Cost-benefit analysis of sacubitril/valsartan in a Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in adults with heart failure (HF) enrolled in a state Medicaid plan to prevent HF-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, claims-based, cost-benefit study. METHODS: This exploratory cost-benefit study evaluated Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) members with HF who had an initial pharmacy claim for sacubitril/valsartan between July 7, 2015, and August 31, 2018 (index date). Efficacy outcomes, HF-related hospitalizations and ED visits, and cost outcomes for HF-related medical and pharmacy claims were compared 1 year pre- and post index date. Benefit-cost ratio and net benefit were calculated for all members. A subgroup analysis evaluated the outcomes for members who were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: A total of 22 members were identified for the study. There were fewer hospitalizations and ED visits post sacubitril/valsartan initiation in the overall population (post vs pre-: 23 vs 26) and among 12 members adherent to sacubitril/valsartan (10 vs 12). The median (IQR) cost for hospitalizations and ED visits was lower during the postindex period ($576 [$19,439] vs $132 [$11,692]) whereas the median (IQR) cost for HF pharmacotherapies was greater during the postindex period ($4578 [$3033] vs $270 [$255]). The benefit-cost ratio and net benefit were 0.91 and -$336, respectively, for all members and 1.43 and $2337, respectively, for members adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit as demonstrated by the cost avoidance of HF-related hospitalizations and ED visits did not outweigh the additional costs of sacubitril/valsartan, but cost-benefit was observed in members who were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan.

Evaluating proactive outreach for prior authorization recertifications in Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a proactive provider intervention in prompting prior authorization (PA) submissions or provider response prior to PA expiration for medically complex Medicaid patients. STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post outreach study with data from pharmacy claims and provider outreach. METHODS: The intervention and historical comparison (control) groups included expired PAs from December 2019 to February 2020 and from December 2018 to February 2019, respectively. Provider outreach, including telephonic and fax attempts, was conducted over a 2-week period prior to PA expiration. Outcomes were classified as positive or negative based on provider conversation coupled with the result (eg, PA submission) for the intervention group and based solely on pharmacy claims for the control group. The primary end point was the percentage of positive outcomes between the groups, analyzed via χ2 test. The time from PA expiration to the new PA submission was evaluated via t test. RESULTS: A total of 342 outreach attempts were conducted for 270 PAs representing 193 unique patients. Outreach was more likely to result in positive outcomes in the intervention group vs no outreach in the control group (87% vs 25%; P < .00001). On average, PAs were submitted 3.5 days prior to expiration in the intervention group vs 13.0 days after expiration in the control group (t = -7.50; P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: Proactive outreach resulted in a greater percentage of PA submissions and a significantly reduced time to PA submission. These findings provide important information for payers in guiding clinical programs to enhance continuity of care among at-risk populations.

Effect of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor on Pulmonary Exacerbation Rates in Members with Cystic Fibrosis in a Medicaid Population.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) is indicated for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) homozygous for the F508del mutation in the CFTR gene. In clinical trials, LUM/IVA decreased pulmonary exacerbation rates. To our knowledge, there is no published data evaluating real-world outcomes for Medicaid patients receiving LUM/IVA. OBJECTIVE: To compare CF pulmonary exacerbation rates before and after initiation of LUM/IVA in 1 state's Medicaid program. METHODS: This pre-post claims analysis screened fee-for-service and managed Medicaid members who had ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for LUM/IVA between July 2, 2015, and September 30, 2016. Members were included if they were aged ≥ 6 years with a CF diagnosis and homozygous for the F508del mutation, consistent with the indication at study initiation. Exclusion criteria included Medicaid as a secondary payer or any break in coverage during the study. The index date was defined as the first claim for LUM/IVA. Demographics and outcomes were derived from pharmacy and medical claims. Outcomes included overall rate of pulmonary exacerbations (reported as the total events for the study population 6 months before and after the index date and average annualized rate). Pulmonary exacerbation was defined as any combination of medical claims for an emergency room (ER) visit or inpatient hospitalization with a CF pulmonary exacerbation or respiratory infection (ICD-9/10-CM codes) or pharmacy claims for an oral or intravenous antibiotic (excluding macrolides). A gap of > 7 days was considered a new pulmonary exacerbation. Paired t-test was used to test significance. RESULTS: 21 patients met inclusion criteria with an average age at treatment initiation of 20.1 years. Average proportion of days covered (SD) was 0.62 (0.29). The number of pulmonary exacerbations increased from 45 to 48 during the 6 months before and after the index date, respectively, and the annualized rate increased from 4.37 to 4.66 (P = 0.69). While the number of pulmonary exacerbations associated with antibiotics alone increased (23 to 33; P = 0.08), those associated with at least 1 ER visit or inpatient hospitalization decreased (22 to 15; P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis did not find a decrease in pulmonary exacerbation rate for Medicaid members receiving LUM/IVA; however, adherence was low. Further study of similar populations is needed to better understand the long-term effect of treatment. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. A poster of this project was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2018 in Boston, MA, on April 23-26, 2018.

