Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on regular emergency department users.

OBJECTIVES: Regular users of the emergency department (ED) include both patients who could be better served in lower-acuity settings and those with high-severity conditions. ED use decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but patterns among regular ED users are unknown. To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population, we examined quarterly postpandemic ED utilization among prepandemic regular ED users. Key subgroups included prepandemic ED users with regular visits for (1) low-severity conditions and (2) high-severity conditions. STUDY DESIGN: An event study design with COVID-19 and historic controls cohorts. METHODS: We identified 4710 regular ED users at baseline and followed their ED utilization for 7 quarters. We used a generalized estimating equations model to compare the relative quarterly percent difference in ED visit rates between the COVID-19 and historic controls cohorts. RESULTS: The first postpandemic quarter was associated with the largest decline in ED visits, at -36.0% (95% CI, -42.0% to -29.3%) per regular ED user overall, -52.2% (95% CI, -69.4% to -25.3%) among high-severity users, and -29.6% (95% CI, -39.8% to -17.8%) among low-severity users. However, use did not statistically differ from expected levels after 5 quarters among all regular ED users, 1 quarter among high-severity users, and 3 quarters among regular low-severity users. CONCLUSIONS: Initial reductions among regular high-severity ED users raise concern for harm from delayed or missed care but did not result in increased high-severity visits later. Nonsustained declines among regular low-severity ED users suggest barriers to and opportunities for redirecting nonurgent ED use to lower-acuity settings.

Comparison of health care costs following sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass among patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the impact of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on overall and diabetes-specific health care costs among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined patients with type 2 diabetes after SG and RYGB using data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart database. The matched study group included 9608 patients who underwent SG or RYGB and were enrolled between 2007 and 2019. The primary outcomes assessed were overall and diabetes-specific health care costs. RESULTS: Health care costs associated with type 2 diabetes declined substantially in the first few years following both SG and RYGB. RYGB was associated with a larger decrease in pharmacy costs, as well as type 2 diabetes-specific office and laboratory costs. SG was associated with lower total health care costs in the first three follow-up periods and lower acute care costs in the first 2 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, patients with type 2 diabetes at baseline undergoing RYGB appear to experience a reduced need for ambulatory type 2 diabetes monitoring and reduced requirements for antidiabetes medication but, despite this, did not experience an overall medical cost-benefit in the first few years after RYGB versus SG.

Trends in High-Acuity Cardiovascular Events During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study describes changes in myocardial infarction and stroke hospitalizations as well as congestive heart failure, angina, and transient ischemic attack incidents months before and after March 2020 among insured people in New England.

Vaccine Mandates and Influenza Vaccination During the Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a state influenza vaccine mandate and elevated community coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity affected a child's probability of receiving an influenza vaccine during the 2020-2021 influenza season, given the child's previous vaccination history. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study using enrollment and claims data of 71 333 children aged 6 months to 18 years living in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, from a regional insurer. Schoolchildren in Massachusetts were exposed to a new influenza vaccine mandate in the 2020-2021 season. Community COVID-19 severity was measured using county-level total cumulative confirmed case counts between March 2020 and August 2020 and linked by zip codes. The primary outcome of interest was a claim for any influenza vaccine in the 2020-2021 season. RESULTS: Children living in a state with a vaccine mandate during the 2020-2021 influenza season had a higher predicted probability of receiving an influenza vaccine than those living in states without a mandate (47.7%, confidence interval 46.4%-49.0%, vs 21.2%, confidence interval 18.8%-23.6%, respectively, for previous nonvaccinators, and 78.2%, confidence interval 77.4%-79.0%, vs 58.2%, confidence interval 54.7%-61.7%, for previous vaccinators); the difference was 6.5 percentage points greater among previous nonvaccinators (confidence interval 1.3%-11.7%). Previously vaccinated children had a lower predicted probability of receiving an influenza vaccine if they lived in a county with the highest COVID-19 severity compared with a county with low COVID-19 severity (72.1%, confidence interval 70.5%-73.7%, vs 77.3%, confidence interval 74.7%-79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to improve uptake of influenza vaccination may have differential impact based on previous vaccination status and should account for community factors.

