An economic analysis of the cost of mobile units for harm reduction, naloxone distribution, and medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

Mobile substance use treatment units are effective approaches to increase treatment access and reduce barriers to opioid use disorder (OUD) care. However, little is known about the economic costs of maintaining and operating these units. This study aimed to estimate the economic costs of starting and maintaining mobile units providing harm reduction, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

METHODS

As part of the HEALing Communities Study, four communities in Massachusetts (Bourne/Sandwich, Brockton, Gloucester, Salem) implemented mobile units offering OEND and MOUD (buprenorphine and naltrexone only); each selected different services tailored to their community. All provided MOUD linkage via telehealth, but only one offered in-person MOUD prescribing on the unit. We retrospectively collected detailed resource utilization data from invoices to estimate the direct economic costs from August 2020 through June 2022. Cost components were categorized into start-up and operating costs. We calculated total economic cost over the study period and the average monthly operating cost.

RESULTS

Implementing a mobile unit offering OEND and MOUD required a one-time median start-up cost of $59,762 (range: $52,062-$113,671), with 80 % of those costs attributed to the vehicle purchase. The median monthly operating cost was $14,464. The largest cost category for all mobile units was personnel costs. The monthly ongoing costs varied by community settings and services: approximately $5000 for two urban communities offering OEND and MOUD linkage via telehealth (Gloucester, Salem), $28,000 for a rural community (Bourne/Sandwich), and $23,000 for an urban community also providing in-person MOUD prescribing on the unit (Brockton).

CONCLUSION

The economic costs of mobile substance use treatment and harm reduction units are substantial but vary by community settings and services offered. Our results provide valuable community-level economic data to stakeholders and policymakers considering establishing and/or expanding mobile units with OEND and MOUD services. Further exploration of cost-effectiveness and efficiency should be considered across different settings.

Healthcare utilisation and associated costs for methadone versus buprenorphine recipients: Examination of interlinked primary and secondary care electronic health records in England

INTRODUCTION

More evidence for patterns of healthcare utilisation and associated costs among people receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is needed. We investigated primary and secondary healthcare usage and costs among methadone and buprenorphine recipients in England.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and Aurum databases of patients who were prescribed OAT between 1 January 2007 and 31 July 2019. The cohort was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care, outpatient and emergency department data, neighbourhood- and practice-level Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and mortality records. Negative binomial regression models were applied to estimate weighted rate ratios (wRR) of healthcare utilisation. Total and mean costs were calculated using Unit Costs of Health and Social Care and the National Healthcare Service Payment by Results National Tariffs.

RESULTS

Among 12,639 patients observed over 39,016 person-years, we found higher rate of hospital admissions (wRR 1.18; 1.08-1.28) among methadone compared with buprenorphine recipients. The commonest hospital discharge diagnoses among methadone patients were infectious diseases (19.2%), mental and behavioural disorders (17.0%) and drug-related poisoning (16.5%); the three commonest among buprenorphine patients were mental and behavioural diseases (21.5%), endocrine (13.8%) and genitourinary system diseases (13.1%). Methadone patients had similar mean costs compared with buprenorphine patients (cost difference: £539.01; 432.11-1006.69).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Differences in healthcare utilisation frequency for methadone versus buprenorphine recipients were observed. The differences in associated costs were mainly driven by hospital admissions. These findings offer valuable insights for optimising care strategies and resource allocation for OAT recipients.

Health and Economic Outcomes of Offering Buprenorphine in Homeless Shelters in Massachusetts

Importance

Overdose is the leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness (PEH), but engagement in medication treatment is low in this population. Shelter-based buprenorphine may be a strategy for increasing initiation and retention on lifesaving medications.

Objective

To estimate clinical outcomes and conduct an economic analysis of statewide shelter-based opioid treatment in Massachusetts.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation study in Massachusetts used a cohort state-transition simulation model. Two cohorts were modeled starting in 2013, including (1) a closed cohort of a fixed population of PEH with history of high-risk opioid use over their lifetimes and (2) an open cohort in which membership could change over time, allowing assessment of population-level trends over a 10-year period. Data analysis occurred from January 2023 to April 2024.

Exposures

Model exposures included (1) no shelter-based buprenorphine (status quo) and (2) offering buprenorphine in shelters statewide.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included overdose deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and health care and modified societal perspective costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters.

