Medicaid's prior authorization program and access to atypical antipsychotic medications

Treatment patterns and hospitalizations following rejection, reversal, or payment of the initial once-monthly paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable antipsychotic claim among patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

BACKGROUND

Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is a long-acting injectable antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (SCA) in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment patterns and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization following payer rejection, patient reversal, or payment of an initial PP1M claim.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database linked to the Medical Claims, Hospital Charge Detail Master, and Experian consumer databases. Patients with schizophrenia/SCA and ≥1 PP1M pharmacy claim from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2022, were identified and stratified into 3 cohorts based on the transaction status of the initial PP1M claim (index date): rejected (payer not approved), reversed (payer approved, patient abandoned), and paid (payer approved, patient filled). Patient characteristics during the 12 months before the index date, subsequent treatment patterns, and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization for patients with >6 months of follow-up were assessed by cohort.

RESULTS

The rejected, reversed, and paid cohorts included 1,260, 1,046, and 1,686 patients, respectively. Across these cohorts, the mean ages ranged between 39.2 and 44.5 years; more than half were male (50.8%-51.6%) and White (50.6%-58.3%); 19.8%-24.6% of patients had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥2. Rates of prior atypical oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotic use ranged between 76.4%-80.3% and 7.8%-12.7%, respectively. Among patients with ≥6 months of follow-up, 52.2% in the rejected and 53.1% in the reversed cohorts had a subsequent paid PP1M claim during the study period; the median (quartile 1-quartile 3) time to the first paid PP1M claim was 22 (5-74) days for rejection and 11 (1-41) days for reversal. In the rejected and reversed cohorts, 10.2% (n = 111) and 9.8% (n = 90) of patients, respectively, did not receive any paid claim for an antipsychotic after the initial PP1M rejection/reversal. The prevalence of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization during follow-up was similar between patients with a paid (7.4%) and rejected PP1M claim (7.0%; P = 0.689) but higher among patients with a reversed claim (10.8%; P = 0.004). After adjusting for confounders, patients in the reversed cohort were 39% more likely to have a schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization than those in the paid cohort (odds ratio = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.03-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Payer rejection and patient reversal of initial PP1M claims is a form of primary nonadherence and may influence patient trajectory. Data from this study suggest that patient reversal of PP1M may lead to an increased risk of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalizations, potentially caused by missed or delayed treatment. Policy initiatives that remove barriers to primary adherence or fulfillment may help improve patients' clinical outcomes.

National trends in metabolic risk of psychiatric inpatients in the United States during the atypical antipsychotic era

Although the cardiometabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics have been well-described in clinical samples, less is known about the longer-term impacts of these treatments. We report rates of metabolic syndrome in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adult inpatients 1993-2018 admitted for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (n = 1,785,314), any mental health disorder (n = 8,378,773), or neither (n = 14,458,616) during a period of widespread atypical antipsychotic use. Metabolic syndrome, derived from additional diagnoses, was defined as three or more of hypertension, dyslipidemia, type II diabetes, hyperglycemia, and overweight or obese. Using an ecological age and period design, a 4-level period variable was constructed to proxy for atypical antipsychotic exposure as the minimum of age minus 20 years or the calendar year minus 1997 in accord with the disease course for schizophrenia-spectrum illness and the market share of atypical antipsychotics in the U.S. Logistic regression models, adjusted for age, year, and exposure main effects, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of metabolic syndrome. Relative to other mental health or other discharges, schizophrenia-spectrum discharges had an elevated risk for metabolic syndrome regardless of potential atypical antipsychotic exposure (OR = 1.46; 95 % CI, 1.30-1.64). For schizophrenia-spectrum discharges, periods of potential atypical antipsychotic exposure conferred additional metabolic syndrome risk OR = 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.04-1.41 for exposures of 1-2 years, OR = 1.29; 95 % CI, 1.13-1.46 for 3-7 years, OR = 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.44 for 8-12 years, and OR = 1.10; 95 % CI 0.98-1.24 for >12 years. In summary, cardiometabolic disease and related risks were elevated among a nationally representative sample of adult inpatients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders during a period of pervasive atypical antipsychotic use.

Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Restrictions After Postmarket FDA Black Box Warnings

BACKGROUND

The boxed warning (also known as "black box warning") is one of the FDA's strongest safety actions for pharmaceuticals. After the FDA issues black box warnings for drugs, prescribing changes have been inconsistent. Formulary management may provide an opportunity to restrict access to drugs with serious safety concerns.

OBJECTIVE

To examine Medicare prescription drug plan formulary changes after new FDA postmarket black box warnings and major updates to preexisting black box warnings.

METHODS

In this cohort study, we identified each drug that received a new FDA postmarket black box warning or a major update to a preexisting black box warning from January 2008 through June 2015 and examined its formulary coverage. The main outcome measure was the proportion of Medicare prescription drug plan formularies providing unrestrictive coverage immediately before the black box warning, at least 1 year after the warning and at least 2 years after the warning. Unrestrictive formulary coverage was defined as coverage of a drug without prior authorization or step-therapy requirements.

RESULTS

Of 101 new black box warnings and major updates to preexisting warnings affecting 68 unique drug formulations, the mean percentage of formularies providing unrestrictive coverage changed from 65.4% (95% CI = 59.6%-71.2%) prewarning; 62.6% (95% CI = 56.3%-68.9%, P = 0.04) at least 1 year postwarning; and 61.9% (95% CI = 55.4%-68.5%, P = 0.10) at least 2 years postwarning.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean percentage of Medicare prescription drug plan formularies providing unrestrictive coverage decreased modestly by approximately 3 percentage points after drugs received postmarket FDA black box warnings. Formulary restrictions may present an underused mechanism to reduce use of potentially unsafe medications.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by a student research grant received by Solotke and provided by the Yale School of Medicine Office of Student Research under National Institutes of Health training grant award T35DK104689. Karaca-Mandic, Shah, and Ross acknowledge support from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) grant R01 HS025164, which studies factors associated with de-adoption of drug therapies shown to be ineffective or unsafe. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors assume full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the ideas presented. Ross has received support from the following: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the Centers for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program; Johnson and Johnson through Yale University to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing; Medtronic and the FDA to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices; the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to better understand medical technology evaluation; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting; the AHRQ to examine community predictors of health care quality; and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which established the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency at Yale University. Shah has received support from the FDA as part of the CERSI program. In addition, he has received support through the Mayo Clinic from CMS, AHRQ, National Science Foundation, and Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute. Karaca-Mandic has provided consulting services to Precision Health Economics and Tactile Medical for work unrelated to this manuscript. Dhruva and Solotke have no conflicts of interest to report.

"Impact of drug-reimbursement policies on prescribing: A case-study of a newly marketed long-acting injectable antipsychotic among relapsed schizophrenia patients"

OBJECTIVE

To quantify and explain variation in use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in the United States, and understand the relationship between patient characteristics, drug reimbursement policies, and LAI prescribing after relapse.

METHODS

A cohort of recently relapsed patients with schizophrenia ages 18 to 64, were identified immediately after discharge from a related inpatient hospitalization, partial hospitalization, or emergency room visit, drawn from 2004 to 2006 Medicaid claims, and followed for 90 days until LAI initiation. Data on state-level Medicaid prior authorization (PA) policies for LAIs were collected. Sequential longitudinal Poisson regression models were developed to understand the relationship between patient and PA policy variables and LAI prescribing, including prior adherence to oral antipsychotics, demographics, clinical variables, and presence of PA policy for LAI.

RESULTS

Among 36 282 patients, 3.1% received risperidone LAI, and 3.8% received a first-generation (FGA) LAI with wide variation across states. Prior adherence ranged from 29% to 89% but was marginally associated with initiation and did not explain variation for LAI prescribing. FGA initiation was associated with geography and race/ethnicity but not PA policy. For risperidone LAI initiation, demographics and clinical factors explained, respectively, 5.0% and 3.0% of the variation; PA policy had a large negative association with initiation (RR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.20-0.87) and explained 8.4% of the variation.