Effectiveness of Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir and Predictors of Treatment Failure in Members with Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Medicaid Population.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is eradication of HCV ribonucleic acid, which is predicted by achievement of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12). Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir was approved by the FDA in 2014 and 2015 as a once-daily regimen for the treatment of HCV genotype 1 and HCV genotypes 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Although its efficacy has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, there is an unmet need for real-world effectiveness data and studies that assess the association of rates of SVR12 with specific clinical and demographic factors in the Medicaid population. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate the effectiveness of HCV genotype 1 treatment with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir as measured by the rate of SVR12 overall and within the subgroups of 8-, 12-, and 24-week regimens and (b) identify predictors of treatment failure in the Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the rate of SVR12 among 796 MassHealth Primary Care Clinician and fee-for-service plan members who completed treatment with at least one 8-, 12-, or 24-week treatment with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for HCV genotype 1 infection between October 10, 2014, and November 1, 2016. The following variables were evaluated to identify predictors of treatment failure: sex, history of treatment failure, cirrhosis, substance use disorder, human immunodeficiency virus coinfection, and concomitant use of interacting medications. The proportion of members who achieved SVR12 was calculated for the entire study population and stratified by treatment regimen. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of members who achieved SVR12, stratified by clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS: SVR12 was achieved in 95% (756/796) of members. High proportions of members who received 8 weeks of treatment or 12 weeks of treatment without concomitant ribavirin achieved SVR12 (96.0% [285/297] and 95.7% [382/399], respectively). A slightly lower proportion of members who received 12 weeks of treatment with concomitant ribavirin or 24 weeks of treatment achieved SVR12 (89.9% [62/69] and 87.1% [27/31], respectively). The proportion of members who achieved SVR12 with each treatment regimen was consistent when stratified by clinical and demographic variables. None of the included variables were found to be associated with statistically significant differences in odds of treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: In the Medicaid population of 1 state, treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir was associated with a high rate of SVR12. The outcomes of treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in the Medicaid population are comparable with outcomes observed in other patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no financial disclosures. A poster of this manuscript was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2017 Annual Meeting, March 27-30, 2017, in Denver, Colorado.

The Effect of a Federal Controlled Substance Act Schedule Change on Hydrocodone Combination Products Claims in a Medicaid Population.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) were the most prescribed medications in the United States. Under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, hydrocodone alone was classified as a Schedule II drug, while HCPs were classified as Schedule III, indicating a lower risk for abuse and misuse. However, according to a Drug Enforcement Agency analysis, the addition of nonopioids has not been shown to diminish abuse potential of hydrocodone. In response to concerns for drug abuse and overdose, the Drug Enforcement Agency rescheduled HCPs to Schedule II in October 2014, with the intent of limiting overprescribing and increasing awareness of their abuse potential. However, it is unknown whether this has affected the overall claims for HCPs in a Medicaid population. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the trend in HCP prescription claims with select non-HCP (opioid and nonopioid) analgesic claims before and after the HCP schedule change in the Massachusetts Medicaid fee-for-service/Primary Care Clinician plan population and (b) identify if there was a change in HCP new start member and claim characteristics before and after the HCP schedule change. METHODS: This quasi-experimental, retrospective study used enrollment and pharmacy claims data to evaluate all members in the study population 1 year before and after the HCP schedule change. The number of claims for HCPs and select non-HCP analgesics was reported as the monthly rate per total population, and an interrupted time series analysis compared the change in the monthly rate of claims across groups. Members with 1 or more pharmacy claims for a new HCP prescription during a 5-month period before or after the HCP schedule change were analyzed to determine member demographics (age, gender, and number of claims) and claim characteristics (average daily dose, average quantity per claim, and days supply). RESULTS: The rate of HCP claims increased before and decreased after the HCP schedule change. Controlling for the trend during the period before the HCP schedule change, the rate of HCP claims per 1,000 members per month decreased at a greater rate than non-HCP analgesics in the period after the HCP schedule change (P < 0.001). The percentage of HCP claims for new start members decreased after the HCP schedule change (44.9% vs. 34.1% of all HCP claims pre- to post-schedule change; P < 0.001). In the group of new starts, there was not a significant difference in the average daily dose (26.3 mg vs. 26.4 mg; P = 0.69), while there was a decrease in average number of tablets dispensed per claim (from 37.1 to 20.3 tablets; P < 0.001) and an increase in the percentage of claims for a shorter days supply (from 57.7% to 81.6%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the HCP schedule change may have contributed to the decrease in claims for HCPs in a Medicaid population. After the HCP schedule change, there was a trend towards decreased HCP use among new starts. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by all authors except for Arnold and Clements. Tran, Arnold, and Clements took the lead in data collection, along with Peristere, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors, except Arnold. The manuscript was written primarily by Tran, along with Lavitas, Stevens, and Greenwood, and revised by all the authors except Arnold and Peristere. A poster of this research project was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy's 2016 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, April 2016.