Utilization and Spending With Preventive Drug Lists for Asthma Medications in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: High-deductible health plans with health savings accounts (HDHP-HSAs) incentivize patients to use less health care, including necessary care. Preventive drug lists (PDLs) exempt high-value medications from the deductible, reducing out-of-pocket cost sharing; the associations of PDLs with health outcomes among patients with asthma is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the associations of a PDL for asthma medications on utilization, adverse outcomes, and patient spending for HDHP-HSA enrollees with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used matched groups of patients with asthma before and after an insurance design change using a national commercial health insurance claims data set from 2004-2017. Participants included patients aged 4 to 64 years enrolled for 1 year in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL in which asthma medications were subject to the deductible who then transitioned to an HDHP-HSA with a PDL that included asthma medications; these patients were compared with a matched weighted sample of patients with 2 years of continuous enrollment in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL. Models controlled for patient demographics and asthma severity and were stratified by neighborhood income. Analyses were conducted from October 2020 to June 2023. Exposures: Employer-mandated addition of a PDL that included asthma medications to an existing HDHP-HSA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were utilization of asthma medications on the PDL (controllers and albuterol), asthma exacerbations (oral steroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department use), and out-of-pocket spending (all and asthma-specific). Results: A total of 12 174 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.9 [16.9] years; 6848 [56.25%] female) were included in analyses. Compared with no PDL, PDLs were associated with increased rates of 30-day fills per enrollee for any controller medication (change, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17] fills per enrollee; 12.9% increase) and for combination inhaled corticosteroid long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS-LABA) medications (change, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.10] fills per enrollee; 25.4% increase), and increased proportion of days covered with ICS-LABA (6.0% [0.7% to 11.3%] of days; 15.6% increase). Gaining a PDL was associated with decreased out-of-pocket spending on asthma care (change, -$34 [95% CI, -$47 to -$21] per enrollee; 28.4% difference), but there was no significant change in asthma exacerbations and no difference in results by income. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, reducing cost-sharing for asthma medications through a PDL was associated with increased adherence to controller medications, notably ICS-LABA medications used by patients with more severe asthma, but was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that PDLs are a potential strategy to improve access and affordability of asthma care for patients in HDHP-HSAs.

High-Deductible Health Plans Paired With Health Savings Accounts Increased Medication Cost Burden Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder.

Objective: High-deductible health plans paired with health savings accounts (HSA-HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, including medications. We examined effects of HSA-HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use among people with bipolar disorder.Methods: This quasi-experimental study used claims data for January 2003 through December 2014. We studied a national sample of 348 members with bipolar disorder (defined based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision), aged 12 to 64 years, who were continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤ $500) then 1 year in an HSA-HDHP (≥ $1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HSA-HDHP members were matched to 4,087 contemporaneous controls who remained in low-deductible plans. Outcome measures included out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, and all other medications.Results: Mean pre-to-post out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased by 149.7% among HSA-HDHP versus control members (95% confidence interval [CI], 109.9% to 189.5%). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (220.9% [95% CI, 150.0% to 291.8%]) and anticonvulsants (109.6% [95% CI, 67.3% to 152.0%]). Both higher-income and lower-income HSA-HDHP members experienced increases in out-of-pocket spending for bipolar disorder medications (135.2% [95% CI, 86.4% to 184.0%] and 164.5% [95% CI, 100.9% to 228.1%], respectively). We did not detect statistically significant changes in use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, or all other medications in this study population of HSA-HDHP members.Conclusions: HSA-HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket burdens for medications essential for their functioning and well-being. Although HSA-HDHPs were not associated with detectable reductions in medication use, high out-of-pocket costs could cause financial strain for lower-income enrollees.

Impact of High-Deductible Health Plans on Medication Use Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, although medications may be subject to traditional copayment arrangements. This study examined effects of HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use and quality of care among individuals with bipolar disorder. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2014) for a national sample of 3,532 members with bipolar disorder, ages 12-64, continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤$500) and then for 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were matched to 18,923 contemporaneous individuals in low-deductible plans (control group). Outcome measures were out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, psychotropics for other disorders, and all other medications and appropriate laboratory monitoring for psychotropics. RESULTS: Relative to the control group, annual out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased 20.8% among HDHP members (95% confidence interval [CI]=14.9%-26.7%), and the absolute increase was $36 (95% CI=$25.9-$45.2). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (27.1%; 95% CI=17.4%-36.7%) and anticonvulsants (19.2%; 95% CI=11.9%-26.6%) but remained stable for lithium (-3.7%; 95% CI=-12.2% to 4.8%). No statistically significant changes were detected in use of bipolar disorder medications, other psychotropics, or all other medications or in appropriate laboratory monitoring for bipolar disorder medications. CONCLUSIONS: HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced a moderate increase in out-of-pocket spending for medications but preserved bipolar disorder medication use. Findings may reflect individuals' perceptions of the importance of these medications for their functioning and well-being.

