Patel Rashmi, Baser Onur, Waters Heidi C, Huang Daniel, Morrissey Leigh, Rodchenko Katarzyna, Samayoa Gabriela
University of Cambridge.
Graduate School of Public Health City University of New York.
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2025 Jun 17;12(1):222-229. doi: 10.36469/001c.137909. eCollection 2025.
The restrictive consequences of Medicaid formulary restriction policies on antipsychotic medications may lead to higher healthcare utilization and costs among beneficiaries with serious mental illness (SMI). This study compared outcomes among patients with SMI accessing antipsychotic medications through state Medicaid programs with open access (OA) policies (Michigan) vs 5 states without Medicaid OA policies (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin). A retrospective analysis was conducted using Kythera Labs Medicaid data (Jan. 1, 2016-Dec. 31, 2023). Outcomes were assessed for patients with SMI (>18 years of age, ≥1 antipsychotic medication claim during the identification period (Jan. 1, 2017-Dec. 31, 2022), ≥1 SMI claim in the 12-month baseline). Continuous medical and pharmacy benefits were required for 12 months pre- and post-index date. Outcomes included SMI-related hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency department and outpatient visits, and associated costs. A greater proportion of beneficiaries with SMI resided in Michigan than in the other states. After matching, significantly more antipsychotics users experienced SMI-related hospitalizations in California (18.25% vs 9.47%, P < .0001), Colorado (11.41% vs 7.33%, P =.0004), Florida (19.70% vs 10.17%, P < .0001), Illinois (23.57% vs 8.79%, P < .0001), and Wisconsin (15.21% vs 10.02%, P = .0046) than in Michigan. Length of stay was lower in Michigan than in California, Colorado, and Illinois. Inpatient costs related to SMI were significantly lower in Michigan, yet pharmacy costs were higher. Total SMI-related costs were higher in all non-OA states than in Michigan, except Colorado. State Medicaid programs without OA to antipsychotics were associated with higher rates of SMI-related resource utilization and costs vs Michigan. Policy makers should consider the potential downstream cost implications of restrictive access policies and evaluate whether OA could result in improved health outcomes for patients and savings for Medicaid programs.
医疗补助药品目录限制政策对抗精神病药物的限制后果,可能会导致严重精神疾病(SMI)患者的医疗保健利用率提高和成本增加。本研究比较了通过州医疗补助计划获取抗精神病药物的SMI患者的结局,其中密歇根州实行开放获取(OA)政策,而加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、佛罗里达州、伊利诺伊州和威斯康星州这5个州没有医疗补助OA政策。使用Kythera Labs医疗补助数据(2016年1月1日至2023年12月31日)进行了回顾性分析。对SMI患者(年龄>18岁,在识别期(2017年1月1日至2022年12月31日)期间至少有1次抗精神病药物索赔,在12个月基线期至少有1次SMI索赔)的结局进行了评估。在索引日期前后12个月需要持续的医疗和药房福利。结局包括与SMI相关的住院、住院时间、急诊科和门诊就诊以及相关成本。与其他州相比,居住在密歇根州的SMI受益人的比例更高。匹配后,加利福尼亚州(18.25%对9.47%,P<0.0001)、科罗拉多州(11.41%对7.33%,P = 0.0004)、佛罗里达州(19.70%对10.17%,P<0.0001)、伊利诺伊州(23.57%对8.79%,P<0.0001)和威斯康星州(15.21%对10.02%,P = 0.0046)中,经历与SMI相关住院治疗的抗精神病药物使用者明显多于密歇根州。密歇根州的住院时间低于加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州和伊利诺伊州。密歇根州与SMI相关的住院成本显著较低,但药房成本较高。除科罗拉多州外,所有非OA州与SMI相关的总成本均高于密歇根州。与密歇根州相比,没有抗精神病药物OA政策的州医疗补助计划与更高的与SMI相关的资源利用率和成本相关。政策制定者应考虑限制性获取政策可能产生的下游成本影响,并评估OA是否能改善患者的健康结局并为医疗补助计划节省费用。