Access to Addiction Pharmacotherapy in Private Health Plans

The role of health plans in addressing the opioid crisis: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Health plans are key players in substance use treatment in the United States, and the opioid crisis presents new challenges for them. This article is part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) funded by NIH, which seeks to facilitate communities' adoption of activities that might reduce overdose deaths, including overdose prevention education and naloxone distribution, medication for opioid use disorder, and safer opioid prescribing. We examine how health plans in one state (Massachusetts) are adapting to encourage and sustain activities that help communities to address opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with managers of behavioral health services at eight health plans in Massachusetts that that have Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial lines of business. Two plans in this sample contract with a specialized behavioral health organization ("carve-out"). The interviewees also completed a survey on policies regarding access to treatment and opioid prescribing. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis of the data included intended influence of the policies at three levels: member level (micro), group or community level (meso), and system or institutional level (macro).

RESULTS

All health plans developed strategies to increase access to treatment for OUD, primarily through eliminating or decreasing cost-sharing, eliminating pre-authorization for MOUD, and increasing supply of providers. Health plans encourage qualified practitioners to offer MOUD, but most do not provide incentives or training. Identifying high risk populations is a focus of health plans in this sample. Naloxone is a covered benefit in all health plans, although with variation in monthly limits and cost-sharing. Most health plans take measures to influence opioid prescribing. Health plans' activities are predominately aimed at the micro (member) level with little ability to influence at the macro (wider system-level changes).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into how health plans develop strategies to address the rise in OUD and fatal opioid overdoses, many of which are key in the HCS initiative. How active a role health plans play in addressing the opioid crisis varies, even within the insurance industry in one state (Massachusetts).

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on Continuous Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Long-term, continuous treatment with medication like buprenorphine is the gold standard for opioid use disorder (OUD). As high deductible health plans (HDHPs) become more prevalent in the commercial insurance market, they may pose financial barriers to people with OUD.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of HDHPs on continuity of buprenorphine treatment, concurrent visits for counseling/psychotherapy and OUD-related evaluation and management, and out-of-pocket spending.

DESIGN

Difference-in-differences analysis comparing trends in outcomes among enrollees whose employers offer an HDHP (treatment group) to enrollees whose employers never offer an HDHP (comparison group).

PARTICIPANTS

Enrollees with OUD from a national sample of commercial health insurance plans during 2007-2017 who initiate buprenorphine treatment.

MAIN MEASURES

Number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment; probabilities of continuous buprenorphine treatment ≥30, ≥90, ≥180, and ≥365 days; probability of concurrent (i.e., within the same month) behavioral therapy (i.e., counseling or psychotherapy); probability of concurrent OUD-related evaluation and management visits; proportions of buprenorphine treatment episodes with counseling/psychotherapy and evaluation and management visits; and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on buprenorphine, behavioral therapy, and evaluation and management visits.

KEY RESULTS

HDHPs were associated with an average increase of $98 (95% CI: $48, $150) on OOP spending on buprenorphine per treatment episode but no change in the number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment or concurrent use of related services.

CONCLUSIONS

HDHPs do not reduce continuity of buprenorphine treatment among commercially insured enrollees with OUD but may increase financial burden for this population.

The Role of Primary Care in the Initiation of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Statewide Public and Private Insurance

OBJECTIVE

To determine if individuals newly diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) who saw a primary care provider (PCP) before or on the date of diagnosis had higher rates of medication treatment for OUD (MOUD).

METHODS

Observational study using logistic regression with claims data from Medicaid and a large private insurer in North Carolina from January 2014 to July 2017.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2017, the prevalence of diagnosed OUD increased by 47% among Medicaid enrollees and by 76% among the privately insured. Over the same time period, the percent of people with an OUD who received MOUD fell among both groups, while PCP involvement in treatment increased. Of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine, the percent receiving buprenorphine from a PCP increased from 32% in 2014 to 39% in 2017. Approximately 82% of people newly diagnosed with OUD had a PCP visit in the 12 months before diagnosis in Medicaid and private insurance. Those with a prior PCP visit were not more likely to receive MOUD. Seeing a PCP at diagnosis was associated with a higher probability of receiving MOUD than seeing an emergency provider but a lower probability than seeing a behavioral health specialist or other provider type.

