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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

Socio-ecological and pharmacy-level factors associated with naloxone stocking at standing-order naloxone pharmacies in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Research on socio-ecological factors that may impede or facilitate access to naloxone in pharmacies remains limited. This study investigated associations between socio-ecological factors, pharmacy participation in the naloxone cost assistance program (NCAP), pharmacy characteristics and having naloxone in stock among pharmacies in New York City. METHODS: Phone interviews were conducted with 662 pharmacies selected from the New York City Naloxone Standing Order List. Multi-level generalized linear modeling estimated associations between neighborhood racial and ethnic composition, poverty rates, overdose fatality rates, pharmacy participation in N-CAP, having private physical spaces within the pharmacy, knowledge of where to refer people to obtain naloxone and adjusted relative risk (aRR) that the pharmacy would have naloxone in stock. RESULTS: Findings from this study supported several of the hypotheses. Greater neighborhood poverty was associated with a lower likelihood of carrying naloxone compared to neighborhoods with less poverty (aRR = .79, CI95 % = .69, .90, p < .001). Pharmacies that provided a private window for consultations (aRR = 1.34, CI95 % = 1.19, 1.51, p < .001), a private room (aRR = 1.42, CI95 % = 1.30, 1.56, p < .001), and a private area (aRR = 1.42, CI95 % = 1.30, 1.56, p < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood of carrying naloxone compared than those that did not. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that community-level socioeconomic marginalization is a contributor to disparities in naloxone availability among pharmacies in New York City. Findings support harm reduction interventions tailored to the built environment of pharmacies that respect privacy to those seeking naloxone.

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.

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.

Association between state Medicaid expansion status and naloxone prescription dispensing.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether Medicaid expansion is associated with (a) a greater number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed and (b) a higher proportion of naloxone prescriptions paid by Medicaid. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit to obtain data on per state per quarter naloxone prescription dispensing for the period 2011-16. STUDY DESIGN: In this quasi-experimental design study, the impact of Medicaid expansion on naloxone prescription dispensing was examined using difference-in-difference estimation models. State-level covariates including pharmacy-based naloxone laws (standing/protocol orders and direct authority to dispense naloxone), third-party prescribing laws, opioid analgesic prescribing rates, opioid-involved overdose death rates, and population size were controlled for in the analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Medicaid expansion was associated with 38 additional naloxone prescriptions dispensed per state per quarter compared to nonexpansion controls, on average (P = .030). Also, Medicaid expansion resulted in an average increase of 9.86 percent in the share of naloxone prescriptions paid by Medicaid per state per quarter (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that Medicaid expansion increased naloxone availability. This finding suggests that it will be important to consider naloxone access when making federal- and state-level decisions affecting Medicaid coverage.

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.

Understanding disparities in access to naloxone among people who inject drugs in Southeast Michigan using respondent driven sampling.

BACKGROUND: Given the rising incidence of opioid overdose in the United States, naloxone access is critical for high-risk populations, such as persons who inject drugs (PWID). Yet not all PWID have access to this life-saving antidote. With PWID in Michigan recruited via respondent driven sampling in 2017, after the 2016 standing order expanding naloxone availability through local pharmacies, we explored possible access disparities. METHODS: With 46 seeds recruited from agencies serving local PWID communities, we obtained a sample of N = 410 PWID from Southeast Michigan (n = 285 form urban Detroit, and 125 for suburban/rural areas outside Detroit). Participants completed questionnaires detailing socio-demographics, health history, substance use and treatment access, including naloxone. We used multiple logistic regression to examine the predictors of self-reported naloxone access based on participant characteristics (e.g., demographics, health status) and geography (urban vs. suburban/rural). RESULTS: Self-reported naloxone access differed significantly by location (urban = 18.3 %; suburban/rural = 41.9 %). In multivariable analyses, naloxone access was significantly associated with race, household income, employment, health insurance, recent homelessness, prescription opioid usage, Hepatitis A and C status, Hepatitis A vaccination, Hepatitis C testing, access to drug treatment and services, and hospital as the usual place of care. CONCLUSION: Despite recent policies to expand access, our results indicate that naloxone access among high-risk PWID is low. This warrants future research to identify effective channels to reduce barriers and increase naloxone access.

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.

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.

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Federal, state and local US governments have sought interventions to reduce deaths due to opioid overdoses by increasing the availability of naloxone. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income, childless adults, potentially giving this group financial access to naloxone. The aims of this paper are: (1) to describe the changes in the amount of Medicaid-covered naloxone used between 2009 and 2016 and (2) to quantify the differential change in the amount of dispensed naloxone between states that expanded their Medicaid programs and states that did not. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental approach based on states' ongoing choice to expand their Medicaid program to all adults with incomes between 100 and 138% of the federal poverty line (FPL), starting in 2014. As of 2018, 37 states had expanded and 14 states had not. Estimation of the policy impact relies on a difference-in-difference method. SETTING: US state Medicaid programs. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Data are from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and include all dispensed prescriptions of naloxone through the Medicaid program. State/quarters with fewer than 10 prescriptions are suppressed; n = 1632. FINDINGS: Prior to Medicaid expansion, the number of Medicaid-covered naloxone prescriptions was very similar in expansion and non-expansion states. On average, states that expanded Medicaid had 78.2 (95% confidence interval = 16.0-140.3, P = 0.02) more prescriptions per year for naloxone compared with states that did not expand Medicaid coverage, a nearly 10 increase over the pre-expansion years. Medicaid expansion contributed to this growth in Medicaid-covered naloxone more than other state-level naloxone policies. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid accounts for approximately a quarter of naloxone sales. Medicaid expansion generated 8.3% of the growth in naloxone units from 2009 to 2016, holding other factors constant.

Will converting naloxone to over-the-counter status increase pharmacy sales?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the own-price elasticity of demand for naloxone, a prescription medication that can counter the effects of an opioid overdose, and predict the change in pharmacy sales following a conversion to over-the-counter status. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The primary data source was a nationwide prescription claims dataset for 2010-2017. The data cover 80 percent of US retail pharmacies and account for roughly 90 percent of prescriptions filled. Additional covariates were obtained from various secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated a longitudinal, simultaneous equation model of naloxone supply and demand. Our primary variables of interest were the quantity of naloxone sold, measured as total milligrams sold at pharmacies, and the out-of-pocket price paid per milligram, both measured per ZIP Code and quarter-year. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Primary data came directly from payers and processors of prescription drug claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that, on average, a 1 percent increase in the out-of-pocket price paid for naloxone would result in a 0.27 percent decrease in pharmacy sales. We predict that the total quantity of naloxone sold in pharmacies would increase 15 percent to 179 percent following conversion to over-the-counter status. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone is own-price inelastic, and conversion to over-the-counter status is likely to lead to a substantial increase in total pharmacy sales.

Cost-Effectiveness of Buprenorphine-Naloxone Versus Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse.

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine-naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine-naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine-naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.