CONCLUSIONS

PA policies may represent a major treatment barrier for risperidone LAI among relapsed patients. Non-adherence plays a little role in predicting which patients receive LAIs. Policy makers and health insurers will need to consider these findings when guiding the use of LAIs. KEY POINTS Among a nationwide cohort of relapsed schizophrenia patients enrolled in US Medicaid, 3.1% received Risperdal Consta, a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI), and 3.8% initiated a first-generation first-generation LAI within 90 days after discharge. During 2004 to 2006, there was marked variation in 90 day post-relapse initiation of Risperdal-Consta-a newly marketed medication during this period-and also marked variation in 90 day post-relapse initiation of any first-generation LAI, which appeared to be associated with race/ethnicity and geography. Prior authorization policies were associated with substantially lower initiation of Risperdal Consta in this cohort of relapsed patients even after accounting for clinical indication (non-adherence), relapse history, demographics, adjunctive medication, and mental health service use.

Twenty years of triptans in the United States Medicaid programs: Utilization and reimbursement trends from 1993 to 2013

Objective

After sumatriptan was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1992, triptans became first-line anti-migraine therapies. Rapidly rising triptan expenditures, however, led payers, including Medicaid, to implement cost-containment policies. We describe triptan utilization and reimbursement trends in Medicaid.

Methods

Using national summary files for outpatient drug utilization, utilization and expenditure data from 1993 to 2013 were extracted and summed for all triptan national drug codes reimbursed by Medicaid. Data were collected separately for tablets, injections and sprays.

Results

The number of triptan prescriptions increased from 87,348 in 1993 to 0.9 million in 2004; fell to 0.4 million in 2009; rose to 1 million in 2011; and rose 1.2 million in 2013. In 2013, Medicaid spent $96.8 million on triptans: 74.4%, 18.4% and 7.2% for tablets, injections and sprays, respectively. Average reimbursement per prescription was $54 for tablets, $351 for injections and $235 for sprays in 2013. From 1993 to 2013, sumatriptan was the most widely prescribed among the triptans.

Conclusions

The substantial increase in triptan prescriptions from 2009 to 2011, without being convincingly explained by either rising migraine prevalence or rising Medicaid enrollment, is suggestive of reduced access to these medications prior to 2009. Cost-containment policies may have inadvertently prevented Medicaid migraineurs from obtaining appropriate pharmacotherapy.

Prior presentations

An earlier version of this paper was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Philadelphia, PA, May 2015, where it received a finalist award.

Evaluation of a comprehensive information and assistance program for patients with schizophrenia treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

While atypical long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) offer the potential for increased adherence, access to medication poses challenges that may hinder their use. Janssen Connect * *Janssen Connect is a registered trade name of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA. (JC), a comprehensive information and assistance program, was designed to help patients who received a Janssen LAI initiate and maintain treatment after their health care professional (HCP) determined that the medication was the most clinically appropriate option. We conducted a formative and impact evaluation on early medication adherence of patients enrolled in JC and prescribed paliperidone palmitate.

METHODS

Using the program administrative files (December 2010-April 2014), 9354 patients whose HCP ordered paliperidone palmitate were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and request of JC program offerings were reported overall, and compared between patients requesting the injection center versus those who did not. Medication adherence based on the first 6 months of treatment while in the program and defined as achieving ≥80% proportion of days covered (PDC) was measured for patients receiving ≥2 paliperidone palmitate injections (n = 2659). Logistic models evaluated the association between requests for injection centers on medication adherence.

RESULTS

Mean age of program enrollees was 40.6 (standard deviation = 13.9 years), 59.3% were men, and 42.5% were Medicare covered. While in the program, 79.9% did not experience a medication gap of ≥7 weeks and 87.0% achieved adherence. Injection center request was associated with medication adherence (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) ≤5 months: 0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02-0.05; ≥6 months: aOR: 4.16; 95% CI: 2.72-6.36).

LIMITATIONS

The data sources used were designed for program implementation and not for research purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The high percentage of patients requesting injection center support and medication shipment in addition to other insurance-related program offerings signals the need for and value of a comprehensive support program for patients seeking LAI therapy. Providing patients with the option of alternative and more conveniently located injection centers may help them start and maintain their treatment.