Effect of high-deductible insurance on health care use in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on health care use among individuals with bipolar disorder. STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time series with propensity score-matched control group design, using a national health insurer's claims data set with medical, pharmacy, and enrollment data. METHODS: The intervention group was composed of 2862 members with bipolar disorder who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan and then 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were propensity score matched 1:3 to contemporaneous controls in low-deductible plans. The main outcomes included out-of-pocket spending per health care service, mental health-related outpatient visits (subclassified as visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers and to psychiatrists), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Mean pre- to post-index date out-of-pocket spending per visit on all mental health office visits, nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and psychiatrist visits increased by 21.9% (95% CI, 15.1%-28.6%), 33.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-65.5%), and 17.8% (95% CI, 12.2%-23.4%), respectively, among HDHP vs control members. The HDHP group experienced a -4.6% (95% CI, -11.7% to 2.5%) pre- to post change in mental health outpatient visits relative to controls, a -10.9% (95% CI, -20.6% to -1.3%) reduction in nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and unchanged psychiatrist visits. ED visits and hospitalizations were also unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: After a mandated switch to HDHPs, members with bipolar disorder experienced an 11% decline in visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers but unchanged psychiatrist visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations. HDHPs do not appear to have a "blunt instrument" effect on health care use in bipolar disorder; rather, patients might make trade-offs to preserve important care.

Uptake and use of a diabetes management program with a mobile glucometer.

OBJECTIVE: Innovative mobile health technologies (mHealth) may facilitate self-management of blood glucose. This study evaluates uptake, use, and predictors of uptake and long-term use of a diabetes mHealth intervention, which comprises an FDA-approved mobile glucometer and nurse coaching, in a real-world setting. METHODS: n = 4438 commercially-insured adults with diabetes were recruited from 2014 to 2015 via an opt-in, phone-based process. In this post-only study, we obtained data on recruitment, glucometer use, demographics, and insurance and employer characteristics. We calculated percent uptake and reasons for unsuccessful recruitment. We used logistic regression to model predictors of uptake and survival analysis to examine duration of testing and predictors of discontinuation. RESULTS: Of the recruited members, 556 (12.5%) signed up for the mHealth program and 324 (7.3%) began testing. Of those who did not sign up, the majority (70.6%) were unable to be reached by phone. Male (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.03) and Spanish-speaking (OR = 8.34, 95% CI: 5.40, 12.88) members were more likely to start testing. Two-thirds (66.2%) of those who started testing had a first test value that indicated hyperglycemia; 97% tested more than once and the median time between first and last test was 407 days. Older age was the only significant predictor of long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: Although uptake of the mHealth program was low, most members who started testing had initial glucose values that indicated a need for better glucose management and the majority of patients engaged with the program for over a year. Male and Spanish-speaking members were more likely to initiate the program.

Peripartum Maternal Hepatitis B Care in a US Nationwide Data Set.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening during pregnancy is standard of care to prevent vertical transmission to infants, yet the mothers themselves may not receive appropriate follow-up. GOALS: Using a national database, we sought to determine rates of maternal peripartum follow-up with a HBV specialist and identify factors associated with a lack of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified women who delivered in 2000 to 2012 and were diagnosed with HBV according to International Classification of Diseases-9 codes using a national database (Optum) derived from commercial insurance claims with ∼46 million members ages 0 to 64 in all 50 states. Our primary outcome was follow-up during or after pregnancy with a HBV specialist (gastroenterology/infectious diseases). RESULTS: The prevalence of HBV was 0.27% (2558/959,747 pregnancies), and median follow-up was 45 months. Only 21% of women had peripartum HBV specialist follow-up. On multivariable regression, predictors of peripartum follow-up at 1-year included younger age [odds ratio (OR), 0.97/y; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94, 0.99], Asian race/ethnicity (OR, 1.56 vs. white; 95% CI, 1.13, 2.17), and residing in the Northeast (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.09, 2.66) and Midwest (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.07, 2.81) versus West. Predictors of testing for HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase at 1 year included Asian race (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23, 2.41), a primary care physician visit within 2 years of delivery (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19, 2.22), and peripartum HBV specialist follow-up within 1 year (OR, 15.68; 95% CI, 11.38, 21.60). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal HBV specialist follow-up rates were extremely low in this large, diverse cohort representing all United States regions. Referral to a HBV specialist was the strongest predictor of appropriate postpartum HBV laboratory testing. Follow-up rates may be even lower in uninsured populations.

