Andrew W Roberts1, Asheley C Skinner2, Julie C Lauffenburger3, Kimberly A Galt4,5. 1. Department of Population Health, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Sciences, Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. 5. Center for Health Services Research and Patient Safety, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lock-in programs are proliferating among private and public payers to restrict access to controlled substance prescriptions and enhance care coordination for patients exhibiting high-risk use of, primarily, opioids. Patients enrolled in lock-in programs are required to seek opioids from a designated provider and pharmacy for insurance coverage of their opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Lock-in program restrictions are often circumvented by patients through out-of-pocket cash purchases of opioid prescriptions, undermining the program's intended function. This study sought to construct and explain trajectories of Medicaid-covered and cash pay opioid prescription fills among adults enrolled in an opioid lock-in program. Methods: We used sequential explanatory mixed methods, which involved a quantitative retrospective cohort analysis of opioid fill trajectories using North Carolina Medicaid administrative claims data linked with state prescription drug monitoring program data, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews with North Carolina pharmacists. The quantitative component included adults enrolled in the North Carolina Medicaid lock-in program between 10/1/2010-3/31/2012. The qualitative component included a maximum variation sample of community pharmacists in North Carolina delivering care to lock-in patients. Quantitative outcomes included group-based trajectories of monthly Medicaid-covered and cash pay opioid prescription fills six months before and after LIP enrollment, and qualitative analyses generated themes explaining observed trajectories. Results: Two-thirds of subjects exhibited reduced Medicaid-covered opioid prescription fills and no increase in cash pay fills after lock-in enrollment, with one-third exhibiting increased cash pay fills after lock-in. Pharmacists attributed increases in cash pay fills primarily to illicit behaviors, while some cash pay behavior likely reflected new unintended barriers to care. Conclusions: Lock-in programs appear to reduce prescription opioid use for most enrolled patients. However, lock-in programs may have limited capacity to deter illicit behaviors among patients intent on abusing, misusing, or diverting these medications and may introduce new access barriers to necessary care for some.
BACKGROUND: Lock-in programs are proliferating among private and public payers to restrict access to controlled substance prescriptions and enhance care coordination for patients exhibiting high-risk use of, primarily, opioids. Patients enrolled in lock-in programs are required to seek opioids from a designated provider and pharmacy for insurance coverage of their opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Lock-in program restrictions are often circumvented by patients through out-of-pocket cash purchases of opioid prescriptions, undermining the program's intended function. This study sought to construct and explain trajectories of Medicaid-covered and cash pay opioid prescription fills among adults enrolled in an opioid lock-in program. Methods: We used sequential explanatory mixed methods, which involved a quantitative retrospective cohort analysis of opioid fill trajectories using North Carolina Medicaid administrative claims data linked with state prescription drug monitoring program data, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews with North Carolina pharmacists. The quantitative component included adults enrolled in the North Carolina Medicaid lock-in program between 10/1/2010-3/31/2012. The qualitative component included a maximum variation sample of community pharmacists in North Carolina delivering care to lock-in patients. Quantitative outcomes included group-based trajectories of monthly Medicaid-covered and cash pay opioid prescription fills six months before and after LIP enrollment, and qualitative analyses generated themes explaining observed trajectories. Results: Two-thirds of subjects exhibited reduced Medicaid-covered opioid prescription fills and no increase in cash pay fills after lock-in enrollment, with one-third exhibiting increased cash pay fills after lock-in. Pharmacists attributed increases in cash pay fills primarily to illicit behaviors, while some cash pay behavior likely reflected new unintended barriers to care. Conclusions: Lock-in programs appear to reduce prescription opioid use for most enrolled patients. However, lock-in programs may have limited capacity to deter illicit behaviors among patients intent on abusing, misusing, or diverting these medications and may introduce new access barriers to necessary care for some.
Authors: Andrew W Roberts; Joel F Farley; G Mark Holmes; Christine U Oramasionwu; Chris Ringwalt; Betsy Sleath; Asheley C Skinner Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Rebecca B Naumann; Stephen W Marshall; Nisha C Gottfredson; Jennifer L Lund; Christopher L Ringwalt; Asheley C Skinner Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sanae El Ibrahimi; Sara Hallvik; Kirbee Johnston; Gillian Leichtling; Esther Choo; Daniel M Hartung Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 2.732