The Prevalence and Cost of Medicare Beneficiaries Diagnosed and At Risk for Opioid Abuse, Dependence, and Poisoning

Opioid use surrounding diagnosis and follow-up in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis: Results from US claims databases

OBJECTIVE

To describe patients' use of opioids in the year preceding and year following new diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with patients without the/se diseases.

METHODS

This study used US IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Medicaid data and included three cohorts, comprised of incident cases of AS, PsA, or RA (2010-2017). Three matched comparator patients (without the incident disease) were selected for each patient within the disease cohort. Opioid use and appropriate treatment exposure (as defined by US guideline recommendations) in the 12-month baseline and follow-up periods were evaluated using descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Prevalence of claims for opioids was higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in CCAE; 36.4% of patients with AS, 29.5% with PsA, and 44.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up. Prevalence of claims for opioids was also higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in Medicaid; 30.6% of patients with AS, 36.6% with PsA, and 65.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AS, PsA, or RA, there was high reliance on opioids at and around the time of diagnosis. Significant proportions of patients were not on appropriate treatment as defined by professional society post-diagnosis guidelines; this discordance between actual patient therapies and treatment recommendations may suggest a need for better awareness of appropriate pain management and treatment strategies in rheumatic diseases. Key Points • This study analysed opioid use among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and adds to current knowledge by expanding beyond assessment of opioid use at diagnosis, to the year before and after diagnosis. • Opioid use was found to be highly prevalent in AS, PsA, and RA in the year prior to diagnosis and, interestingly, was still seen during the year after diagnosis. • Opioids are neither disease modifying, nor a targeted/recommended treatment for chronic autoimmune diseases. In addition to their association with significant economic costs, opioids are potentially hazardous and are not better than alternative treatments with superior safety profiles. • The reasons behind opioid prescribing patterns should be explored further to support movement to targeted therapies.

Medicare coverage of buprenorphine-naloxone film surrounding generic entry

OBJECTIVES

To investigate trends in Medicare coverage of buprenorphine-naloxone film before and after the FDA approval of its first generic versions.

STUDY DESIGN

This study used data from the Part D Prescription Drug Plan Formulary, Pharmacy Network, and Pricing Information Files from 2015 to 2022, which provide information on all stand-alone Medicare/Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans.

METHODS

We examined the percentage of plans that provided coverage of brand-name and generic buprenorphine-naloxone films with strength 8 mg/2 mg during 2015-2022. Median out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for a 30-day supply was estimated among all plans that provided coverage.

RESULTS

Generic buprenorphine-naloxone film was covered by 82% of Medicare Part D plans in 2020, 2 years after market entry. Coverage of brand-name Suboxone film decreased from 76% in 2019 to 42% in 2020. The median OOP cost of buprenorphine-naloxone films faced by Medicare enrollees decreased from $99 in 2019 to $42 in 2020, driven by the lower price of generic films. In contrast, the OOP cost for brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone film increased gradually from $85 in 2015 to $100 in 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare Part D plan formularies replaced brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone films with the newly approved generic versions. This was accompanied by a substantial decrease in estimated OOP cost faced by Part D enrollees. These changes could potentially increase access to buprenorphine among Medicare enrollees with opioid use disorder.

Budget Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Intravenous Meloxicam to Treat Moderate-Severe Postoperative Pain

INTRODUCTION

This study assesses the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of intravenous meloxicam (MIV) to treat moderate-severe acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

A two-part Markov cohort model captured the pharmacoeconomic impact of MIV versus non-opioid intravenous analgesics (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketorolac) among a hypothetical adult cohort undergoing selected inpatient procedures and experiencing moderate-severe acute postoperative pain: Part 1 (postoperative hour 0 to discharge, cycled hourly), health states were defined by pain level. Pain transition rates, adverse event probabilities, and concomitant opioid utilization were derived from a network meta-analysis. Part 2 (discharge to week 52, cycled weekly), health states were defined by the presence/absence of pain-related readmission and opioid use disorder as determined by literature-based inputs relating to pain control outcomes. Healthcare utilization and direct medical costs were derived from an administrative claims database analysis. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The model assumed a private payer perspective in the USA (no discounting, 2019 US$).

RESULTS

Modeled outcomes indicated MIV was associated with lower accumulated postoperative pain, fewer adverse events, and less opioid utilization for most procedures and comparators, with longer-term outcomes also generally favoring MIV. The budget impact of MIV was - $0.028 PMPM. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, MIV had lower costs and better outcomes for all comparisons except against ketorolac in orthopedic procedures where the former was cost-effective but not cost saving ($95,925/QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses indicated that modeled outcomes were robust to alternative inputs and underlying input uncertainty. Differences in direct medical costs were driven by reduced costs attributable to length of stay and opioid-related adverse drug events.

CONCLUSION

MIV was associated with modeled clinical and economic benefits compared to commonly used non-opioid intravenous analgesics.

Removal of prior authorization for medication-assisted treatment: impact on opioid use and policy implications in a Medicare Advantage population

BACKGROUND: More than 30% of Medicare beneficiaries and 40% of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid use opioids. With an estimated 8%-12% of patients developing an opioid use disorder (OUD) after initiating opioids, opioid misuse is a significant public health challenge, especially among high-risk Medicare populations. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is the use of medications for the treatment of OUD and to prevent relapse to opioid use. MAT is the most effective treatment for OUD. There are a variety of barriers to MAT therapy that may delay access to treatment. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the removal of prior authorization requirements for MAT medications on MAT utilization, opioid utilization, and clinical outcomes, including emergency department visits, inpatient admission, relapse rates, behavioral health services, and nonopioid pain medication utilization, among opioid-using individuals with Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) coverage. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study used administrative medical, pharmacy, and enrollment data to identify chronic opioid users and a subset cohort initiating MAT use in 2017, when prior authorization requirements were in effect, and 2018 after removal of prior authorization requirements. Opioid and MAT utilization and clinical outcomes from emergency department visits were also examined before and after prior authorization requirements. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact of the policy change on relapse rates, comparing relapse rates in 2017 and 2018, after controlling for potentially confounding demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: This policy change was followed by a decrease in opioid utilization, an increase in MAT initiation, and a 4% decline in relapse rates. Patients initiating MAT after removal of prior authorizations had a 19% decrease in likelihood of relapse, and those with an OUD diagnosis were 47% less likely to relapse. The majority of MAT recipients were aged younger than 65 years, had a mental or behavioral health disorder diagnosis, and initially used relatively low doses (< 90 MME) of prescription opioids. There were no statistically significant differences in the use of behavioral health services or the use of nonopioid medications from 2017 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization management policies should ensure appropriate MAT use, while minimizing impediments to access. Providing patients with evidence-based therapy effective for the treatment of OUD is essential to patient recovery and combating the consequences of the opioid epidemic. Further strides are needed to eliminate additional obstacles to OUD care. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. All authors are or were employees of Humana, Inc., at the time of the study and have no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rural-Urban Disparities In All-Cause Mortality Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries, 2004-17

There is growing concern about the health of older US adults who live in rural areas, but little is known about how mortality has changed over time for low-income Medicare beneficiaries residing in rural areas compared with their urban counterparts. We evaluated whether all-cause mortality rates changed for rural and urban low-income Medicare beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicaid, and we studied disparities between these groups. The study cohort included 11,737,006 unique dually enrolled Medicare beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017 all-cause mortality declined from 96.6 to 92.7 per 1,000 rural beneficiaries (relative percentage change: -4.0 percent). Among urban beneficiaries, declines in mortality were more pronounced (from 86.9 to 72.8 per 1,000 beneficiaries, a relative percentage change of -16.2 percent). The gap in mortality between rural and urban beneficiaries increased over time. Rural mortality rates were highest in East North Central states and increased modestly in West North Central states during the study period. Public health and policy efforts are urgently needed to improve the health of low-income older adults living in rural areas.

Health economic design for cost, cost-effectiveness and simulation analyses in the HEALing Communities Study

BACKGROUND

The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings.

METHODS

The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list-controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention.

DISCUSSION

The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions.

Misalignment of Stakeholder Incentives in the Opioid Crisis

The current opioid epidemic has killed more than 446,000 Americans over the past two decades. Despite the magnitude of the crisis, little is known to what degree the misalignment of incentives among stakeholders due to competing interests has contributed to the current situation. In this study, we explore evidence in the literature for the working hypothesis that misalignment rooted in the cost, quality, or access to care can be a significant contributor to the opioid epidemic. The review identified several problems that can contribute to incentive misalignment by compromising the triple aims (cost, quality, and access) in this epidemic. Some of these issues include the inefficacy of conventional payment mechanisms in providing incentives for providers, practice guidelines in pain management that are not easily implementable across different medical specialties, barriers in adopting multi-modal pain management strategies, low capacity of providers/treatments to address opioid/substance use disorders, the complexity of addressing the co-occurrence of chronic pain and opioid use disorders, and patients' non-adherence to opioid substitution treatments. In discussing these issues, we also shed light on factors that can facilitate the alignment of incentives among stakeholders to effectively address the current crisis.

Smart stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems based on cyclodextrin: A review

Stimulated by researches in materials chemistry and medicine fields, drug delivery has entered a new stage of development. Drug delivery systems have been extensively studied according to the differences in the drug therapeutic environment such as pH, light, temperature, magnet, redox, enzymes, etc. Cyclodextrin is a smart tool that has been proven to be used in the preparation of drug delivery, and has become a new area of concern in recent years. In this review, we discuss recent research advances in smart stimuli-responsive cyclodextrin-based drug delivery. First, different stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems based on cyclodextrin are introduced and classified. Then, the characteristics of different types of stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems are described, and their applications are emphasized. Finally, current challenges and future development opportunities of smart stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems based on cyclodextrin are discussed.

Opioid Prescribing Among Adults With Disabilities in the United States After the 2014 Federal Hydrocodone Rescheduling Regulation

OBJECTIVES

Deaths from prescription opioid overdoses have reached an epidemic level in the United States, particularly among persons with disabilities. The 2014 federal rescheduling regulation is associated with reduced opioid prescribing in the general US population; however, to date, no data have been published on this regulation's effect on persons with disabilities. We examined whether the 2014 hydrocodone rescheduling change was associated with reduced opioid prescribing among adult Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities.

METHODS

We identified 680 876 Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities aged 21-64 in 2013 and 657 687 in 2015 from a 20% national sample. We examined changes in the monthly opioid-prescribing rates from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. We also compared opioid-prescribing rates in 2013 with rates in 2015.

RESULTS

In 2014, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities who received hydrocodone prescriptions decreased by 0.154% per month (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.186 to -0.121, P < .001). The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities who received hydrocodone prescriptions decreased from 32.2% in 2013 to 27.7% in 2015, whereas rates of any opioid prescribing, prolonged prescribing (≥90-day supply), and high-dose prescribing (≥100 morphine milligram equivalents per day for >30 days) decreased only modestly, from 50.2% to 49.0%, from 27.4% to 26.5%, and from 7.5% to 7.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2014 federal rescheduling of hydrocodone was associated with only minor changes in overall and potentially high-risk opioid-prescribing rates. Neither state variation in long-term prescribing nor beneficiary characteristics explained the changes in persistently high opioid-prescribing rates among adults with disabilities after the 2014 regulation. Future studies should examine patient and provider characteristics underlying the persistent high-risk prescribing patterns in this population.

Provider-directed marketing may increase prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) has become an increasingly grave public health concern, especially in the United States where approximately 80% of the global opioid supply is consumed. Despite greater awareness of the present overdose crisis, potentially life-saving OUD pharmacotherapy (medications for opioid use disorder or MOUD) utilization remains low. This study examines the extent of provider-directed marketing (detailing) for MOUD drugs and identifies any associations between a provider's receipt of detailing and their prescribing of MOUD drugs to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

METHOD

We combined Open Payments data on all provider-directed payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers with physician-level data on all MOUD prescriptions filled in Medicare Part D. We estimated the adjusted difference in Medicare days supply for all MOUD drugs (collectively) and separately for each MOUD drug that was associated with receipt of payments.

RESULTS

The Open Payments data show that $7.0 million MOUD-specific promotional payments were made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to 12,056 US physicians from 2014 to 2016, which is <1/6th of the $50.3 million made in overall non-MOUD opioid-related promotional payments to 76,992 US physicians during that same period. Prescribers who received any MOUD-specific payments prescribed 1080 daily MOUD-related doses per year more than peers who did not receive any MOUD-specific payments (p < 0.001). The data also show the relatively greater association between receipt of detailing and Suboxone prescriptions compared to Vivitrol.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider-directed marketing by MOUD manufacturers has been found to be significantly and positively associated with incidence of MOUD prescribing in Medicare Part D, as well as with the quantity of MOUD prescribed.