Retrospective study investigating naloxone prescribing and cost in US Medicaid and Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdoses in the USA have increased to unprecedented levels. Administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can prevent overdoses. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to reveal the pharmacoepidemiologic patterns in naloxone prescribing to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 as well as Medicare in 2019. DESIGN: Observational pharmacoepidemiologic study SETTING: US Medicare and Medicaid naloxone claims INTERVENTION: The Medicaid State Drug Utilisation Data File was utilised to extract information on the number of prescriptions and the amount prescribed of naloxone at a national and state level. The Medicare Provider Utilisation and Payment was also utilised to analyse prescription data from 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: States with naloxone prescription rates that were outliers of quartile analysis were noted. RESULTS: The number of generic naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 Medicaid enrollees decreased by 5.3%, whereas brand naloxone prescriptions increased by 245.1% from 2018 to 2021. There was a 33.1-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico=1809.5) and lowest (South Dakota=54.6) states in 2019. Medicare saw a 30.4-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico) and lowest states (also South Dakota) after correcting per 100 000 enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: This pronounced increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 indicates a national response to this widespread public health emergency. Further research into the origins of the pronounced state-level disparities is warranted.

Patients' willingness to pay for naloxone: A national cross-sectional survey of prescription opioid users with chronic pain in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Millions of U.S. people have been heavily affected by opioids. In March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved naloxone as an over-the-counter medication. This has allowed more access to patients at high risk of opioid overdose. However, the patient's willingness to pay for naloxone at the pharmacy counter has not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize factors associated with the willingness to pay for naloxone among the patient group. METHODS: A cross-sectional Qualtrics online panel survey instrument was developed. This survey was distributed to patients in the United States, aged ≥ 18 years, with any chronic pain and taking opioids. The survey included demographics, and clinical characteristics (pain assessment, opioid use, and knowledge of naloxone). In addition, willingness to pay was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to examine demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 549 subjects completed the survey (women [53.01%], white or Caucasian (83.61%), age mean [SD] 44 [13]). Women were associated with less willingness to pay (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.685 [95% CI 0.478-0.983], P = 0.0403). Compared with the high household income group (≥ $150,000), low household income ≤ $25,000 (aOR 0.326 [95% CI 0.160-0.662], P = 0.0020) or income between $25,000 and 74,999 (aOR 0.369 [95% CI 0.207-0.657], P = 0.0007) was associated with less likelihood of willing to pay. Patients with a previous diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea were associated with a higher likelihood of willingness to pay (aOR 1.685 [95% CI 1.138-2.496], P = 0.0092). Each unit increase in pain was also associated with a higher likelihood of willingness to pay (aOR 1.247 [95% CI 1.139-1.365], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Demographics and clinical factors were associated with willingness to pay for naloxone. This study's findings are useful in the development of interventions to address pharmacy-based naloxone distribution programs.

Naloxone Accessibility by Standing Order in North Carolina Community Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: According to a standing order in North Carolina (NC), naloxone can be purchased without a provider prescription. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine whether same-day naloxone accessibility and cost vary by pharmacy type and rurality in NC. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone audit of 202 NC community pharmacies stratified by pharmacy type and county of origin was conducted in March and April 2023. Trained "secret shoppers" enacted a standardized script and recorded whether naloxone was available and its cost. We examined the relationship between out-of-pocket naloxone cost, pharmacy type, and rurality. RESULTS: Naloxone could be purchased in 53% of the pharmacies contacted; 26% incorrectly noting that naloxone could be filled only with a provider prescription and 21% did not sell naloxone. Naloxone availability by standing order was statistically different by pharmacy type (chain/independent) (χ2 = 20.58, df = 4, P value < 0.001), with a higher frequency of willingness to dispense according to the standing order by chain pharmacies in comparison to independent pharmacies. The average quoted cost for naloxone nasal spray at chain pharmacies was $84.69; the cost was significantly more ($113.54; P < 0.001) at independent pharmacies. Naloxone cost did not significantly differ by pharmacy rurality (F2,136 = 2.38, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of NC community pharmacies audited dispense naloxone according to the statewide standing order, limiting same-day access to this life-saving medication. Costs were higher at independent pharmacies, which could be due to store-level policies. Future studies should further investigate these cost differences, especially as intranasal naloxone transitions from a prescription only to over-the-counter product.