Results

In the closed cohort analysis of 13 800 PEH (mean [SD] age, 40.4 [13.1] years; 8749 male [63.4%]), shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with an additional 65.4 person-weeks taking buprenorphine over an individual's lifetime compared with status quo. Shelter-based buprenorphine was cost saving when compared with the status quo, with a discounted lifetime cost savings from the health sector perspective of $1300 per person, and 0.2 additional discounted QALYs per person and 0.9 additional life-years per person. In the population-level simulation, 254 overdose deaths were averted over the 10-year period with the shelter-based buprenorphine strategy compared with the status quo (a 9.2% reduction of overdose deaths among PEH in Massachusetts). Overdose-related and other health care utilization undiscounted costs decreased by $3.0 million and $66.4 million, respectively. Shelter-based opioid treatment generated $44.7 million in additional medication and clinical costs, but saved $69.4 million in overdose and other health costs.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes among PEH, shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with fewer overdose deaths and was cost saving. These findings suggest that broad rollout of shelter-based buprenorphine may be an important tool in addressing the overdose crisis.

Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application

BACKGROUND

The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed.

METHODS

We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study.

RESULTS

We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified.

CONCLUSION

Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

Association Between Cost-Sharing and Buprenorphine Prescription Abandonment

BACKGROUND

Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled.

PARTICIPANTS

Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

MAIN MEASURES

We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use.

KEY RESULTS

Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.

Barriers and facilitators to use of buprenorphine in state-licensed specialty substance use treatment programs: A survey of program leadership

INTRODUCTION

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine, reduce overdose risk and improve outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, historically, most non-opioid treatment program (non-OTP) specialty substance use treatment programs have not offered buprenorphine. Understanding barriers to offering buprenorphine in specialty substance use treatment settings is critical for expanding access to buprenorphine. This study aims to examine program-level attitudinal, financial, and regulatory factors that influence clients' access to buprenorphine in state-licensed non-OTP specialty substance use treatment programs.

METHODS

We surveyed leadership from state-licensed non-OTP specialty substance use treatment programs in New Jersey about organizational characteristics, including medications provided on- and off-site and percentage of OUD clients receiving any type of MOUD, and perceived attitudinal, financial, and regulatory barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine. The study estimated prevalence of barriers and compared high MOUD reach (n = 36, 35 %) and low MOUD reach (n = 66, 65 %) programs.

RESULTS

Most responding organizations offered at least one type of MOUD either on- or off-site (n = 80, 78 %). However, 71 % of organizations stated that fewer than a quarter of their clients with OUD use any type of MOUD. Endorsement of attitudinal, financial, and institutional barriers to buprenorphine were similar among high and low MOUD reach programs. The most frequently endorsed government actions suggested to increase use of buprenorphine were facilitating access to long-acting buprenorphine (n = 95, 96 %), education and stigma reduction for clients and families (n = 95, 95 %), and financial assistance to clients to pay for medications (n = 90, 90 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Although non-OTP specialty substance use programs often offer clients access to MOUD, including buprenorphine, most OUD clients do not actually receive MOUD. Buprenorphine uptake in these settings may require increased financial support for programs and clients, more robust education and training for providers, and efforts to reduce the stigma associated with medication among clients and their families.

Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic

BACKGROUND

Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist.

METHODS

Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Reprint of: Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic

BACKGROUND

Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist.

METHODS

Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

Compared implementation of the long-acting buprenorphine treatment buvidal in four European countries

BACKGROUND

Buvidal is the only depot buprenorphine currently available in Europe. Buvidal offers a new treatment paradigm, which may require some adjustment in the national regulatory frameworks for opioid agonist treatments (OATs), as well as the national care systems.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data on the national dissemination of Buvidal, types of populations treated, and the national regulatory framework and care organization system through which Buvidal has been implemented were compared between the UK, Finland, Spain, and France, using a qualitative survey.

RESULTS

In 2022, the proportion of people on OAT who received Buvidal was 2.1% in the UK, 60-65% in Finland, 1% in Spain, and 0.3% in France. In both Finland and the UK, the cost of the medication is covered by the national health system, whereas, in Spain and France, Buvidal is accessible only in specialized centers, which must carry its cost. Other national features may explain the gaps in Buvidal use, including the baseline level of OAT coverage, which was high in both France and Spain.

CONCLUSIONS

Important national discrepancies are found regarding Buvidal dissemination among people on OAT.

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Payer Types for Buprenorphine Among US Youth Aged 12 to 19 Years

This cross-sectional study examines out-of-pocket costs and payer types for buprenorphine prescriptions filled for youth aged 12 to 19 years at US retail pharmacies.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design

BACKGROUND

The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown.

METHODS

We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD.

