Dataset Information

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Prior authorization requirements may be a barrier to accessing medications for opioid use disorder treatment and may, therefore, be associated with poor health care outcomes.

Objective

To determine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

This comparative interrupted time series analysis examined enrollment and insurance claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with an opioid use disorder diagnosis or who filled a prescription for an opioid use disorder medication between 2012 and 2017. Over this period, 775?874 members were in 1479 Part D plans that always required prior authorization, 113?286 members were in 206 plans that removed prior authorization, 189?461 members were in 489 plans that never required prior authorization, and 619?919 members were in 485 plans that added prior authorization. Data analysis was performed from April 2019 to February 2020.

Exposures

Removal or addition of prior authorization and new prescriptions filled for buprenorphine-naloxone.

Main outcomes and measures

Buprenorphine-naloxone use, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and prescription drug and medical expenditures.

Results

The study population in 2012 included 949?206 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 57 [15] years; 550?445 women [58%]). Removal of prior authorization was associated with an increase of 17.9 prescriptions (95% CI, 1.1 to 34.7 prescriptions) filled for buprenorphine-naloxone per plan per year, which is a doubling of the number of prescriptions, on average. Each prescription filled was associated with statistically significant decreases in adverse health care outcomes: substance use disorder-related inpatient admissions decreased by 0.1 admission per plan per year (95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1 admission per plan per year), and substance use disorder-related emergency department visits decreased by 0.1 visit per plan per year (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.03 visit per plan per year) (all P?Conclusions and relevanceRemoving prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with an increase in the medication use and decreases in health care utilization and expenditures.

SUBMITTER: Mark TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7171554 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Mark Tami L TL Parish William J WJ Zarkin Gary A GA

JAMA network open 20200401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Prior authorization requirements may be a barrier to accessing medications for opioid use disorder treatment and may, therefore, be associated with poor health care outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This comparative interrupted time series analysis examined enrollment and insurance claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with an opi ...[more]

PMID: 32310285

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth insurers use prior authorization to evaluate the medical necessity of planned medical services. Data challenges have precluded measuring the frequency with which medical services can require prior authorization, the spending on these services, the types of services and clinician specialties affected, and differences in the scope of prior authorization policies between government-administered and privately administered insurance.ObjectivesTo measure the extent of prior authorization requirements for medical services and to describe the services and clinician specialties affected by them using novel data on private insurer coverage policies.Design setting and participantsFee-for-service Medicare claims from 2017 were analyzed for beneficiaries in Medicare Part B, which lacks prior authorization. We measured the use of services that would have been subject to prior authorization according to the coverage rules of a large Medicare Advantage insurer and calculated the associated spending. We report the rates of these services for 14 clinical categories and 27 clinician specialties.Main outcomes and measuresAnnual count per beneficiary and associated spending for 1151 services requiring prior authorization by the Medicare Advantage insurer; likelihood of providing 1 or more such service per year, by clinician specialty.ResultsOf 6 497 534 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.1] years), 41% received at least 1 service per year that would have been subject to prior authorization under Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements. The mean (SD) number of services per beneficiary per year was 2.2 (8.9) (95% CI, 2.17-2.18), corresponding to a mean (SD) of $1661 ($8900) in spending per beneficiary per year (95% CI, $1654-$1668), or 25% of total annual Part B spending. Part B drugs constituted 58% of the associated spending, mostly accounted for by hematology or oncology drugs. Radiology was the largest source of nondrug spending (16%), followed by musculoskeletal services (9%). Physician specialties varied widely in rates of services that required prior authorization, with highest rates among radiation oncologists (97%), cardiologists (93%), and radiologists (91%) and lowest rates among pathologists (2%) and psychiatrists (4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a large portion of fee-for-service Medicare Part B spending would have been subject to prior authorization under private insurance coverage policies. Prior authorization requirements for Part B drugs have been an important source of difference in coverage policy between government-administered and privately administered Medicare.