Tying comparative effectiveness information to decision-making and the future of comparative effectiveness research designs: the case for antipsychotic drugs

The outcome of comparative effectiveness research on antipsychotic drugs, specifically the National Institute of Mental Health-funded CATIE trial, has raised questions regarding the value of second-generation antipsychotic drugs and has sparked a debate regarding their accessibility through public insurance. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of access restrictions for antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid programs and found that such restrictions resulted in increases in overall costs and a possible decline in the quality of care. We attribute this unwanted outcome to limitations in comparative effectiveness research designs that fail to inform either clinical or policy decision-making. We enumerate these limitations and illustrate the potential for more innovative comparative effectiveness research designs that may be in line with clinical decision-making using an original analysis of the CATIE trial data. The value of genomic information in enabling better trial design is also discussed.

Changes in physician antipsychotic prescribing preferences, 2002-2007

OBJECTIVE

Physician antipsychotic prescribing behavior may be influenced by comparative effectiveness evidence, regulatory warnings, and formulary and other restrictions on these drugs. This study measured changes in the degree to which physicians are able to customize treatment choices and changes in physician preferences for specific agents after these events.

METHODS

The study used 2002-2007 prescribing data from the IMS Health Xponent database and data on physician characteristics from the American Medical Association for a longitudinal cohort of 7,399 physicians. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted of the concentration of prescribing (physician-level Herfindahl index) and preferences for and likelihood of prescribing two first-generation antipsychotics and six second-generation antipsychotics. Analyses adjusted for prescribing volume, specialty, demographic characteristics, practice setting, and education.

RESULTS

Antipsychotic prescribing was highly concentrated at the physician level, with a mean unadjusted Herfindahl index of .33 in 2002 and .29 in 2007. Psychiatrists reduced the concentration of their prescribing more over time than did other physicians. High-volume psychiatrists had a Herfindahl index that was half that of low-volume physicians in other specialties (.18 versus .36), a difference that remained significant (p<.001) after adjustment for physician characteristics. The share of physicians preferring olanzapine dropped from 29.9% in 2002 to 10.3% in 2007 (p<.001) while the share favoring quetiapine increased from 9.4% to 44.5% (p<.001). Few physicians (<5%) preferred a first-generation antipsychotic in 2002 or 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for specific antipsychotics changed dramatically during this period. Although physician prescribing remained heavily concentrated, the concentration decreased over time, particularly among psychiatrists.

Effects of Medicare Part D on guideline-concordant pharmacotherapy for bipolar I disorder among dual beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

In January 2006 insurance coverage for medications shifted from Medicaid to Medicare Part D private drug plans for the six million individuals enrolled in both programs. Dual beneficiaries faced new formularies and utilization management policies. It is unclear whether Part D, compared with Medicaid, relaxed or tightened psychiatric medication management, which could affect receipt of recommended pharmacotherapy, and emergency department use related to treatment discontinuities. This study examined the impact of the transition from Medicaid to Part D on guideline-concordant pharmacotherapy for bipolar I disorder and emergency department use.

METHODS

Using interrupted-time-series analysis and Medicaid and Medicare administrative data from 2004 to 2007, the authors analyzed the effect of the coverage transition on receipt of guideline-concordant antimanic medication, guideline-discordant antidepressant monotherapy, and emergency department visits for a nationally representative continuous cohort of 1,431 adults with diagnosed bipolar I disorder.

RESULTS

Sixteen months after the transition to Part D, the proportion of the population with any recommended use of antimanic drugs was an estimated 3.1 percentage points higher than expected once analyses controlled for baseline trends. The monthly proportion of beneficiaries with seven or more days of antidepressant monotherapy was 2.1 percentage points lower than expected. The number of emergency department visits per month temporarily increased by 19% immediately posttransition.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased receipt of guideline-concordant pharmacotherapy for bipolar I disorder may reflect relatively less restrictive management of antimanic medications under Part D. The clinical significance of the change is unclear, given the small effect sizes. However, increased emergency department visits merit attention for the Medicaid beneficiaries who continue to transition to Part D.