CONCLUSIONS

People newly diagnosed with OUD had high rates of contact with PCPs before diagnosis, supporting the importance of PCPs in diagnosing OUD and connecting people to MOUD. Policies and programs to increase access to MOUD and improve PCPs' ability to connect people to evidence-based treatment are needed.

Medication Utilization for Alcohol Use Disorder in a Commercially Insured Population

OBJECTIVE

Examine patterns of alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication use and identify factors associated with prescription fill among commercially insured individuals with an index AUD visit.

DESIGN

Using 2008-2018 claims data from a large national insurer, estimate days to first AUD medication using cause-specific hazards approach to account for competing risk of benefits loss.

PARTICIPANTS

Aged 17-64 with ≥ 1 AUD visit.

MAIN MEASURE

Days to AUD medication fill.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 13.3% of the 151,128 with an index visit filled an AUD prescription after that visit, while 69.8% lost benefits before filling and 17.0% remained enrolled but did not fill (median days observed = 305). Almost half (46.3%) of those who filled a prescription received substance use disorder (SUD) inpatient care within 7 days before the fill, and 63.4% received SUD outpatient care. Likelihood of medication use was higher for those aged 26-35, 36-45, and 46-55 years relative to 56-64 years (e.g., 26-35: hazard ratio = 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.23-1.36]); those diagnosed with moderate/severe AUD (2.05 [1.98-2.12]), co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) (1.33 [1.26-1.39]), or severe mental illness (1.31 [1.27-1.35]); those with a chronic alcohol-related diagnosis (1.08 [1.04-1.12]); and those whose index visit was in an inpatient/emergency department (1.27 [1.23-1.31]) or intermediate care setting (1.13 [1.07-1.20]) relative to outpatient. Likelihood of use was higher in later years relative to 2008 (e.g., 2018:2.02 [1.89-2.15]) and higher for those who received the majority of AUD care in a practice with a psychiatrist/addiction medicine specialist (1.13 [1.10-1.16]). Likelihood of use was lower for those diagnosed with a SUD other than AUD or OUD (0.88 [0.85-0.92]), those with an acute alcohol-related condition (0.79 [0.75-0.84]), and males (0.71 [0.69-0.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

While AUD medication use increased and was more common among individuals with greater severity, few patients who could benefit from medications are using them. More efforts are needed to identify and treat individuals in non-acute care settings earlier in their course of AUD.

Correlates of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy receipt in medically insured patients

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder is a highly prevalent disease with multiple medications available for treatment. The overall prevalence of patients receiving pharmacotherapy is believed to be low and the characteristics and comorbidities that affect receipt are not well-established.

METHODS

We created a dataset from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database of patients with an outpatient encounter for alcohol abuse or dependence in 2014. We subsequently identified patient characteristics, comorbid medical, psychiatric, or substance use disorders, as well as encounter provider specialties and, using multivariable logistic regression, assessed which variables correlated with increased or decreased receipt of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder for this population.

RESULTS

In our dataset of 123,355 patients, patient receipt of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder was 3.3 %, and 9.3 % when restricted to the former diagnosis of alcohol dependence only. Male sex, younger age, alcohol-related liver disease, and cannabis use disorders correlated with decreased receipt whereas comorbid major depressive disorders and anxiety disorders correlated with increased receipt. Compared to patients seen by psychiatrists, those seen by primary medical doctors had a lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder is an underutilized treatment modality with a low prevalence of prescription in insured individuals. Patients with specific characteristics and comorbidities are less likely to receive this treatment and greater focus on these patients and in the primary care setting can allow for increased prescribing of these medications.

Outpatient care for opioid use disorder among the commercially insured: Use of medication and psychosocial treatment

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) consists of medications that treat OUD (MOUD) and psychosocial treatments (e.g., psychotherapy or counseling, case management). Prior studies have not examined the use of these components of care in a commercially insured population.

