Tag Archives: prescription drugs

Diagnosed opioid use disorder by payer

Over 25 million American adults report suffering from chronic pain on a daily basis, and a range of adverse health outcomes accompanies their pain. Beginning in the early 2000s, opioid analgesics were increasingly seen as a solution to the problem of under-treatment that had been a concern in the 1990s. From 1991 to 2011, the number of opioid prescriptions filled at U.S. retail pharmacies nearly tripled, increasing from 76 million to 219 million per year, though those numbers have started to decrease since the peak in 2011.

Despite the recent decrease in prescriptions of opioids, the human toll of the opioid crisis has continued to intensify. Illegally acquired heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have become the leading cause of overdose deaths. Opioid overdose deaths are now the single largest factor slowing the growth in U.S. life expectancy, and if current trends continue, opioid overdose deaths could outnumber suicides by 2019.

In this article, Milliman’s Stoddard Davenport and Katie Matthews help explain the scale of the opioid epidemic within the insurance industry.

Based on a sample of over 42 million people with commercial insurance, nearly 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries, and a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Medicaid beneficiaries in 49 states, we estimate that over 1.5 million insured Americans were diagnosed with an opioid use disorder in 2015 (the most recent year available). Figures 3 and 4 summarize these findings by payer. These results (and others presented throughout this report) have been age- and area-adjusted to be representative of the U.S. insured population as of 2015 using U.S. Census Bureau data.12

Figure 3: Diagnosed opioid use disorder by payer, 2015 (or most recent year)

Commercial
(2015)
622,000
Medicare
(2015)
239,000
Medicaid
(2013)
642,000

We found that about 41.4% of those with diagnosed opioid use disorder were commercially insured, 15.9% were Medicare beneficiaries, and 42.7% were Medicaid beneficiaries. Overall, the diagnosed prevalence rate of opioid use disorder was 3.28 per 1,000 for the commercially insured, 5.39 per 1,000 for those with Medicare, and 8.90 per 1,000 for those with Medicaid. Across all insurance payers, we found that the prevalence of opioid use disorder was 4.91 per 1,000.

Figure 4: National estimates of opioid use disorder diagnosis by payer, 2015 (or most recent year)

Payer Diagnosed prevalence per 1,000 Total diagnosed nationally No. (%)
Commercial (2015) 3.28 622,000 (41.4)
Medicare (2015) 5.39 239,000 (15.9)
Medicaid (2013) 8.90 642,000 (42.7)
Total 4.91 1,503,000 (100.0)

The authors also highlight the rate of opioid use disorder by age and sex.

Rates of opioid use disorder varied widely by age and sex, with men generally experiencing higher rates of opioid use disorder through age 65, and women experiencing higher rates from 66 and older. Rates were quite low through childhood, followed by a marked increase in the late teen years, peaking in the mid-20s at a rate of 5.47 per 1,000 for women (at age 24) and 10.00 per 1,000 for men (at age 25). Rates showed a sharp drop-off in the late 20s, followed by a rise to another peak in the mid-30s of about 3.76 per 1,000 for women (at age 35) and 6.37 per 1,000 for men (at age 36). From the late 30s through age 64, the gap between men and women closed and both experienced prevalence rates hovering between 3.50 to 4.00 per 1,000 through retirement age. Opioid use disorder rates for Medicare beneficiaries were generally higher for women than for men, and tapered off with advancing age. Comparable data for Medicaid were not available.

Plan sponsors must consider several strategies to manage pharmacy costs

In recent years, pharmacy costs have been a hot topic. Plan sponsors must remain vigilant and stay current on industry strategies used to manage pharmacy costs. In this article, Milliman consultant Ajanthan Balasinkam outlines a number of important considerations for plan sponsors, including plan design, contracts, the opioid crisis, and the specialty pipeline.

How will the budget bill affect Medicare Part D’s donut hole?