Treatment of Febrile illness with artemisinin combination therapy: prevalence and predictors in five African household surveys.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the determinants of compliance with national policies recommending Artemisinin Combination Therapy (ACT) for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in the community. METHODS: We used data from Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda national household surveys that were conducted with a standardized World Health Organization (WHO) methodology to measure access to and use of medicines. We analyzed all episodes of acute fever reported in the five surveys. We used logistic regression models accounting for the clustered design of the surveys to identify determinants of seeking care in public healthcare facilities, of being treated with antimalarials, and of receiving ACT. RESULTS: Overall, 92% of individuals with a febrile episode sought care outside the home, 96% received medicines, 67% were treated with antimalarials, and 16% received ACT. The choice of provider was influenced by perceptions about medicines availability and affordability. In addition, seeking care in a public healthcare facility was the single most important predictor of treatment with ACT [odds ratio (OR): 4.64, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.98-7.22, P < 0.001]. Children under 5 years old were more likely than adults to be treated with antimalarials [OR: 1.28, CI: 0.91-1.79, not significant (NS)] but less likely to receive ACT (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.57-1.13, NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the high prevalence of presumptive antimalarial treatment for acute fever, especially in public healthcare facilities where poor people seek care. They show that perceptions about access to medicines shape behaviors by directing patients and caregivers to sources of care where they believe medicines are accessible. The success of national policies recommending ACT for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria depends not only on restricting ACT to confirmed malaria cases, but also on ensuring that ACT is available and affordable for those who need it.

Effects of eliminating drug caps on racial differences in antidepressant use among dual enrollees with diabetes and depression.

PURPOSE: Black patients with diabetes are at greater risk of underuse of antidepressants even when they have equal access to health insurance. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of removing a significant financial barrier to prescription medications (drug caps) on existing black-white disparities in antidepressant treatment rates among patients with diabetes and comorbid depression. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series with comparison series design and a 5% representative sample of all fee-for-service Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollees to evaluate the removal of drug caps on monthly antidepressant treatment rates. We evaluated the impact of drug cap removal on racial gaps in treatment by modeling the month-to-month white-black difference in use within age strata (younger than 65 years of age or 65 years of age or older). We compared adult dual enrollees with diabetes and comorbid depression living in states with strict drug caps (n = 221) and those without drug caps (n = 1133) before the policy change. Our primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients with any antidepressant use per month and the mean standardized monthly doses (SMDs) of antidepressants per month. FINDINGS: The removal of drug caps in strict drug cap states was associated with a sudden increase in the proportion of patients treated for depression (4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.03-0.05, P < 0.0001) and in the intensity of antidepressant use (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.07, P < 0.001). Although antidepressant treatment rates increased for both white and black patients, the white-black treatment gap increased immediately after Part D (0.04 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08) and grew over time (0.04 percentage points per month; 95% CI, 0.002-0.01; P < 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: Policies that remove financial barriers to medications may increase depression treatment rates among patients with diabetes overall while exacerbating treatment disparities. Tailored outreach may be needed to address nonfinancial barriers to mental health services use among black patients with diabetes.

Changes in drug coverage generosity and untreated serious mental illness: transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D.

IMPORTANCE: More than 1 in 5 disabled people with dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollment have schizophrenia or a bipolar disorder (ie, a serious mental illness). The effect of their transition from Medicaid drug coverage, which varies in generosity across states, to the Medicare Part D drug benefit is unknown. Many thousands make this transition annually. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of transitioning from Medicaid drug benefits to Medicare Part D on medication use by patients with a serious mental illness and to determine the influence of Medicaid drug caps. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In time-series analysis of continuously enrolled patient cohorts (2004-2007), we estimated changes in medication use before and after transitioning to Part D, comparing states that capped monthly prescription fills with states with no prescription limits. We used Medicaid and Medicare claims from a 5% national sample of community-dwelling, nonelderly disabled dual enrollees with schizophrenia (n = 5554) or bipolar disorder (n = 3675). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Psychotropic treatments included antipsychotics for schizophrenia and antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium for bipolar disorder. We measured monthly rates of untreated illness, intensity of treatment, and overall prescription medication use. RESULTS: Prior to Part D, the prevalence of untreated illness among patients with a bipolar disorder was 30.0% in strict-cap states and 23.8% in no-cap states. In strict-cap states, the proportion of untreated patients decreased by 17.2% (relatively) 1 year after Part D, whereas there was no change in the proportion of untreated patients in no-cap states. For patients with schizophrenia, the untreated rate (20.6%) did not change in strict-cap states, yet it increased by 23.3% (from 11.6%) in no-cap states. Overall medication use increased substantially after Part D in strict-cap states: prescription fills were 35.5% higher among patients with a bipolar disorder and 17.7% higher than predicted among schizophrenic patients; overall use in no-cap states was unchanged in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The effects of transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D on essential treatment of serious mental illness vary by state. Transition to Part D in states with strict drug benefit limits may reduce rates of untreated illness among patients with bipolar disorders, who have high levels of overall medication use. Access to antipsychotic treatment may decrease after Part D for patients with a serious mental illness living in states with relatively generous uncapped Medicaid coverage.

