptions paid with cash per 100,000 persons were assessed at a county level. RESULTS: Cash payment was associated with 30% higher mean daily MME (59 vs. 45; P < 0.001) than insurance payment. This difference was driven by the prescriptions for patients aged 25-34 years and from the highest decile of prescribers based on the percentage of opioid prescriptions paid by cash. For instance, cash payment was associated with 82% higher mean daily MME (91 vs. 50; P < 0.001) when patients aged 25-34 years obtained their prescriptions from the highest decile of prescribers. At a county level, uninsured rates were not associated with mean daily MMEs or the number of opioid prescriptions paid with cash. CONCLUSION: Cash payment was associated with a higher intensity of opioid prescriptions, mirroring the rates of drug overdose deaths across the patient age groups. Further research and policy actions need to address unmet pain management needs in uninsured patients and potential pharmacy shopping with cash payment and fraudulent identifications.

Impact of COVID-19 related policy changes on filling of opioid and benzodiazepine medications.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare access has changed drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective medical procedures, including routine office visits, were restricted raising concerns regarding opioid and benzodiazepine provider and prescription availability. OBJECTIVE: To examine how the cancelation of elective medical procedures due to COVID-19 impacted the dispensing of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions in Texas. METHODS: Interrupted time series analyses were preformed to examine changes in prescription trends for opioids and benzodiazepines before and after the restriction on elective medical procedures. Samples of patients who filled an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription from January 5, 2020 to May 12, 2020 were identified from the Texas Prescription Monitoring Program. Elective medical procedures were restricted starting March 23, 2020 indicating the beginning of the intervention period. RESULTS: Restricting elective procedures was associated with a significant decrease in the number of patients (ß = -6029, 95%CI = -8810.40, -3246.72) and prescribers (ß = -2784, 95%CI = -3671.09, -1896.19) filling and writing opioid prescriptions, respectively. Also, the number of patients filling benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased significantly (ß = -1982, 95%CI = -3712.43, -252.14) as did the number of prescribers (ß = -708.62, 95%CI = -1190.54, -226.71). CONCLUSION: Restricting elective procedures resulted in a large care gap for patients taking opioid or benzodiazepine prescriptions.

Impact of COVID-19 Related Policy Changes on Buprenorphine Dispensing in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the change in the daily number of patients receiving buprenorphine and buprenorphine prescribers during the early phase of the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Texas. METHODS: Counts of the number of patients filling and number of providers prescribing buprenorphine were calculated for each weekday between November 4, 2019 and May 12, 2020. The change in daily patients and prescribers between March 2, 2020 and May 12, 2020, was modeled as a change in slope compared to the baseline period using autoregressive, interrupted time series regression. RESULTS: The rate of change of daily buprenorphine prescriptions (ß = -1.75, 95% CI = -5.8-2.34) and prescribers (ß = -0.32, 95% CI = -1.47-0.82) declined insignificantly during the COVID-19 period compared to the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 57% decline in ambulatory care utilization in the south-central US during March and April of 2020, health services utilization related to buprenorphine in Texas remained robust. Protecting access to buprenorphine as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold will require intensive efforts from clinicians and policy makers alike. While the presented results are promising, researchers must continue monitoring and exploring the clinical and humanistic impact of COVID-19 on the treatment of substance use disorders.