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from a large national commercial insurer of enrollees age 17-64 identified with OUD (2008-2016, N = 87,877 persons and 122,708 person-years). Multinomial logistic regression models identified factors associated with receiving in a given year: 1) both MOUD and psychosocial visits, 2) MOUD without psychosocial visits, 3) psychosocial visits without MOUD, or 4) neither. We estimated predicted probabilities for key variables of interest.

RESULTS

Identification of OUD nearly tripled during the observation period (0.17% in 2008, 0.45% in 2016). Among person-years identified as having OUD, 36.3% included MOUD (8.1% both MOUD and psychosocial visits and 28.2% MOUD without psychosocial visits). In adjusted analyses, women had a lower probability of receiving either treatment alone or in combination (e.g.,MOUD plus psychosocial visits: women = 6.7% [6.5%-6.9%] vs. men = 9.2% [9.0%-9.4%]). Moderate/severe vs. mild OUD was associated with a higher probability of receiving MOUD (e.g., MOUD plus psychosocial visits: 8.7% [8.6%-8.9%] vs. 0.9% [0.7%-1.0%]). In contrast, an OUD overdose was associated with a greater probability of receiving neither treatment (78.2% [77.4%-79.0%] vs. 55.5% [55.2%-55.8%]). Over time, the probability of receiving each MOUD and psychosocial treatment category increased relative to 2008, but reached a peak and then plateaued or declined, by the end of the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant treatment gap exists among individuals identified with OUD in this commercially insured population, with greater risks of receiving no treatment for women and for individuals with mild versus moderate or severe OUD. Overdose is associated with receiving neither MOUD nor psychosocial treatment. While treated prevalence initially increased relative to 2008, rates of treatment subsequently plateaued. Additional study and monitoring to elucidate barriers to OUD treatment in commercially insured populations are warranted.

The effect of Medicaid expansion on use of opioid agonist treatment and the role of provider capacity constraints

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of Medicaid expansion on the use of opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and to examine heterogeneous effects by provider supply and Medicaid acceptance rates.

DATA SOURCES

Yearly state-level data on methadone dispensed from opioid treatment programs (OTPs), buprenorphine dispensed from OTPs and pharmacies, number of OTPs and buprenorphine-waivered providers, and percent of OTPs and physicians accepting Medicaid.

STUDY DESIGN

This study used difference-in-differences models to examine the effect of Medicaid expansion on the amount of methadone and buprenorphine dispensed in states between 2006 and 2017. Interaction terms were used to estimate heterogeneous effects. Sensitivity analyses included testing the association of outcomes with Medicaid enrollment and state insurance rates.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The estimated effects of Medicaid expansion on buprenorphine and methadone dispensed were positive but imprecise, meaning we could not rule out negative or null effects of expansion. The estimated associations between state insurance rates and dispensed methadone and buprenorphine were centered near zero, suggesting that improvements in health coverage may not have increased OUD treatment use. The effect of Medicaid expansion was larger in the states with the most waivered providers compared to states with the fewest waivered providers. In the states with the most waivered providers, the average estimated effect of expansion on buprenorphine dispensed was 12 kg/y, enough to treat about 7500 individuals. We did not find evidence that the effect of expansion was consistently modified by OTP concentration, OTP Medicaid acceptance, or physician Medicaid acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Gains in health coverage may not be sufficient to increase OUD treatment, even in the context of high treatment need. Provider capacity likely limited Medicaid expansion's effect on buprenorphine dispensed. Policies to increase buprenorphine providers, such as ending the waiver requirement, may be needed to ensure coverage gains translate to treatment access.

The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders

INTRODUCTION

The federal Opioid State Targeted Response (Opioid STR) grants provided funding to each state to ramp up the range of responses to reverse the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S. Washington State used these funds to develop and implement an integrated care model to expand access to medication treatment and reduce unmet need for people with opioid use disorders (OUD), regardless of how they enter the treatment system. This paper examines the design, early implementation and results of the Washington State Hub and Spoke Model.