Impact of prior authorization on the use and costs of lipid-lowering medications among Michigan and Indiana dual enrollees in Medicaid and Medicare: results of a longitudinal, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Some Medicaid programs have adopted prior-authorization (PA) policies that require prescribers to request approval from Medicaid before prescribing drugs not included on a preferred drug list. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between PA policies for lipid-lowering agents in Michigan and Indiana and the use and cost of this drug class among dual enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid. METHODS: Michigan and Indiana claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were assessed. Michigan Medicaid instituted a PA requirement for several lipid-lowering medications in March 2002; Indiana implemented a PA policy for drugs in this class in September 2002. Although the PA policies affected some statins, they predominantly targeted second-line treatments, including bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, and niacins. Individuals aged ≥18 years who were continuously dually enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid from July 2000 through September 2003 were included in this longitudinal, population-based study, which included a 20-month observation period before the implementation of PA in Michigan and a 12-month follow-up period after the Indiana PA policy was initiated. Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine changes in prescription rates and pharmacy costs for lipid-lowering drugs before and after policy implementation. RESULTS: A total of 38,684 dual enrollees in Michigan and 29,463 in Indiana were included. Slightly more than half of the cohort were female (Michigan, 53.3% [20,614/38,684]; Indiana, 56.3% [16,595/29,463]); nearly half were aged 45 to 64 years (Michigan, 43.7% [16,921/38,684]; Indiana, 45.2% [13,321/29,463]). Most subjects were white (Michigan, 77.4% [29,957/38,684]; Indiana: 84.9% [25,022/29,463]). The PA policy was associated with an immediate 58% reduction in prescriptions for nonpreferred medications in Michigan and a corresponding increase in prescriptions for preferred agents. However, the PA policy had no apparent effect in Indiana, where there had been little use of nonpreferred medications before the policy was implemented (3.3%). The policies were associated with an immediate reduction of $24,548 in prescription expenditures in Michigan and an immediate reduction of $16,070 in Indiana. CONCLUSIONS: The PA policy was associated with substantially lower use of nonpreferred lipid-lowering drugs in Michigan, offset by increases in the use of preferred medications, but there was less change in Indiana. Data limitations did not permit the evaluation of the impact of policy-induced switching on clinical outcomes such as cholesterol levels. The monetary benefit of PA policies for lipid-lowering agents should be weighed against administrative costs and the burden on patients and health care providers.

Impact of two Medicaid prior-authorization policies on antihypertensive use and costs among Michigan and Indiana residents dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare: results of a longitudinal, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In response to rising pharmaceutical costs, many state Medicaid programs have implemented policies requiring prior authorization for high-cost medications, even for established users. However, little is known about the impact of these policies on the use of antihypertensive medicines in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this longitudinal, population-based study was to assess comprehensive prior-authorization programs for antihypertensives on drug use and costs in a vulnerable Medicaid population in Michigan and Indiana. METHODS: A prior-authorization policy for antihypertensives was implemented in Michigan in March 2002 and in Indiana in September 2002; Indiana also implemented an antihypertensive stepwise-therapy requirement in July 2003. Our study cohort included individuals aged >or=18 years in Michigan and Indiana who were continuously enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare from July 2000 through September 2003. Claims data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We included all antihypertensive medications, including diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, and angiotcnsin II receptor blockers. We used interrupted time-series analysis to study policy-related changes in the total number and cost of antihypertensive prescriptions. RESULTS: Overall, 38,684 enrollees in Michigan and 29,463 in Indiana met our inclusion criteria. Slightly more than half of our cohort in both states was female (53.29%in Michigan and 56.32%in Indiana). In Michigan, 20.23% of patients were aged >or=65 years; 77.44% were white, 20.11% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. In Indiana, 20.07% were aged >or=65 years; 84.93% were white, 13.64% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. The implementation of both policies was associated with large and immediate reductions in the use of nonpreferred medications: 83.33% reduction in the use of such drugs in Michigan (-84.30 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001) and 35.76% in Indiana (-64.45 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001). As expected, use of preferred medications also increased substantially in both states (P < 0.001). Overall, antihypertensive therapy immediately dropped 0.16% in Michigan (P = 0.04) and 1.82% in Indiana (P = 0.02). Implementation of the policies was also associated with reductions in pharmacy reimbursement of $616,572.43 in Michigan and $868,265.97 in Indiana in the first postpolicy year. CONCLUSIONS: Prior authorization was associated with lower use of nonpreferred antihypertensive drugs that was largely offset by increases in the use of preferred drugs. The possible clinical consequences of policy-induced drug switching for individual patients remain unknown because the present study did not include access to medical record data. Further research is needed to establish whether large-scale switches in medicines following the inception of prior-authorization policies have any long-term health effects.

