Article

Association Between Prior Authorization for Medications and Health Service Use by Medicaid Patients With Bipolar Disorder

Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 133 Brookline Ave., 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 1.99). 02/2011; 62(2):186-93. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.62.2.186
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined the association between a Medicaid prior-authorization policy for second-generation antipsychotic and anticonvulsant agents and medication discontinuation and health service use by patients with bipolar disorder.
A pre-post design with a historical comparison group was used to analyze Maine Medicaid and Medicare claims data. A total of 946 newly treated patients were identified during the eight-month policy (July 2003-February 2004), and a comparison group of 1,014 was identified from the prepolicy period (July 2002-February 2003). Patients were stratified by number of visits to community mental health centers (CMHCs) before medication initiation (proxy for illness severity): CMHC attenders, at least two visits; nonattenders, fewer than two. Changes in rates of medication discontinuation and outpatient, emergency room, and hospital visits were estimated.
Compared with nonattenders, at baseline CMHC attenders had substantially higher rates of comorbid mental disorders and use of medications and health services. The policy was associated with increased medication discontinuation among attenders and nonattenders, reductions in mental health visits after discontinuation among attenders (-.64 per patient per month; p<.05), and increases in emergency room visits after discontinuation among nonattenders (.16 per patient per month; p<.05). During the eight-month policy period, the policy had no detectable impact on hospitalization risk.
The prior-authorization policy was associated with increased medication discontinuation and subsequent changes in health service use. Although small, these unintended effects raise concerns about quality of care for a group of vulnerable patients. Long-term consequences of prior-authorization policies on patient outcomes warrant further investigation.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Dennis Ross-Degnan, Oct 19, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
97 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare Part D provides formulary protections for antipsychotics but does not exempt these drugs from cost-sharing. We investigated the impact of Part D coverage on antipsychotic drug spending, adherence, and clinical outcomes among beneficiaries with varying indications for use. METHODS:: We conducted a historical cohort study of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who received antipsychotic drugs, with diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or with no mental health diagnoses (N=10,190). Half had a coverage gap; half had no gap because of low-income subsidies. Using fixed effects regression models, we examined changes in spending and adherence as beneficiaries experienced cost-sharing increases after reaching the gap. We examined changes in hospitalizations and emergency department visits using proportional hazard models. RESULTS:: Across all diagnostic groups, total monthly expenditure on antipsychotic drugs decreased with cost-sharing increases in the gap compared with those with no gap (eg, schizophrenia: -$123 95% confidence interval [-$138, -$108]), and out-of-pocket spending increased (eg, schizophrenia: $104 [$98, $110]). Adherence similarly decreased, with the largest declines among those with schizophrenia (-20.6 percentage points [-22.3, -18.9] in proportion of days covered). Among beneficiaries with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, hospitalizations and emergency department visit rates increased with cost-sharing increases (eg, schizophrenia: hazard ratio=1.32 [1.06, 1.65] for all hospitalizations), but did not among subjects without mental health diagnoses. Clinical event rates did not change among beneficiaries with low-income subsidies without gaps. CONCLUSIONS:: There is evidence of interruptions in antipsychotic use attributable to Part D cost-sharing. Adverse events increased among beneficiaries with approved indications for use, but not among beneficiaries without such indications.
    Medical care 07/2013; 51(7):614-621. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829019c5 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE The use of second-generation antipsychotics for conditions not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a prevalent phenomenon with important implications. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of administrative claims for identifying off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in a Medicaid population in 2009. METHODS The authors estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values of Medicaid claims data for detecting off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in the electronic health records of 788 patients. Separate estimates were calculated for patients without schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the two most long-standing FDA indications for use of second-generation antipsychotics, and for a subset of patients using a second-generation antipsychotic with indications for treatment-resistant depression. RESULTS Medicaid claims determined a lack of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the medical record with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 85%. The prevalence of identifying neither diagnosis was 83%, which was associated with a predictive ability (PPV) of 96%. Among those using a second-generation antipsychotic with an indication for treatment-resistant depression, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of Medicaid claims for identifying off-label use were 41%, 86%, and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Medicaid claims data had high predictive ability for identifying users of second-generation antipsychotics who did not have documentation of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the medical record. The predictive utility of the claims was diminished when the analyses were limited to patients using a second-generation antipsychotic with an indication for treatment-resistant depression.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 09/2013; 64(12). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.005482012 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 12/2013; 65(3). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201300123 · 1.99 Impact Factor