Trends in Out-of-Pocket Costs for and Characteristics of Pharmacy-Dispensed Naloxone by Payer Type.

This study examines mean yearly out-of-pocket cost for naloxone dispensed from retail pharmacies by payer between 2018 and 2022 and by prescription characteristics and payer in 2022.

Real-world changes in US health system hospital-based services following treatment with a prescription digital therapeutic for opioid use disorder.

Outcomes associated with buprenorphine therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) are suboptimal. reSET-O is an FDA-authorized prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) delivering neurobehavioral therapy via mobile devices to patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine. This analysis evaluated the net impact of reSET-O on medical costs among actively-engaged reSET-O patients using real-world observations. This real-world retrospective analysis of health care claims between October 2018 and October 2019 evaluated health care resource utilization up to 6 months before and 6 months after the initiation of a reSET-O prescription after accounting for the subset of patients not continuing on therapy after week 1 (non-engaged patients). Repeated-measures negative binomial models compared incidences of hospital-based encounters/procedures adjusted for days in each period as well as associated costs. The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid an inpatient visit was calculated. Of the 351 patients who were prescribed reSET-O, 321 met the criteria of active engagement. Treatment with reSET-O was associated with a substantial reduction in medical costs of -$765,450 (-$2,385/patient, $235/patient greater than a previous analysis in which non-engaged patients were included) in the 6-month period after initiation. The gross reSET-O prescription cost of $584,415 ($1,665/patient) was substantially offset by $49,950 ($142.31/patient) in refunds to payers. The medical cost reduction in engaged patients offset the cost of the therapeutic resulting in an overall cost reduction of -$230,985 in this cohort (net savings of -$720 per patient). The number needed to treat to avoid an inpatient visit was 4.8. Engagement and continued treatment with reSET-O in patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine is associated with substantial real-world reductions in medical costs in the 6-month period following the initiation of the reSET-O prescription.

Naloxone's role in the national opioid crisis-past struggles, current efforts, and future opportunities.

Over the past 25 years, naloxone has emerged as a critical lifesaving overdose antidote. Public health advocates and community activists established early methods for naloxone distribution to people who inject drugs, but a legacy of stigmatization and opposition to universal naloxone access continues to limit the drug's full potential to reduce opioid-related mortality. The establishment of naloxone distribution programs under the umbrella of syringe exchange programs faces the same practical, ideological and financial barriers to expansion similar to those faced by syringe exchange programs themselves. The expansion of naloxone from the confines of a few syringe exchange programs to what we see today represents an enormous triumph for the grass-roots activists, service providers, and public health professionals who have fought to guarantee lay access to naloxone. Despite the extensive efforts to expand access to naloxone, naloxone continues to remains a scarce resource in many US localities. Considerable naloxone "deserts" remain and even where there is naloxone access, it does not always reach those at risk. Promising areas for expansion include the development of more robust telehealth methods for naloxone distribution, including subsidized mail delivery programs; lowering barriers to pharmacy access; working with hospitals, ambulances, and law enforcement to expand naloxone "leave behind" programs; providing naloxone co-prescription with medications for opioid use disorder; and working with prisons, shelters, and networks of people who use drugs to increase access to the lifesaving medication. Efforts to ensure over-the-counter and low- or no-cost naloxone are ongoing and stand alongside medication-assisted treatments as efficacious, readily-actionable, and cost-efficient population-level interventions available for combatting opioid-related overdose in the United States.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions. METHODS: We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News. RESULTS: Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Address Opioid Misuse: A Systematic Review of Methods Used in Simulation Modeling Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Several evidence-based interventions exist for people who misuse opioids, but there is limited guidance on optimal intervention selection. Economic evaluations using simulation modeling can guide the allocation of resources and help tackle the opioid crisis. This study reviews methods employed by economic evaluations using computer simulations to investigate the health and economic effects of interventions meant to address opioid misuse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mapping review of studies that used simulation modeling to support the economic evaluation of interventions targeting prevention, treatment, or management of opioid misuse or its direct consequences (ie, overdose). We searched 6 databases and extracted information on study population, interventions, costs, outcomes, and economic analysis and modeling approaches. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All of the studies considered only one segment of the continuum of care. Of the studies, 13 evaluated medications for opioid use disorder, and 5 evaluated naloxone distribution programs to reduce overdose deaths. Most studies estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years and used health system and/or societal perspectives. Models were decision trees (n = 4), Markov (n = 10) or semi-Markov models (n = 3), and microsimulations (n = 1). All of the studies assessed parameter uncertainty though deterministic and/or probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 4 conducted formal calibration, only 2 assessed structural uncertainty, and only 1 conducted expected value of information analyses. Only 10 studies conducted validation. CONCLUSIONS: Future economic evaluations should consider synergies between interventions and examine combinations of interventions to inform optimal policy response. They should also more consistently conduct model validation and assess the value of further research.