RESULTS

Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

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.

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.

Opioid use disorder in Germany: healthcare costs of patients in opioid maintenance treatment

BACKGROUND

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a substance use disorder with a chronic course associated with comorbid mental and somatic disorders, a high burden of psychosocial problems and opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) as a standard treatment. In the US, OUD imposes a significant economic burden on society, with annual societal costs estimated at over 55 billion dollars. Surprisingly, in Europe and especially in Germany, there is currently no detailed information on the healthcare costs of patients with OUD. The goal of the present research is to gather cost information about OUD patients in OMT with a focus on maintenance medication and relapses.

METHODS

We analysed health claims data of four million persons covered by statutory health insurance in Germany, applying a cost-of-illness approach and aimed at examining the direct costs of OMT patients in Germany. Patients with an ICD-10 code F11.2 and at least one claim of an OMT medication were stratified into the treatment groups buprenorphine, methadone or levomethadone, based on the first prescription in each of the follow-up years. Costs were stratified for years with and without relapses. Group comparisons were performed with ANOVA.

RESULTS

We analysed 3165 patient years, the total annual sickness funds costs were on average 7470 € per year and patient. Comparing costs of levomethadone (8400 €, SD: 11,080 €), methadone (7090 €, SD: 10,900 €) and buprenorphine (6670 €, SD: 7430 €) revealed significant lower costs of buprenorphine compared to levomethadone (p < 0.0001). In years with relapses, costs were higher than in years without relapses (8178 € vs 7409 €; SD: 11,622, resp. 10,378 €). In years with relapses, hospital costs were the major cost driver.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows the costs of OUD patients in OMT for the first time with a German dataset. Healthcare costs for patients with an OUD in OMT are associated with more than two times the cost of an average German patients. Preventing relapses might have significant impact on costs. Patients in different OMT were dissimilar which may have affected the cost differences.

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.

Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator pharmaceutical companies prolonging the patent of a medicine prevents rivals' entry to the market and competition. As the entry of generic alternatives usually results in price reduction, any delay in their entry potentially deprives the National Health Service (NHS) of much-needed savings. This study estimates the potential cost savings lost to the NHS as a result of delayed entry of generic low-dose buprenorphine (LDTB) patches in England.

DESIGN

Two case scenarios were modelled to determine the savings from the entry of generic LDTB Butec only between February and August 2016 and the potential savings which could have been achieved if all generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time.

SETTING

The volume of utilisation of branded and generic LDTB in UK primary care was derived from the NHS business services authority website for prescriptions dispensed between February 2015 and January 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost savings associated with the entry of generic LDTB.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of Butec alone was £0.7 ($0.92) million. The model predicted that if all generic buprenorphine entered the market at the same time with Butec, they could have been achieved a £1.2 ($1.57) million saving. This means that approximately £0.5 ($0.65) million savings was lost to the NHS over the 6-month time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The entry of Butec was associated with cost savings. We estimated that more cost savings could have been achieved if other generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time to drive competition between rivals. Patent protection strategies which delayed the entry of multiple generics were responsible for the reduced cost savings to the NHS in England.

Physicians as Mediators of Health Policy: Acceptance of Medicaid in the Context of Buprenorphine Treatment

Increasing numbers of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are insured by Medicaid. Little is known about whether providers of buprenorphine, an evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy, accept this type of payment. Data are scant regarding whether Medicaid acceptance varies by physician and state-level characteristics. To address these gaps, national survey data from 1174 buprenorphine-prescribing physicians (BPPs) and state characteristics were examined in a multi-level model of Medicaid acceptance. Only 52.0% of BPPs accepted Medicaid for buprenorphine-related office visits. Specialists in addiction and psychiatry were significantly less likely to accept Medicaid than other specialties, as were BPPs delivering buprenorphine in individual medical practice. Perceived adequacy of Medicaid reimbursement was positively associated with accepting Medicaid. Medicaid acceptance was not associated with states' implementation of the Medicaid expansion. Individuals who are covered by Medicaid may face barriers to accessing buprenorphine treatment, which has high public health significance given the ongoing opioid epidemic.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with treatment for opioid dependence

OBJECTIVE

Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be managed with medication assisted therapy (MAT) (methadone [MET], buprenorphine [BUP], or extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]) or counseling alone (non-pharmacological therapy [NPT]). The objective of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with XR-NTX compared with alternative treatments for opioid dependence.

METHODS

Adults with a diagnosis of opioid dependence who initiated treatment with XR-NTX, BUP, MET, or NPT between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial administrative claims database. Healthcare resource utilization, costs (inpatient [IP], emergency department [ED], outpatient [OP], and pharmacy) and adherence were evaluated for each cohort during 12-month baseline and follow-up periods.

RESULTS

A total of 29,235 patients were included in the analysis; 1,041, 20,566, 745, and 6,883 received XR-NTX, BUP, MET, and NPT, respectively. Patients in the XR-NTX cohort were significantly younger and had more comorbidities compared with the other cohorts. Patients in the XR-NTX group had the largest percentage decrease in IP and ED utilization and costs from baseline to follow-up. OP and pharmacy costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for all cohorts. Overall, there was no significant change in total healthcare costs for the XR-NTX group, whereas the costs increased significantly for other groups (BUP = +43%, MET = +47.7%, NPT = +38.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource utilization and costs increased from baseline to follow-up in BUP, MET, and NPT patients, whereas patients receiving XR-NTX experienced no such increase. This analysis suggests there may be economic value in the use of XR-NTX for OUD.

State-Targeted Funding and Technical Assistance to Increase Access to Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

As the United States grapples with an opioid epidemic, expanding access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder is a major public health priority. Identifying effective policy tools that can be used to expand access to care is critically important. This article examines the relationship between state-targeted funding and technical assistance and adoption of three medications for treating opioid use disorder: oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine.

METHODS

This study draws from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment programs. The sample includes data from 695 treatment programs (85.5% response rate) and representatives from single-state agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C. (98% response rate). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships of single-state agency targeted funding and technical assistance to availability of opioid use disorder medications among treatment programs.

RESULTS

State-targeted funding was associated with increased program-level adoption of oral naltrexone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.49-6.60, p=.004) and buprenorphine (AOR=2.47, 95% CI=1.31-4.67, p=.006). Buprenorphine adoption was also correlated with state technical assistance to support medication provision (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.00-1.39, p=.049).

CONCLUSIONS

State-targeted funding for medications may be a viable policy lever for increasing access to opioid use disorder medications. Given the historically low rates of opioid use disorder medication adoption in treatment programs, single-state agency targeted funding is a potentially important tool to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with opioid disorders and misuse.

Underused Weapon In the War on Addiction

Buprenorphine could save thousands more lives than it does-if it weren't for legal barriers, a fear of disruptive patients, and insurance red tape. And it can be prescribed in the primary care physician's office.

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

AIMS

Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p = .03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

BSI was associated with lower total costs (-$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (-$8,040) and criminality (-$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.

Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

AIMS

This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

RESULTS

Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

LIMITATIONS

The model's 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

CONCLUSIONS

OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK's willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.

A systematic review of health economic models of opioid agonist therapies in maintenance treatment of non-prescription opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence is a chronic condition with substantial health, economic and social costs. The study objective was to conduct a systematic review of published health-economic models of opioid agonist therapy for non-prescription opioid dependence, to review the different modelling approaches identified, and to inform future modelling studies.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in March 2015 in eight electronic databases, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and searches on six National Health Technology Assessment Agency websites. Studies were included if they: investigated populations that were dependent on non-prescription opioids and were receiving opioid agonist or maintenance therapy; compared any pharmacological maintenance intervention with any other maintenance regimen (including placebo or no treatment); and were health-economic models of any type.

RESULTS

A total of 18 unique models were included. These used a range of modelling approaches, including Markov models (n = 4), decision tree with Monte Carlo simulations (n = 3), decision analysis (n = 3), dynamic transmission models (n = 3), decision tree (n = 1), cohort simulation (n = 1), Bayesian (n = 1), and Monte Carlo simulations (n = 2). Time horizons ranged from 6 months to lifetime. The most common evaluation was cost-utility analysis reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 11), followed by cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 4), budget-impact analysis/cost comparison (n = 2) and cost-benefit analysis (n = 1). Most studies took the healthcare provider's perspective. Only a few models included some wider societal costs, such as productivity loss or costs of drug-related crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. Costs to individuals and impacts on family and social networks were not included in any model.

CONCLUSION

A relatively small number of studies of varying quality were found. Strengths and weaknesses relating to model structure, inputs and approach were identified across all the studies. There was no indication of a single standard emerging as a preferred approach. Most studies omitted societal costs, an important issue since the implications of drug abuse extend widely beyond healthcare services. Nevertheless, elements from previous models could together form a framework for future economic evaluations in opioid agonist therapy including all relevant costs and outcomes. This could more adequately support decision-making and policy development for treatment of non-prescription opioid dependence.