Diffusion of antipsychotics in the US And French markets, 1998-2008

OBJECTIVE

Second-generation antipsychotics captured most of the U.S. antipsychotic market shortly after their introduction. Little is known about how second-generation antipsychotics have diffused in other countries with different health systems. The study objective was to describe trends in antipsychotic use in the United States and France from 1998 to 2008.

METHODS

Pharmaceutical policies in France and the United States are briefly described, followed by descriptive data on quarterly prescriptions for oral antipsychotics dispensed between January 1998 and September 2008. Data are from Xponent for the United States and the GERS database for France. Trends in the use of first- versus second-generation antipsychotics and in ingredient formulations of second-generation antipsychotics used are reported.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2008, total antipsychotic use in the United States increased by 78%. Total use in France was consistently higher despite a 9% decrease during the period. By 2008, second-generation antipsychotics represented 86% of the antipsychotics sold in the U.S. market, versus only 40% of the French market. However, average annual growth rates in use of second-generation antipsychotics were similar in the two countries. In France, use of all but one second-generation antipsychotic steadily increased, whereas in the United States trends in the use of newer drugs varied substantially by drug. For example, use of olanzapine decreased after 2003, but use of quetiapine increased.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight markedly divergent trends in the diffusion of new antipsychotics in France and the United States. Some differences may be explained by differences in health systems; others may reflect physicians' preferences and norms of practice.

State Medicaid programs did not make use of prior authorization to promote safer prescribing after rosiglitazone warning

State Medicaid programs use preferred drug lists to help limit prescribing of high-cost drugs and, at the same time, to free providers from having to obtain prior authorization for a given prescription. We examined the impact of the Food and Drug Administration's May 2007 safety warning regarding rosiglitazone (Avandia), a diabetes drug found to raise the risk of heart attacks, on the drug's availability on state Medicaid preferred drug lists and on the prescribing of diabetes medications more generally for Medicaid beneficiaries. Nearly all state Medicaid programs covered rosiglitazone as a preferred drug, requiring no prior authorization, with minimal change after the safety warning. At the same time, the safety warning was associated with a greater-than-expected decline in rosiglitazone prescribing among states providing coverage as a preferred drug. This suggests that providers reacted to the safety warning by reducing prescriptions. However, Medicaid programs that did provide coverage of rosiglitazone as a preferred drug still exhibited prescribing rates that were three to five times greater than rates in programs that did not provide coverage without prior authorization. We conclude that state Medicaid programs missed important opportunities to promote safer, more effective prescribing in the wake of the 2007 safety warning about rosiglitazone by making full use of preferred drug lists and prior authorization programs.

Medicaid cost control measures aimed at second-generation antipsychotics led to less use of all antipsychotics

"Atypical" or second-generation antipsychotics are a class of drug introduced in the 1990 s for the treatment of schizophrenia. Given their growing use and rising cost, these and other psychotherapeutic drugs are increasingly subject to prior authorization and other restrictions in state Medicaid programs. To evaluate the effects of these policies, we collected drug-level information on their use and on utilization management strategies--for example, requirements for prior authorization, quantity limits, and so-called step therapy--in thirty state Medicaid programs between 1999 and 2008. In the eleven states that instituted prior authorization during that period, use of atypicals per enrollee rose by 14 percent, versus 19 percent in the other nineteen states. Prior authorization also had spillover effects, in that reduced use of drugs subject to this requirement was not fully offset by the substitution of other atypicals or of typical antipsychotics. To understand the impact on patients and the resulting use of health services, studies should be undertaken of a large, national sample of Medicaid enrollees being treated with atypical antipsychotics. Comparative effectiveness research should guide physicians and health plans on appropriate first treatments, while prior authorization policies should focus on moving patients to appropriate second-line therapies when necessary.

Payer types associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy in an ambulatory care setting

Objectives

Antipsychotic polypharmacy is increasingly prescribed despite little documented evidence of a therapeutic benefit. There is also a limited understanding of the role that health insurance plays on the prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy. This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between antipsychotic polypharmacy and individuals' intended source of payment in a US national sample of ambulatory care patients.