Health and economic outcomes of treatment with extended-release naltrexone among pre-release prisoners with opioid use disorder (HOPPER): protocol for an evaluation of two randomized effectiveness trials.

BACKGROUND: Persons with an opioid use disorder (OUD) who were incarcerated face many challenges to remaining abstinent; concomitantly, opioid-overdose is the leading cause of death among this population, with the initial weeks following release proving especially fatal. Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is the most widely-accepted, evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy in criminal justice settings, and ensures approximately 30 days of protection from opioid overdose. The high cost of XR-NTX serves as a barrier to uptake by many prison/jail systems; however, the cost of the medication should not be viewed in isolation. Prison/jail healthcare budgets are ultimately determined by policymakers, and the benefits/cost-offsets associated with effective OUD treatment will directly and indirectly affect their overall budgets, and society as a whole. METHODS: This protocol describes a study funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) to: evaluate changes in healthcare utilization, health-related quality-of-life, and other resources associated with different strategies of XR-NTX delivery to persons with OUD being released from incarceration; and estimate the relative "value" of each strategy. Data from two ongoing, publicly-funded, randomized-controlled trials will be used to evaluate these questions. In Study A, (XR-NTX Before vs. After Reentry), participants are randomized to receive their first XR-NTX dose before release, or at a nearby program post-release. In Study B, (enhanced XR-NTX vs. XR-NTX), both arms receive XR-NTX prior to release; the enhanced arm receives mobile medical (place of residence) XR-NTX treatment post-release, and the XR-NTX arm receives referral to a community treatment program post-release. The economic data collection instruments required to evaluate outcomes of interest were incorporated into both studies from baseline. Moreover, because the same instruments are being used in both trials on comparable populations, we have the opportunity to not only assess differences in outcomes between study arms within each trial, but also to merge the data sets and test for differences across trials. DISCUSSION: Initiating XR-NTX for OUD prior to release from incarceration may improve patient health and well-being, while also producing downstream cost-offsets. This study offers the unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies, according to different stakeholder perspectives.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intranasal Naloxone Distribution to High-Risk Prescription Opioid Users.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal naloxone distribution to high-risk prescription opioid (RxO) users. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with an attached tree for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution to high-risk RxO users using 2 approaches: one-time and biannual follow-up distribution. The Markov structure had 6 health states: high-risk RxO use, low-risk RxO use, no RxO use, illicit opioid use, no illicit opioid use, and death. The tree modeled the probability of an overdose happening, the overdose being witnessed, naloxone being available, and the overdose resulting in death. High-risk RxO users were defined as individuals with prescription opioid doses greater than or equal to 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon, and US healthcare perspective. Costs (2018) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3% annually. Microsimulation was performed with 100 000 individual trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One-time distribution of naloxone prevented 14 additional overdose deaths per 100 000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $56 699 per QALY. Biannual follow-up distribution led to 107 additional lives being saved with an ICER of $84 799 per QALY compared with one-time distribution. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that a biannual follow-up approach would be cost-effective 50% of the time at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Naloxone effectiveness and proportion of overdoses witnessed were the 2 most influential parameters for biannual distribution. CONCLUSION: Both one-time and biannual follow-up naloxone distribution in community pharmacies would modestly reduce opioid overdose deaths and be cost-effective at a WTP of $100 000 per QALY.