METHODS

Descriptive data were gathered from key informants, document review, and aggregate data reported by hubs and spokes to Washington State's Opioid STR team.

RESULTS

The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model reflects a flexible approach that incorporates primary care and substance use treatment programs, as well as outreach, referral and social service organizations, and a nurse care manager. Hubs could be any type of program that had the required expertise and capacity to lead their network in medication treatment for OUD, including all three FDA-approved medications. Six hub-spoke networks were funded, with 8 unique agencies on average, and multiple sites. About 150 prescribers are in these networks (25 on average). In the first 18 months, nearly 5000 people were inducted onto OUD medication treatment: 73% on buprenorphine, 19% on methadone, and 9% on naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model built on prior approaches to improve the delivery system for OUD medication treatment and support services, by increasing integration of care, ensuring "no wrong door," engaging with community agencies, and supporting providers who are offering medication treatment. It used essential elements from existing integrated care OUD treatment models, but allowed for organic restructuring to meet the population needs within a community. To date, there have been challenges and successes, but with this approach, Washington State has provided medication treatment for OUD to nearly 5000 people. Sustainability efforts are underway. In the face of the ongoing opioid crisis, it remains essential to develop, implement and evaluate novel models, such as Washington's Hub and Spoke approach, to improve treatment access and increase capacity.

Coverage of Medications That Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Opioids for Pain Management in Marketplace Plans, 2017

BACKGROUND

Efficacious medications to treat opioid use disorders (OUDs) have been slow to diffuse into practice, and insurance coverage limits may be one important barrier.

OBJECTIVES

To compare coverage for medications used to treat OUDs and opioids commonly prescribed for pain management in plans offered on the 2017 Health Insurance Marketplace exchanges.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We identified a sample of 100 plans offered in urban and in rural counties on the 2017 Marketplaces, weighting by population. We accessed publicly available plan coverage information on healthcare.gov for states with a federally facilitated exchange, the state exchange website for state-based exchanges, and insurer websites.

RESULTS

About 14% of plans do not cover any formulations of buprenorphine/naloxone. Plans were more likely to require prior authorization for any of the covered office-based buprenorphine or naltrexone formulations preferred for maintenance OUD treatment (ie, buprenorphine/naloxone, buprenorphine implants, injectable long-acting naltrexone) than of short-acting opioid pain medications (63.6% vs. 19.4%; P<0.0001). Only 10.6% of plans cover implantable buprenorphine, 26.1% cover injectable naltrexone, and 73.4% cover at least 1 abuse-deterrent opioid pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Many Marketplace plans either do not cover or require prior authorization for coverage of OUD medications, and these restrictions are often more common for OUD medications than for short-acting opioid pain medications. Regulators tasked with enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires that standards for formulary design for mental health and substance use disorder drugs be comparable to those for other medications, should focus attention on formulary coverage of OUD medications.

Commercial Health Plan Coverage of Selected Treatments for Opioid Use Disorders from 2003 to 2014

Opioid use disorders (OUDs) are receiving significant attention in the U.S. as a public health crisis. Access to treatment for OUDs is essential and was expected to improve following implementation of the federal parity law and the Affordable Care Act. This study examines changes in coverage and management of treatments for OUDs (opioid treatment programs (OTPs) as a covered service benefit, buprenorphine as a pharmacy benefit) before, during, and after parity and ACA implementation. Data are from three rounds of a nationally representative survey conducted with commercial health plans regarding behavioral health services in benefit years 2003, 2010, and 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of health plans' commercial products in the continental United States (2003 weighted N = 7,469, 83% response rate; 2010 N = 8,431, 89% response rate; and 2014 N = 6,974, 80% response rate). Results showed treatment for OUDs was covered by nearly all health plan products in each year of the survey, but the types and patterns varied by year. Prior authorization requirements for OTPs have decreased over time. Despite the promise of expanded access to OUD treatment suggested by parity and the ACA, improved health plan coverage for treatment of OUDs, while essential, is not sufficient to address the opioid crisis.