Methods

The study combined 2002, 2003 and 2004 data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) among adults seeking outpatient-based physician medical care services in the USA. We investigated characteristic differences among patients who were prescribed multiple antipsychotics versus individuals receiving only a single antipsychotic medication. Multivariable logistic regression examined the association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and patients' primary payment type classified as private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare or other (primarily out-of-pocket) payment type.

Key findings

Use of more than one antipsychotic agent was recorded in 68 of 830 (8.2%) outpatient physician visits in the 3-year period 2002–2004. Among the payer types studied, Medicaid payment status was correlated with increased risk of antipsychotic polypharmacy (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1–6.7).

Conclusions

Insurance status was associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy among non-institutionalized US residents prescribed antipsychotic medications. Patients reporting Medicaid as their primary payer were nearly three times as likely to be prescribed multiple antipsychotic drugs, potentially increasing their risk of adverse side effects as well as greater taxpayer burden. Future research should determine whether these trends continued after 2004 and to determine the costs of treating patients in the public sector with multiple antipsychotic drugs, a common scenario despite financial pressures and uncertain medical benefit.

The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is thought to identify what works and does not work in health care. We interpret CER as infusing evidence on product quality into markets, shifting the relative demand for products in CER studies. We analyze how shifts in demand affect health and health care spending and demonstrate that CER may raise or lower overall health when treatments have heterogeneous effects, but payers respond with product-specific coverage policies. Among patients with schizophrenia, we calibrate that subsidy policies based on the clinical trial CATIE may have reduced overall health by inducing some patients to switch away from schizophrenia treatments that were effective for them towards winners of the CER.

Enhancing prescription drug innovation and adoption

The adoption and use of a new drug would ideally be guided by its innovation and cost-effectiveness. However, information about the relative efficacy and safety of a drug is typically incomplete even well after market entry, and various other forces create a marketplace in which most new drugs are little better than their older counterparts. Five proposed mechanisms are considered for promoting innovation and reducing the use of therapies ultimately found to offer poor value or have unacceptable risks. These changes range from increasing the evidence required for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to modifying the structure of drug reimbursement. Despite the challenges of policy implementation, the United States has a long history of successfully improving the societal value and safe use of prescription medicines.

The pragmatist's guide to comparative effectiveness research

Following an acrimonious health care reform debate involving charges of "death panels," in 2010, Congress explicitly forbade the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in government programs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In this context, comparative effectiveness research emerged as an alternative strategy to understand better what works in health care. Put simply, comparative effectiveness research compares the efficacy of two or more diagnostic tests, treatments, or health care delivery methods without any explicit consideration of costs. To economists, the omission of costs from an assessment might seem nonsensical, but we argue that comparative effectiveness research still holds promise. First, it sidesteps one problem facing cost-effectiveness analysis--the widespread political resistance to the idea of using prices in health care. Second, there is little or no evidence on comparative effectiveness for a vast array of treatments: for example, we don't know whether proton-beam therapy, a very expensive treatment for prostate cancer (which requires building a cyclotron and a facility the size of a football field) offers any advantage over conventional approaches. Most drug studies compare new drugs to placebos, rather than "head-to-head" with other drugs on the market, leaving a vacuum as to which drug works best. Finally, the comparative effectiveness research can prove a useful first step even in the absence of cost information if it provides key estimates of treatment effects. After all, such effects are typically expensive to determine and require years or even decades of data. Costs are much easier to measure, and can be appended at a later date as financial Armageddon draws closer.

Medicaid medication access problems and increased psychiatric hospital and emergency care

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the extent to which Medicaid programs may incur increased psychiatric emergency department and hospital use associated with clinically unintended medication discontinuations, gaps, switches and other access problems attributed to prescription drug coverage and management.

METHOD

This study uses clinically detailed, physician-reported data. A total of 4866 psychiatrists in 10 states were randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile; 62% responded and 32% treated Medicaid patients and reported on 1625 systematically selected Medicaid patients. Propensity score multivariate models assessed predicted probabilities and mean number of emergency department visits and hospital days.