Rates and Costs of Dispensing Naloxone to Patients at High Risk for Opioid Overdose in the United States, 2014-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but few such patients receive naloxone. High costs of naloxone may contribute to limited dispensing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate rates and costs of dispensing naloxone to patients receiving opioid prescriptions and at high risk for opioid overdose. METHODS: Using claims data from a large US commercial insurance company, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of new opioid initiators between January 2014 and December 2018. We identified patients at high risk for overdose defined as a diagnosis of opioid use disorder, prior overdose, an opioid prescription of ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents/day for ≥ 90 days, and/or concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions. RESULTS: Among 5,292,098 new opioid initiators, 616,444 (12%) met criteria for high risk of overdose during follow-up, and, of those, 3096 (0.5%) were dispensed naloxone. The average copayment was US$24.83 for naloxone (standard deviation [SD] 67.66) versus US$9.74 for the index opioid (SD 19.75). The average deductible was US$6.18 for naloxone (SD 27.32) versus US$3.74 for the index opioid (SD 25.56), with 94% and 88% having deductibles of US$0 for their naloxone and opioid prescriptions, respectively. The average out-of-pocket cost was US$31.01 for naloxone (SD 73.64) versus US$13.48 for the index opioid (SD 34.95). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of dispensing naloxone to high risk patients were extremely low, and prescription costs varied greatly. Since improving naloxone's affordability may increase access, whether naloxone's high cost is associated with low dispensing rates should be evaluated.

Responses among substance abuse treatment providers to the opioid epidemic in the USA: Variations in buprenorphine and methadone treatment by geography, operational, and payment characteristics, 2007-16.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007-16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007-16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment. RESULTS: Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035). CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative naloxone distribution strategies: First responder and lay distribution in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. is facing an unprecedented number of opioid-related overdose deaths, and an array of other countries have experienced increases in opioid-related fatalities. In the U.S., naloxone is increasingly distributed to first responders to improve early administration to overdose victims, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied. Lay distribution, in contrast, has been found to be cost-effective, but rising naloxone prices and increased mortality due to synthetic opioids may reduce cost-effectiveness. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increased naloxone distribution to (a) people likely to witness or experience overdose ("laypeople"); (b) police and firefighters; (c) emergency medical services (EMS) personnel; and (d) combinations of these groups. METHODS: We use a decision-analytic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of eight naloxone distribution strategies. We use a lifetime horizon and conduct both a societal analysis (accounting for productivity and criminal justice system costs) and a health sector analysis. We calculate: the ranking of strategies by net monetary benefit; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; and number of fatal overdoses. RESULTS: High distribution to all three groups maximized net monetary benefit and minimized fatal overdoses; it averted 21% of overdose deaths compared to minimum distribution. High distribution to laypeople and one of the other groups comprised the second and third best strategies. The majority of health gains resulted from increased lay distribution. In the societal analysis, every strategy was cost-saving compared to its next-best alternative; cost savings were greatest in the maximum distribution strategy. In the health sector analysis, all undominated strategies were cost-effective. Results were highly robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing naloxone distribution to laypeople and first responder groups would maximize health gains and be cost-effective. If feasible, communities should distribute naloxone to all groups; otherwise, distribution to laypeople and one of the first responder groups should be emphasized.

Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Detoxification for Management of Perinatal Opioid Use Disorder: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification treatment is the most cost-effective approach to the management of opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy. METHODS: We created a decision analytic model that compared the cost effectiveness (eg, the marginal cost of the strategy in U.S. dollars divided by the marginal effectiveness of the strategy, measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of initiation of methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification in treatment of OUD during pregnancy. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from the existing literature. Incremental cost-effective ratios for each strategy were calculated, and a ratio of $100,000 per QALY was used to define cost effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Under base assumptions, initiation of buprenorphine was more effective at a lower cost than either methadone or detoxification and thus was the dominant strategy. Buprenorphine was no longer cost effective if the cost of methadone was 8% less than the base-case estimate ($1,646/month) or if the overall costs of detoxification were 121% less than the base-case estimate for the detoxification cost multiplier, which was used to increase the values of both inpatient and outpatient management of detoxification by a factor of 2. Monte Carlo analyses revealed that buprenorphine was the cost-effective strategy in 70.5% of the simulations. Direct comparison of buprenorphine with methadone demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 95.1% of simulations; direct comparison between buprenorphine and detoxification demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 45% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Under most circumstances, we estimate that buprenorphine is the cost-effective strategy when compared with either methadone or detoxification as treatment for OUD during pregnancy. Nonetheless, the fact that buprenorphine was not the cost-effective strategy in almost one out of three of simulations suggests that the robustness of our model may be limited and that further evaluation of the cost-effective approach to the management of OUD during pregnancy is needed.

Impact of a community-based naloxone distribution program on opioid overdose death rates.

BACKGROUND: In August 2013, a naloxone distribution program was implemented in North Carolina (NC). This study evaluated that program by quantifying the association between the program and county-level opioid overdose death (OOD) rates and conducting a cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: One-group pre-post design. Data included annual county-level counts of naloxone kits distributed from 2013 to 2016 and mortality data from 2000-2016. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between cumulative rates of naloxone kits distributed and annual OOD rates. Costs included naloxone kit purchases and distribution costs; benefits were quantified as OODs avoided and monetized using a conservative value of a life. RESULTS: The rate of OOD in counties with 1-100 cumulative naloxone kits distributed per 100,000 population was 0.90 times (95% CI: 0.78, 1.04) that of counties that had not received kits. In counties that received >100 cumulative kits per 100,000 population, the OOD rate was 0.88 times (95% CI: 0.76, 1.02) that of counties that had not received kits. By December 2016, an estimated 352 NC deaths were avoided by naloxone distribution (95% CI: 189, 580). On average, for every dollar spent on the program, there was $2742 of benefit due to OODs avoided (95% CI: $1,237, $4882). CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates suggest that community-based naloxone distribution is associated with lower OOD rates. The program generated substantial societal benefits due to averted OODs. States and communities should continue to support efforts to increase naloxone access, which may include reducing legal, financial, and normative barriers.

Modeling the potential impact of abuse-deterrent opioids on medical resource utilization.

Objectives: To extend a previously published manuscript on a model for estimating potential avoided medical events and cost savings in the US associated with the introduction of extended-release abuse-deterrent opioids and incorporate new methods of evaluating abuse deterrence using human abuse potential studies. Methods: A model was developed to estimate reductions in abuse-related events and annual savings in the US. Model inputs included: opioid abuse prevalence, abuse-deterrent opioid cost and effectiveness at deterring abuse, and opioid abuse-related events and costs. Direct (medical and drug) and indirect (work loss) cost savings (2017 US$) and abuse-related events were estimated assuming the replacement of the entire extended-release opioid market (brand and generic) by brand abuse-deterrent opioids. Results: Replacing the extended-release opioid market with abuse-deterrent opioids is estimated to lower annual abuse-related medical events by ∼13-31% (e.g. 78,000-186,000 emergency department visits) and lower annual medical costs by ∼$640 M-$1,538 M, depending on the abuse-deterrent technology (physical/chemical barrier or agonist/antagonist). Replacement of extended-release oxycodone with extended-release abuse-deterrent oxycodone is associated with the largest amount of cost savings and highest number of avoided medical events, followed by replacing extended-release morphine with an extended-release abuse-deterrent opioid. Replacement of transdermal fentanyl is associated with the smallest amount of cost savings and lowest number of avoided medical events. Conclusion: Agonist/antagonist abuse-deterrent opioid technology is associated with higher annual medical cost savings and more avoided events than physical/chemical barrier technology. Total net savings are dependent upon the abuse-deterrent opioid price relative to non-abuse-deterrent opioids.