Prior authorization for antidepressants in Medicaid: effects among disabled dual enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization is a popular, but understudied, strategy for reducing medication costs. We evaluated the impact of a controversial prior authorization policy in Michigan Medicaid on antidepressant use and health outcomes among dual Medicaid and Medicare enrollees with a Social Security Disability Insurance designation of permanent disability. METHODS: We linked Medicaid and Medicare (2000-2003) claims for dual enrollees in Michigan and a comparison state, Indiana. Using interrupted time-series and longitudinal data analysis, we estimated the impact of the policy on antidepressant medication use, treatment initiation, disruptions in therapy, and adverse health events among continuously enrolled (Michigan, n = 28 798; Indiana, n = 21 769) and newly treated (Michigan, n = 3671; Indiana, n = 2400) patients. RESULTS: In Michigan, the proportion of patients starting nonpreferred agents declined from 53% prepolicy to 20% postpolicy. The prior authorization policy was associated with a small sustained decrease in therapy initiation overall (9 per 10,000 population; P = .007). We also observed a short-term increase in switching among established users of nonpreferred agents overall (risk ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.87-4.42) and among those with depression (2.04; 1.22-3.42). However, we found no evidence of increased disruptions in treatment or adverse events (ie, hospitalization, emergency department use) among newly treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prior authorization was associated with increased use of preferred agents with no evidence of disruptions in therapy or adverse health events among new users. However, unintended effects on treatment initiation and switching among patients already taking the drug were also observed, lending support to the state's previous decision to discontinue prior approval for antidepressants in 2003.

Use of atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia in Maine Medicaid following a policy change.

More than one-third of Medicaid programs and Medicare Part D plans use prior authorization (PA) policies to control the use of atypical antipsychotics (AAs). We used Medicaid and Medicare claims data to investigate how Maine's PA policy affected AA use, treatment discontinuities, and spending among schizophrenia patients initiating AA therapy. Patients initiating AAs during Maine's policy experienced a 29 percent greater risk of treatment discontinuity than patients initiating AAs before the policy took effect; no change occurred in a comparison state. AA spending was slightly lower in both states. Observed increases in treatment discontinuities without cost savings suggest that AAs should be exempt from PA for patients with severe mental illnesses.

Chronic acid-related disorders are common and underinvestigated.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were as follows: to establish the prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders in a managed care population; to describe these patients; and to examine rates of adherence to current guidelines for investigation of dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study. The sample was drawn from 216,720 adult (aged >18 yr) members of a managed care organization that had an electronic medical record linked to administrative and pharmacy databases. We included adults with continuous enrollment from July, 1998, to January, 2000, who were dispensed histamine-2 blockers or proton-pump inhibitors, or both, for > or =1 yr. Dispensing data, sociodemographic and clinical information, comorbidities, and investigations were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 5064 patients; 64% were aged > or =50 yr, 47% were male, and 11% were African American. The prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders was 2.3%. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (59%) was the most common condition, followed by dyspepsia (35% of cohort; 18% investigated by endoscopy). There were 917 dyspepsia patients > or =50 yr who had not been investigated by endoscopy (81% of dyspepsia patients in this age group). There were 97 patients with peptic ulcer disease who did not have a documented test for Helicobacter pylori (34% of patients with peptic ulcer disease). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic acid-related disorders are common in primary care, and many patients use acid suppressing medications on a long-term basis. Nevertheless, according to current practice guidelines, our patients were underinvestigated. Future guidelines should specifically address the management of patients who use acid suppressing medications on a chronic basis.