Project description:ImportanceSome Medicare-reimbursed services are overused or improperly used, resulting in payments for unnecessary services.ObjectiveTo determine if prior authorization of services vulnerable to improper use is associated with reduced use and costs without changing patient access or health outcomes.Design setting and participantsThis study involved repeated cross-sectional evaluation with a state-level matched control group construction and inverse propensity score weighting at the Medicare beneficiary level. Eight states plus the District of Columbia requiring prior authorization were compared with 13 matched comparison group states not subject to prior authorization. Observations on approximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries spanned January 2012 through December 2019. Depending on their state of residence, this included 3 or 4 preintervention years and 4 or 5 postintervention years. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to July 2021.InterventionAmbulance suppliers were directed to request prior authorization for Repetitive, Scheduled, Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport (RSNAT) services; failure to do so resulted in prepayment claim review. The goal of prior authorization is to reduce use of nonemergency ambulance transports that do not meet Medicare coverage criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included total cost of care, RSNAT use rates and expenditures, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department admission, and emergency ambulance use per beneficiary-year. All measures were constructed from Medicare claims.ResultsApproximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries were observed in the study (mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 50% female beneficiaries; 30% Black beneficiaries, 64% White beneficiaries; 20% rural residence; 35% dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; 58% with end-stage renal disease; and 44% with severe [stage 3 or 4] pressure ulcers). After controlling for covariates, the results showed that prior authorization was associated with a 2.4% reduction in total annual expenditures for a total of $1530 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1775 to -$1285; P < .001); a 61% reduction in the probability of RSNAT use for a total of 4.1 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -4.26 to -3.94; P < .001); a 77% reduction in RSNAT expenditures for a total of $1136 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1179 to -$1093; P < .001); a 1.4% reduction in the probability of emergency department use by 0.99 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.17 to -0.81; P < .001); no change in the probability of emergency ambulance use (0.07 percentage points, 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.29; P = .50); a 2.6% reduction in the probability of unplanned hospital admission for a total of 1.53 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.71 to -1.35; P < .001); and a 19% annual increase in the probability of emergency dialysis use for a total of 1.4 percentage points per beneficiary with end-stage renal disease (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.60; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, the results suggest that the RSNAT Prior Authorization Model was associated with reduced costs with little or no change in the quality or access indicators examined. Targeted approaches to prior authorization may be an appropriate control measure for Medicare services vulnerable to improper use.

Project description:ImportanceState Medicaid programs have implemented initiatives to expand treatment coverage for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, some Medicaid programs still require prior authorizations (PAs) for filling buprenorphine prescriptions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the changes in buprenorphine use for OUD among Medicaid enrollees in states that completely removed buprenorphine PA requirements.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the immediate and trend changes on buprenorphine use during 2013 to 2020 associated with removal of PA requirements using a controlled interrupted time series analysis to account for autocorrelation. Data were collected from Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data for 2 states (California and Illinois) that completely removed a buprenorphine PA during the study period, and buprenorphine prescriptions for OUD treatment were identified among Medicaid enrollees.Main outcomes and measuresQuarterly total number of buprenorphine prescriptions for each state was calculated, and stratification analyses were conducted by dosage form (films and tablets).ResultsAmong the 2 state Medicaid programs (California and Illinois) that removed buprenorphine PAs, there was a total of 702 643 and 415 115 eligible buprenorphine prescription claims, respectively. After removing PA requirements for buprenorphine, there was an immediate increase that was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.76-1.61) in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in California and a statistically significant increase (RR, 6.99; 95% CI, 4.67-10.47) in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in Illinois relative to the change in the control states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Additionally, there was a statistically significant decreasing trend in the number of all buprenorphine prescriptions in California (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) and a statistically significant increasing trend in Illinois (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19) relative to the trend in control states.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, removal of buprenorphine PA requirements was associated with a statistically significant increase in the number of buprenorphine prescription fills among Medicaid populations in 1 of the 2 included states.

Project description:ImportanceBuprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Despite its effectiveness, buprenorphine uptake has been limited relative to the burden of OUD. Prior authorization (PA) policies may present a barrier to treatment, though research is limited, particularly in Medicaid populations.ObjectiveTo assess whether removal of Medicaid PAs for buprenorphine to treat OUD is associated with changes in buprenorphine prescriptions for Medicaid enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis state-level, serial cross-sectional study used quarterly data from 2015 through the first quarter (January-March) of 2019 to compare buprenorphine prescriptions in states that did and did not remove Medicaid PAs. Analyses were conducted between June 10, 2021, and August 15, 2023. The study included 23 states with active Medicaid PAs for buprenorphine in 2015 that required similar PA policies in fee-for-service and managed care plans and had at least 2 quarters of pre- and postperiod buprenorphine prescribing data.ExposuresRemoval of Medicaid PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine for OUD.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was number of quarterly buprenorphine prescriptions per 1000 Medicaid enrollees.ResultsBetween 2015 and the first quarter of 2019, 6 states in the sample removed Medicaid PAs for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine and had at least 2 quarters of pre- and postpolicy change data. Seventeen states maintained buprenorphine PAs throughout the study period. At baseline, relative to states that repealed PAs, states that maintained PAs had lower buprenorphine prescribing per 1000 Medicaid enrollees (median, 6.6 [IQR, 2.6-13.9] vs 24.1 [IQR, 8.7-27.5] prescriptions) and lower Medicaid managed care penetration (median, 38.5% [IQR, 0.0%-74.1%] vs 79.5% [IQR, 78.1%-83.5%] of enrollees) but similar opioid overdose rates and X-waivered buprenorphine clinicians per 100 000 population. In fully adjusted difference-in-differences models, removal of Medicaid PAs for buprenorphine was not associated with buprenorphine prescribing (1.4% decrease; 95% CI, -31.2% to 41.4%). For states with below-median baseline buprenorphine prescribing, PA removal was associated with increased buprenorphine prescriptions per 1000 Medicaid enrollees (40.1%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 95.1%), while states with above-median prescribing showed no change (-20.7%; 95% CI, -41.0% to 6.6%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this serial cross-sectional study of Medicaid PA policies for buprenorphine for OUD, removal of PAs was not associated with overall changes in buprenorphine prescribing among Medicaid enrollees. Given the ongoing burden of opioid overdoses, continued multipronged efforts are needed to remove barriers to buprenorphine care and increase availability of this lifesaving treatment.

