PURPOSE Little is known about the prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) among parents who are living with children and their receipt of treatment, which could reduce the harmful effects of OUD on families. METHODS We used 2015-2017 cross-sectional national survey data to estimate prevalence and treatment of opioid use disorder and other substance use disorders (SUD) among parents living with children. RESULTS An estimated 623,000 parents with opioid use disorder are living with children, and less than one-third of these parents received treatment for illicit drug or alcohol use at a specialty facility or doctor's office. Treatment rates were even lower among the more than 4,000,000 parents estimated to have other SUDs. CONCLUSION Many parents in both groups have concurrent mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts and behavior. Primary care practices can play a critical role in screening and facilitating treatment initiation.
The OHH model appears to have the potential to effectively address the complex needs of individuals with opioid use disorder by providing whole-person care that integrates medical care, behavioral health, and social services and supports. The experiences of Maryland, Rhode Island, and Vermont can guide development and implementation of similar OHH initiatives in other states.
ImportanceThe US spends far more on brand-name prescription drugs than other comparable countries. However, studies of prescription drug spending in the US are often limited because there can be substantial differences in the confidential rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid vs other payers.ObjectivesTo demonstrate an approach for improved estimation of Medicaid rebates through case studies of 18 top-selling drugs to better understand trends in net Medicaid and non-Medicaid spending and prices for brand-name drugs.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsThis was a cross-sectional study of US pricing data from 2015 to 2019 derived from Medicaid State Drug Utilization data SSR Health, Medi-Span, the Federal Supply Schedule, and IQVIA. Pricing data for 18 top-selling brand-name drugs measured consistently in both SSR Health, which captures US sales reported by publicly traded companies, and IQVIA’s top US prescription drugs by nondiscounted spending in 2015 to 2019. Data were accessed and analyzed from January 2019 to June 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresGross and net Medicaid and non-Medicaid drug spending for the sample of 18 drugs and prices corresponding to a 30-day supply of medication.ResultsMedicaid aggregate gross spending for the 18 drugs in the sample increased 173%, from $3.6 billion in 2015 to $9.9 billion in 2019, and estimated net spending after discounts increased by 119%, from $1.4 billion to $3.0 billion. Medicaid inflation-linked rebates reduced average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 43% in 2019, and up to 67% for individual drugs. In addition to the basic rebate, the best price provision reduced the average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 3% in 2019 and up to 54% for individual drugs. Between 2015 and 2019 across all study drugs, estimated average non-Medicaid net 30-day prices were between 1.9 and 2.6 times higher than Medicaid net prices. Excluding adalimumab—a spending anomaly because of the entry of a new high-cost formulation—net prices weighted by average gross spending decreased annually by 1% from 2015 through 2019 for Medicaid, while increasing by 2% for non-Medicaid payers.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 18 top-selling brand-name drugs, excluding 1 anomaly, Medicaid average net prices declined from 2015 to 2019. Simultaneously, for non-Medicaid payers, net price increased more than previously published marketwide growth rates, raising the importance of restraining drug price growth in non-Medicaid markets. Rigorous and transparent methods to estimate Medicaid discounts are imperative to understand patterns in Medicaid and non-Medicaid prices and develop policies that better align drug prices with clinical benefits.
Millions of uninsured Americans do not sign up for available coverage despite job loss or other factors that would make them eligible for special enrollment periods (SEPs). Such periods let people enroll in nongroup insurance outside the usual open enrollment period for Marketplace coverage. Concerned that risk adjustment results in underpayment for the health risks associated with SEP enrollees, carriers rarely market their products to consumers eligible for SEPs, and many do not pay agents and brokers to enroll such consumers. To address the apparent underpayments, federal officials added enrollment duration factors that, starting in 2017, increased risk scores for SEP enrollees and other part-year members. Using individual-market claims data for 2015 from two large carriers, we found that risk adjustment did, in fact, undercompensate plans for part-year members. However, underpayment was much larger for SEP enrollees than for part-year members who joined during open enrollment periods. Short-term, urgent health problems appeared to drive enrollment more for SEP enrollees than for part-year members who signed up during open enrollment. We also found that the federal government's enrollment duration factors will remedy underpayment for part-year members whose coverage begins during open enrollment but leave carriers significantly underpaid for SEP enrollees. For carriers to recruit rather than avoid SEP enrollees, further increases to risk adjustment for such enrollees are likely needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.