Pharmacist dispensed naloxone: Knowledge, availability, participation and cost in selected California counties.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, California signed into law AB1535 permitting pharmacists to dispense naloxone upon request and without physician or midlevel provider prescription. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine pharmacist knowledge of AB1535, participation, availability of naloxone, future plans for participation, and out-of-pocket charges to consumers amongst outpatient pharmacies in selected California counties. METHODS: All pharmacies in Plumas, Lake, Lassen, Humboldt, Shasta, Fresno, and San Diego Counties were identified. Between January 30 and March 30, 2017, pharmacies meeting inclusion criteria were contacted and the pharmacist-on-duty were queried regarding knowledge, participation, availability, and cost of naloxone. RESULTS: A total of 2296 pharmacies were identified in the 7 counties. Twenty-six were unwilling or unable to participate and an additional 1648 were excluded because of licensing or special pharmacy status. Six-hundred-twenty-two pharmacies completed the survey. There was variation in knowledge of AB1535, participation in, immediate availability of naloxone, charge, and expressed future interest in participation identified. Charge to consumers was similarly variable amongst surveyed pharmacies within counties. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable public health and political support, the passage of CA AB1535 has not resulted in broad current, future planned participation, or availability of naloxone in selected counties. Out-of-pocket costs to the consumer remain highly variable.

Availability and Cost of Naloxone Nasal Spray at Pharmacies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2017.

Importance: Despite the increasingly important role of pharmacies in the implementation of naloxone access laws, there is limited information on the impact of such laws at the local level. Objective: To evaluate the availability (with or without a prescription) and cost of naloxone nasal spray at pharmacies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, following a statewide standing order enacted in Pennsylvania in August 2015 to allow pharmacies to dispense naloxone without a prescription. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study was conducted by telephone of all pharmacies in Philadelphia between February and August 2017. Pharmacies were geocoded and linked with the American Community Survey (2011-2015) to obtain information on the demographic characteristics of census tracts and the Medical Examiner's Office of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to derive information on the number of opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 people for each planning district. Data were analyzed from March 2018 to February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability and out-of-pocket cost of naloxone nasal spray (with or without a prescription) at Philadelphia pharmacies overall and by pharmacy and neighborhood characteristics. Results: Of 454 eligible pharmacies, 418 were surveyed (92.1% response rate). One in 3 pharmacies (34.2%) had naloxone nasal spray in stock; of these, 61.5% indicated it was available without a prescription. There were significant differences in the availability of naloxone by pharmacy type and neighborhood characteristics. Naloxone was both more likely to be in stock (45.9% vs 27.8%; difference, 18.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-27.8%; P < .001) and available without a prescription (80.6% vs 42.2%; difference, 38.4%; 95% CI, 23.0%-53.8%; P < .001) in chain stores than in independent stores. Naloxone was also less likely to be available in planning districts with very elevated rates of opioid overdose death (≥50 per 100 000 people) compared with those with lower rates (31.1% vs 38.5%). The median (interquartile range) out-of-pocket cost among pharmacies offering naloxone without a prescription was $145 ($119-$150); costs were greatest in independent pharmacies and planning districts with elevated rates of opioid overdose death. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the implementation of a statewide standing order in Pennsylvania more than 3 years prior to this study, only one-third of Philadelphia pharmacies carried naloxone nasal spray and many also required a physician's prescription. Efforts to strengthen the implementation of naloxone access laws and better ensure naloxone supply at local pharmacies are warranted, especially in localities with the highest rates of overdose death.

A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Health Care Service Corporation, Editas, Alnylam, Regeneron, Mallinkrodt, Biogen, HealthPartners, and Novartis. Otuonye, Kumar, and Pearson are ICER employees. Banken received consulting fees from ICER for work on this report.