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 enacted key changes to Medicare Part D that will affect the program’s coverage gap—the “donut hole”—starting in 2019. The changes to the coverage gap have several financial implications for Part D stakeholders. In this article, Milliman consultants Adam Barnhart, Gabriela Dieguez, and David Mike explain the financial impact the bill will have on beneficiaries, employers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, the federal government, and plan sponsors.

Cost control measures for growing employer medical and pharmacy exposure

Rising prescription drug costs are old news. What is new, however, is just how high they have gone. Take the recent case of a member whose annual pharmacy spend is expected to exceed $7 million per year. That is the annual spend for one member. It turns out the medication is for a life-threatening, chronic, hereditary condition, and the medication will be needed for the remainder of the member’s life. This means no end in sight for the employer-sponsored insurance plan.

In the first year, the stop-loss coverage will cover the majority of this cost; however, there is the potential for a 40% to 60% increase in stop-loss premiums the following year, and even so, this member will be lasered out of any coverage in following years. In other words, the employer-sponsored health plan will be liable for this full amount going forward, plus any additional costs for this individual for medical or other pharmacy expenses (e.g., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, etc.).

Can employer-sponsored plans afford to absorb that kind of additional, annual spend in their healthcare budgets? In this particular case, the drug keeps the member alive, so not covering the medication is not an option, morally or ethically. But if this cost potentially bankrupts the plan, there will be no coverage for this member anyway.

So what can employers do to protect against this claim and others?

Continue reading

Implementing new pharmacy benefit manager

Sponsors of prescription drug plans that decide to change pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) may need help with pre- and post-implementation tasks. An experienced consultant can work with a sponsor to navigate complex contractual terms, develop an implementation plan, and conduct annual audits to ensure that the sponsor continues to receive the pricing terms and rebates negotiated with the PBM.

This paper by Milliman’s Angela Reed and Brian Anderson explores the PBM implementation process. The authors highlight key items that sponsors must consider for a successful PBM implementation and how an implementation manager can assist.

CMS proposed rules would impact Part D drug costs and plan designs

On November 16, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released 713 pages of proposed changes to Medicare Advantage (MA) and the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The proposed changes (file code CMS-4182-P) would take effect for contract year 2019 and are intended to manage utilization of opioids, reduce costs, and provide more plan choices. The updates present major changes to the way the programs operate. According to CMS, “the proposed changes would result in an estimated $195 million in savings a year for the Medicare program over 5 years (2019 through 2023).”

Some significant impacts on Part D that plans need to be aware of would include:

Midyear formulary changes: Plans would have more flexibility to immediately incorporate generic drugs as soon as they are available.

• Plans could assess the cost impact of each new generic drug based on member utilization to weigh against administration and disruption issues.
• This proposed rule could be significant, especially if the increases in generic approvals continue. According to Milliman’s internal research, there were about 14 and 31 significant first generic launches in 2015 and 2016, respectively. And this year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has continued to speed up the generic approval process.

Opioid treatment: Plans would be able to restrict access and manage opioid utilization. The proposed rules codify and expand upon the current Part D Opioid Drug Utilization Review Policy and Overutilizing Monitoring System.

Biosimilars: Plans would be able to categorize certain low-cost biosimilars as generics for low-income subsidy (LIS) cost sharing and non-LIS catastrophic cost sharing. Because the LIS copays in 2018 will be $3.35 for generics and $8.35 for brands, this is likely not to have a large impact on 1) lowering member costs, or 2) increasing biosimilar utilization.

Point-of-sale costs: The proposal includes a request for information (RFI) regarding applying price concessions and rebates at the point of sale, which could lower member cost sharing when taking brand medications that offer rebates, but may increase premiums and government cost.

Meaningful differences testing: With the elimination or modification of this testing, plans may be able to add more enhanced alternative Part D plans to their product portfolios in the same region.

A link to the Fact Sheet issued by CMS can be found here. CMS is accepting comments until January 16, 2018.