RESULTS

Many patients (46.0%, S.E.=1.3%) had medication access problems reported during the past year, including discontinuing or switching medications or inability to obtain clinically indicated prescriptions because of drug coverage or management. The expected number of emergency department visits was estimated to be 73.8% higher among patients with medication access problems reported compared to matched patients without access problems reported. Among acute stay inpatients, the expected number of hospital days was 71.7% higher for patients with medication access problems reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication access problems may have significant implications for Medicaid programs. The potential indirect costs of these policies in psychiatric and social services utilization should be considered in addition to direct pharmacy costs.

Broadened use of atypical antipsychotics: safety, effectiveness, and policy challenges

Atypical antipsychotic medications are increasingly used for a wide range of clinical indications in diverse populations, including privately and publicly insured youth and elderly nursing home residents. These trends heighten policy challenges for payers, patients, and clinicians related to appropriate prescribing and management, patient safety, and clinical effectiveness. For clinicians and patients, balancing risks and benefits is challenging, given the paucity of effective alternative treatments. For health care systems, regulators, and policymakers, challenges include developing the evidence base on comparative risks and benefits; defining measures of treatment quality; and implementing policies that encourage evidence-based practices while avoiding unduly burdensome restrictions.

Improving mental health treatments through comparative effectiveness research

There is a pressing need for comparative effectiveness research to improve mental health treatments. Although U.S. mental health spending has increased dramatically, mainly because of the rapid adoption of newer psychotropic medications, fewer than a quarter of people with serious mental illnesses receive appropriate care. Because of a general lack of information on the relative effectiveness of different treatments, payers are uncertain about the value of current spending, which in turn may deter new investments to reduce unmet need. We use several recent comparative effectiveness trials to illustrate the potential value of such research for improving practice and policy.

Dual eligibles with mental disorders and Medicare part D: how are they faring?

In 2006, six million beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid switched from Medicaid to Medicare Part D for coverage of their prescription drugs. This change led to an expanded role for Medicare in financing psychotropic medications for dual eligibles. A reduction in the number of plans serving these beneficiaries and an increase in utilization restrictions for some psychotropics since 2006 raise concerns about access to medications for dual eligibles with mental disorders and point to potential problems with adverse selection. To improve access for this population, Medicare might consider changes to its enrollment and risk-sharing systems.

Effects of prior authorization on medication discontinuation among Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

Few data exist on the cost and quality effects of increased use of prior-authorization policies to control psychoactive drug spending among persons with serious mental illness. This study examined the impact of a prior-authorization policy in Maine on second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant utilization, discontinuations in therapy, and pharmacy costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

Using Medicaid and Medicare utilization data for 2001-2004, the authors identified 5,336 patients with bipolar disorder in Maine (study state) and 1,376 in New Hampshire (comparison state). With an interrupted time-series and comparison group design, longitudinal changes were measured in second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant use; survival analysis was used to examine treatment discontinuations and rates of switching medications.

RESULTS

The prior-authorization policy resulted in an 8-percentage point reduction in the prevalence of use of nonpreferred second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant medications (those requiring prior authorization) but did not increase use of preferred agents (no prior authorization) or rates of switching. The prior-authorization policy reduced total pharmacy reimbursements for bipolar disorder by $27 per patient during the eight-month policy period. However, the hazard rate of treatment discontinuation (all bipolar drugs) while the policy was in effect was 2.28 (95% confidence interval=1.36-4.33) higher than during the prepolicy period, with adjustment for trends in the comparison state.

CONCLUSIONS

The small reduction in pharmacy spending for bipolar treatment after the policy was implemented may have resulted from higher rates of medication discontinuation rather than switching. The findings indicate that the prior-authorization policy in Maine may have increased patient risk without appreciable cost savings to the state.

Effects of prior authorization on medication discontinuation among Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

Few data exist on the cost and quality effects of increased use of prior-authorization policies to control psychoactive drug spending among persons with serious mental illness. This study examined the impact of a prior-authorization policy in Maine on second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant utilization, discontinuations in therapy, and pharmacy costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

Using Medicaid and Medicare utilization data for 2001-2004, the authors identified 5,336 patients with bipolar disorder in Maine (study state) and 1,376 in New Hampshire (comparison state). With an interrupted time-series and comparison group design, longitudinal changes were measured in second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant use; survival analysis was used to examine treatment discontinuations and rates of switching medications.

RESULTS

The prior-authorization policy resulted in an 8-percentage point reduction in the prevalence of use of nonpreferred second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant medications (those requiring prior authorization) but did not increase use of preferred agents (no prior authorization) or rates of switching. The prior-authorization policy reduced total pharmacy reimbursements for bipolar disorder by $27 per patient during the eight-month policy period. However, the hazard rate of treatment discontinuation (all bipolar drugs) while the policy was in effect was 2.28 (95% confidence interval=1.36-4.33) higher than during the prepolicy period, with adjustment for trends in the comparison state.

CONCLUSIONS

The small reduction in pharmacy spending for bipolar treatment after the policy was implemented may have resulted from higher rates of medication discontinuation rather than switching. The findings indicate that the prior-authorization policy in Maine may have increased patient risk without appreciable cost savings to the state.

Bridging bench and practice: translational research for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

Translational research is urgently needed to turn basic scientific discoveries into widespread health gains and nowhere are these needs greater than in conditions such as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. In this article, we discuss one type of translational research--called T1--which is needed to take advantage of developments in the basic neurosciences and translate them into more efficacious diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic interventions. However, ensuring that interventions from T1 research actually benefit patients will require a second form of translational research--called T2--to turn innovations into everyday clinical practice and health decision-making. Recent examples of T1 and T2 research in schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders as well as strategies for better linking T1 and T2 research agendas are covered.

Prior authorization for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a description of US Medicaid programs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate state Medicaid prior authorization programs for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

We obtained biologic DMARD prior authorization policy information from state Medicaid programs. Using aggregate Medicaid drug spending data, we calculated the proportion of DMARD prescriptions and spending attributed to adalimumab and etanercept in 1999 and 2005 and compared the changes in these proportions in states with and without prior authorization policies. Infliximab and other infused DMARDs were not included because of substantial missing data.

RESULTS

Thirty-two states required prior authorization for > or = 1 biologic DMARD, with wide variation in the specific agents covered and the criteria required for a drug to be authorized. There were 18 states with prior authorization requirements for adalimumab or etanercept. States that implemented prior authorization for these agents initially had lower use of the targeted medications, but use increased over time to a level similar to that in states that did not have prior authorization requirements.

CONCLUSION

States vary widely in their implementation of prior authorization policies to limit use of biologic DMARDs. Although it appears that these policies may have a short-term effect on the use of targeted medications, this effect does not appear to be sustained. The clinical impact and appropriateness of such policies is not clear from our data and should be studied further.

Effect of regulatory warnings on antipsychotic prescription rates among elderly patients with dementia: a population-based time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

Three warnings of serious adverse events associated with the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients with dementia were sent to health care professionals in Canada. We assessed the impact of these warnings on prescription rates of antipsychotic drugs in this patient population.

METHODS

We used prescription drug claims data from Ontario to calculate prescription rates of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients with dementia from May 1, 2000, to Feb. 28, 2007. We performed a time-series analysis to estimate the effect of each warning on rates of antipsychotic drug use.

RESULTS

Before the first warning, growth in the use of atypical antipsychotics was responsible for an increasing rate of overall antipsychotic use. Each warning was associated with a small relative decrease in the predicted growth in the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs: a 5.0% decrease after the first warning, 4.9% after the second and 3.2% after the third (each p < 0.05). The overall prescription rate of antipsychotic drugs among patients with dementia increased by 20%, from 1512 per 100 000 elderly patients in September 2002, the month before the first warning, to 1813 per 100 000 in February 2007, 20 months after the last warning.

INTERPRETATION

Although the warnings slowed the growth in the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs among patients with dementia, they did not reduce the overall prescription rate of these potentially dangerous drugs. More effective interventions are necessary to improve postmarket drug safety in vulnerable populations.