Christina M Andrews1, Amanda J Abraham1, Colleen M Grogan1, Melissa A Westlake1, Harold A Pollack1, Peter D Friedmann1. 1. Christina M. Andrews and Melissa A. Westlake are with the College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Amanda J. Abraham is with the School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia, Athens. Colleen M. Grogan and Harold A. Pollack are with the School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Peter D. Friedmann is with Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, and the University of Massachusetts, Baystate Campus, Springfield.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine how utilization restrictions on state Medicaid benefits for buprenorphine are related to addiction treatment programs' decision to offer the drug. METHODS: We used data from 2 waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey conducted in 2014 and 2017 in the United States to assess the relationship of utilization restrictions to buprenorphine availability. RESULTS: The proportion of programs offering buprenorphine was 43.2% in states that did not impose any utilization restrictions, 25.5% in states that imposed only annual limits, 17.3% in states that imposed only prior authorization, and 12.8% in states that imposed both. Programs in states requiring prior authorization from Medicaid had substantially lower odds of offering buprenorphine (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence interval = 0.29, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid prior authorization was linked to lower odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs. Public Health Implications. State Medicaid prior authorization requirements are linked to reduced odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs and may discourage prescribing.
OBJECTIVES: To examine how utilization restrictions on state Medicaid benefits for buprenorphine are related to addiction treatment programs' decision to offer the drug. METHODS: We used data from 2 waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey conducted in 2014 and 2017 in the United States to assess the relationship of utilization restrictions to buprenorphine availability. RESULTS: The proportion of programs offering buprenorphine was 43.2% in states that did not impose any utilization restrictions, 25.5% in states that imposed only annual limits, 17.3% in states that imposed only prior authorization, and 12.8% in states that imposed both. Programs in states requiring prior authorization from Medicaid had substantially lower odds of offering buprenorphine (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence interval = 0.29, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid prior authorization was linked to lower odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs. Public Health Implications. State Medicaid prior authorization requirements are linked to reduced odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs and may discourage prescribing.
Authors: Shashi N Kapadia; Judith L Griffin; Justine Waldman; Nicolas R Ziebarth; Bruce R Schackman; Czarina N Behrends Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Derek D Satre; Vanessa A Palzes; Kelly C Young-Wolff; Sujaya Parthasarathy; Constance Weisner; Joseph Guydish; Cynthia I Campbell Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-08-04
Authors: Alexander C Tsai; Mathew V Kiang; Michael L Barnett; Leo Beletsky; Katherine M Keyes; Emma E McGinty; Laramie R Smith; Steffanie A Strathdee; Sarah E Wakeman; Atheendar S Venkataramani Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Malia Duffy; Anna Ghosh; Ana Geltman; Gabriel Kieto Mahaniah; Molly Higgins-Biddle; Michele Clark Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 2.971
Authors: Jeromie Ballreich; Omar Mansour; Ellen Hu; Francine Chingcuanco; Harold A Pollack; David W Dowdy; G Caleb Alexander Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02
Authors: Marc R Larochelle; Sarah E Wakeman; Omid Ameli; Christine E Chaisson; Jeffrey T McPheeters; William H Crown; Francisca Azocar; Darshak M Sanghavi Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.178