Project description:Importance:Although there are many pharmacologic alternatives to opioids, it is unclear whether the structure of Medicare Part D formularies discourages use of the alternatives. Objectives:To quantify the coverage of opioid alternatives and prevalence of prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and tier placement for these drugs, and test whether these formulary exclusions and restrictions are associated with increased opioid prescribing to older adults at the county level. Design, Setting, and Participants:County fixed-effect models were estimated using a panel of counties across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia over calendar years 2015 and 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1 to September 23, 2019. The sample included 2721 counties in 2015 and 2671 counties in 2016 with sufficient data on Medicare Part D formulary design and opioid prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures:County-level opioid prescribing rate (number of opioid claims divided by the number of overall claims) and counts of excluded opioid alternatives and opioid alternatives with prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and high-tier placements. Results:A total of 30 nonopioid analgesics were examined across 28 997 Medicare plans in 2015 and 30 390 plans in 2016. Medicare plans did not cover a mean of 7% of these drugs (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-23%). Among covered nonopioids, prior authorization and step therapy were uncommon, with fewer than 5% affected by prior authorization and 0% by step therapy. However, 13% of covered nonopioids had quantity limits (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-31%) and 22% were in high-cost tiers (interquartile range, 38%; lower to upper limit, 0%-50%). Increases in the number of nonopioids excluded on Medicare plans in a county were associated with increased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 2.2%-3.7%; P = .004). Conversely, increases in the number of opioids not covered on Medicare plans in a county was found to be associated with decreased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 0.8%-1.5%; P = .02). None of the utilization management strategies (prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits) examined or high-cost tier placements of nonopioids were associated with increased opioid prescribing. Conclusions and Relevance:Lack of Medicare coverage for pharmacologic alternatives to opioids may be associated with increased opioid prescribing.

Project description:ImportanceExpanding Medicaid eligibility could affect prescriptions of buprenorphine with naloxone, an established treatment for opioid use disorder, and opioid pain relievers (OPRs).ObjectiveTo examine changes in prescriptions of buprenorphine with naloxone and OPRs after the US Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, longitudinal, patient-level, retail pharmacy claims were extracted from IQVIA real-world data from an anonymized, longitudinal, prescription database. The sample included 11.9 million individuals who filled 2 or more prescriptions for a prescription opioid during at least 1 year between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015, from California, Maryland, and Washington (expansion states) and Florida and Georgia (nonexpansion states). Data analysis was conducted from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018. Data were aggregated to county-year observations (N = 2082) and linked to county-level covariates. For each outcome, a difference-in-differences regression model was estimated comparing changes before and after expansion in expansion vs nonexpansion counties. Models were adjusted for county demographics, uninsured rate, and overdose mortality in the baseline year (2010).ExposuresPresence of Medicaid expansion in the year.Main outcomes and measuresFor buprenorphine with naloxone and OPRs, rates per 100 000 county residents were calculated separately for any prescriptions overall and by different payment sources. Mean days of medication per county among people filling prescriptions for these agents were also determined.ResultsThe study sample included 11.9 million individuals (expansion states: 40.9% men; mean [SD] age, 44.1 [13.8] years; nonexpansion states: 41.0% men; mean [SD] age, 43.7 [13.7] years). In expansion counties, 68.8 individuals per 100 000 county residents filled buprenorphine with naloxone and 5298.3 filled OPR prescriptions in 2010. After expansion, buprenorphine with naloxone fills per 100 000 county residents increased significantly in expansion relative to nonexpansion counties (8.7; 95% CI, 1.7 to 15.7). Opioid pain reliever fills per 100 000 county residents did not significantly change in expansion counties relative to nonexpansion counties (327.4; 95% CI -202.5 to 857.4). The rate of OPRs per 100 000 county residents paid for by Medicaid significantly increased (374.0; 95% CI, 258.3 to 489.7). There were no significant changes in days per 100 000 county residents of either medication after expansion.Conclusions and relevanceMedicaid expansion significantly increased buprenorphine with naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 county residents in expansion counties, suggesting that expansion improved access to opioid use disorder treatment. Expansion did not significantly increase the overall rate per 100 000 county residents of OPR prescriptions, but increased the population with OPRs paid for by Medicaid. This finding therefore suggests the growing importance of Medicaid in pain management and addiction prevention.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE:To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS:After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P?<?.001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P?<?.001 for both time and intervention effects; P?=?.02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P?=?.17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P?=?.66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Dataset Information

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets