Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Jun 1;1(2):e180235. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0235.
Despite unprecedented injuries and deaths from prescription opioids, little is known regarding medication coverage policies for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain among US insurers.
To assess medication coverage policies for 62 products used to treat low back pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional study of health plan documents from 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage, and 20 commercial health plans in 2017 from 16 US states representing more than half the US population and 20 interviews with more than 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018.
Formulary coverage, utilization management, and patient out-of-pocket costs.
Of the 62 products examined, 30 were prescription opioids and 32 were nonopioid analgesics, including 10 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 10 antidepressants, 6 muscle relaxants, 4 anticonvulsants, and 2 topical analgesics. Medicaid plans covered a median of 19 opioids examined (interquartile range [IQR], 12-27; median, 63%; IQR, 40%-90%) and a median of 22 nonopioids examined (IQR, 21-27; median, 69%; IQR, 66%-83%). Medicare Advantage plans covered similar proportions (median [IQR], opioids: 17 [15-22]; 57% [50%-73%]; nonopioids: 22 [22-26]; 69% [69%-81%]), while commercial plans covered more opioids (median [IQR], 23 [21-25]; 77% [70%-84%]) and nonopioids (median [IQR], 26 [24-27]; 81% [74%-85%]). Utilization management strategies were common for opioids in Medicaid plans (median [IQR], 15 [11-20] opioids; 91% [74%-97%]), Medicare Advantage plans (median [IQR], 15 [9-18] opioids; 100% [100%-100%]), and commercial plans (median [IQR], 16 [11-20] opioids; 74% [53%-94%]), generally relying on 30-day quantity limits rather than prior authorization. Step therapy was especially uncommon. Many of the nonopioids examined also were subject to utilization management, especially quantity limits (24%-32% of products across payers) and prior authorization (median [IQR], commercial plans: 2 [0-3] nonopioids; 9% [0%-11%]; Medicare Advantage plans: 4 [3-5] nonopioids; 19% [10%-23%]; Medicaid plans: 6 [1-13] nonopioids; 38% [2%-52%]). Among commercial plans, the median plan placed 18 opioids (74%) and 20 nonopioids (81%) in tier 1, which was associated with a median out-of-pocket cost of $10 (IQR, $9-$10) per 30-day supply. Key informant interviews revealed an emphasis on increasing opioid utilization management and identifying high-risk prescribers and patients, rather than promoting comprehensive strategies to improve treatment of chronic pain or better integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives to opioids.
Given the effect of coverage policies on drug utilization and health outcomes, these findings provide an important opportunity to evaluate how formulary placement, utilization management, copayments, and integration of nonpharmacologic treatments can be optimized to improve pain care while reducing opioid-related injuries and deaths.
尽管处方类阿片类药物导致的受伤和死亡人数前所未有,但美国保险公司在治疗慢性非癌痛方面的药物覆盖政策仍知之甚少。
评估用于治疗腰痛的 62 种产品的药物覆盖政策。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项 2017 年的横断面研究,分析了来自 16 个美国州的 15 项医疗补助、15 项医疗保险优势计划和 20 项商业健康计划的健康计划文件,这些州代表了超过一半的美国人口,此外还进行了 20 次对来自代表性计划的 43 多位高级医疗和药房健康计划主管的访谈。数据分析于 2017 年 4 月至 2018 年 1 月进行。
包括处方目录、使用管理和患者自付费用在内的政策。
在所检查的 62 种产品中,有 30 种是处方类阿片类药物,32 种是非阿片类镇痛药,包括 10 种非甾体抗炎药、10 种抗抑郁药、6 种肌肉松弛剂、4 种抗惊厥药和 2 种局部镇痛药。医疗补助计划涵盖了中位数为 19 种(IQR,12-27;中位数,63%;IQR,40%-90%)的检查阿片类药物和中位数为 22 种(IQR,21-27;中位数,69%;IQR,66%-83%)的非阿片类镇痛药。医疗保险优势计划覆盖了类似比例(中位数 [IQR],阿片类药物:17 [15-22];57% [50%-73%];非阿片类药物:22 [22-26];69% [69%-81%]),而商业计划覆盖了更多的阿片类药物(中位数 [IQR],23 [21-25];77% [70%-84%])和非阿片类药物(中位数 [IQR],26 [24-27];81% [74%-85%])。阿片类药物的使用管理策略在医疗补助计划中很常见(中位数 [IQR],15 [11-20] 种阿片类药物;91% [74%-97%])、医疗保险优势计划(中位数 [IQR],15 [9-18] 种阿片类药物;100% [100%-100%])和商业计划(中位数 [IQR],16 [11-20] 种阿片类药物;74% [53%-94%]),通常依赖于 30 天的定量限制而不是事先授权。逐步治疗尤其不常见。许多检查的非阿片类药物也受到使用管理的限制,尤其是定量限制(24%-32%的产品在不同的支付方中)和事先授权(中位数 [IQR],商业计划:2 [0-3] 种非阿片类药物;9% [0%-11%];医疗保险优势计划:4 [3-5] 种非阿片类药物;19% [10%-23%];医疗补助计划:6 [1-13] 种非阿片类药物;38% [2%-52%])。在商业计划中,计划将 18 种阿片类药物(74%)和 20 种非阿片类药物(81%)放在第一层,这与每 30 天供应的 10 美元(IQR,9-10 美元)的自付费用中位数相关。关键信息提供者的访谈显示,他们更注重增加阿片类药物的使用管理,并确定高风险的处方医生和患者,而不是促进全面的治疗慢性疼痛策略,或更好地整合阿片类药物和非药物替代疗法。
鉴于覆盖政策对药物使用和健康结果的影响,这些发现为评估药物目录、使用管理、共付额以及非药物治疗方法的整合如何能够优化提供了一个重要机会,以改善疼痛护理,同时减少阿片类药物相关的伤害和死亡。