阿片类药物使用障碍药物的事先授权限制:2005年至2019年州法律的趋势。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1080/07853890.2023.2171107
Barbara Andraka-Christou, Olivia Golan, Rachel Totaram, Maggie Ohama, Brendan Saloner, Adam J Gordon, Bradley D Stein
{"title":"阿片类药物使用障碍药物的事先授权限制:2005年至2019年州法律的趋势。","authors":"Barbara Andraka-Christou, Olivia Golan, Rachel Totaram, Maggie Ohama, Brendan Saloner, Adam J Gordon, Bradley D Stein","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2023.2171107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Research objective: </strong>Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) - including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone - are the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, insurers have required prior authorization for MOUD, but prior authorization is often reported as a key barrier to MOUD prescribing. Some states have passed laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization requirements. We sought to identify the frequency of MOUD prior authorization prohibitions in state laws and to categorize types of prohibitions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for regulations and statutes present in all U.S. states and Washington DC between 2005 and 2019 using MOUD-related terms in Westlaw legal software. In qualitative software, we coded laws discussing MOUD prior authorization using template analysis - a mixed deductive/inductive approach. Finally, we used coded laws to identify frequencies of states with prior authorization prohibitions, including changes over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No states had laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization between 2005 and 2015, with the first prohibition appearing in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization. In 2019, it was more common for states to have MOUD prior authorization prohibitions applying to all insurers (<i>n</i> = 10 states) than to only Medicaid (<i>n</i> = 7 states) or only non-Medicaid insurers (<i>n</i> = 1 state). In 2019, general prior authorization prohibitions (<i>n</i> = 10 states) were more common than prohibitions only applicable to medications on the formulary, prohibitions only applicable to medications on the preferred drug list, prohibitions only applicable during the first 5 days of treatment, and prohibitions only applicable during the first 30 days of treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The number of states with an MOUD prior authorization law prohibition increased in recent years. Such laws could help expand access to life-saving OUD treatments by making it easier for clinicians to prescribe MOUD.KEY MESSAGESNo states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions between 2005 and 2015 in state statutes or regulations, and only one state had such a prohibition in 2016.By 2019, fifteen states had an MOUD prior authorization prohibition law.States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization, including with respect to the insurer type, duration of the prohibition, and applicable medication.</p>","PeriodicalId":8371,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":"55 1","pages":"514-520"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9897778/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prior authorization restrictions on medications for opioid use disorder: trends in state laws from 2005 to 2019.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara Andraka-Christou, Olivia Golan, Rachel Totaram, Maggie Ohama, Brendan Saloner, Adam J Gordon, Bradley D Stein\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07853890.2023.2171107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Research objective: </strong>Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) - including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone - are the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, insurers have required prior authorization for MOUD, but prior authorization is often reported as a key barrier to MOUD prescribing. Some states have passed laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization requirements. We sought to identify the frequency of MOUD prior authorization prohibitions in state laws and to categorize types of prohibitions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for regulations and statutes present in all U.S. states and Washington DC between 2005 and 2019 using MOUD-related terms in Westlaw legal software. In qualitative software, we coded laws discussing MOUD prior authorization using template analysis - a mixed deductive/inductive approach. Finally, we used coded laws to identify frequencies of states with prior authorization prohibitions, including changes over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No states had laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization between 2005 and 2015, with the first prohibition appearing in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization. In 2019, it was more common for states to have MOUD prior authorization prohibitions applying to all insurers (<i>n</i> = 10 states) than to only Medicaid (<i>n</i> = 7 states) or only non-Medicaid insurers (<i>n</i> = 1 state). In 2019, general prior authorization prohibitions (<i>n</i> = 10 states) were more common than prohibitions only applicable to medications on the formulary, prohibitions only applicable to medications on the preferred drug list, prohibitions only applicable during the first 5 days of treatment, and prohibitions only applicable during the first 30 days of treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The number of states with an MOUD prior authorization law prohibition increased in recent years. Such laws could help expand access to life-saving OUD treatments by making it easier for clinicians to prescribe MOUD.KEY MESSAGESNo states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions between 2005 and 2015 in state statutes or regulations, and only one state had such a prohibition in 2016.By 2019, fifteen states had an MOUD prior authorization prohibition law.States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization, including with respect to the insurer type, duration of the prohibition, and applicable medication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"514-520\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9897778/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2171107\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2171107","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的:治疗阿片类药物使用障碍(MOUD)的药物,包括美沙酮、丁丙诺啡和纳曲酮,是治疗阿片样药物使用障碍最有效的药物。从历史上看,保险公司要求对MOUD进行事先授权,但事先授权通常被报道为MOUD处方的关键障碍。一些州已通过法律,禁止MOUD事先授权要求。我们试图确定州法律中MOUD事先授权禁令的频率,并对禁令的类型进行分类。方法:我们使用Westlaw法律软件中的MOUD相关术语搜索2005年至2019年间美国所有州和华盛顿特区的法规。在定性软件中,我们使用模板分析(一种演绎/归纳的混合方法)对讨论MOUD事先授权的法律进行了编码。最后,我们使用编码法律来确定有事先授权禁令的州的频率,包括随时间的变化。结果:在2005年至2015年间,没有任何州的法律禁止MOUD事先授权,第一项禁令出现在2016年。截至2019年,已有15个州颁布了MOUD事先授权禁令。各国在禁止事先批准谅解备忘录方面的做法差异很大。2019年,各州更常见的是对所有保险公司(n = 10个州)比仅医疗补助(n = 7个州)或仅限非医疗补助保险公司(n = 1状态)。2019年,一般事先授权禁令(n = 10个州)比仅适用于处方中药物的禁令、仅适用于首选药物清单上药物的禁令和仅适用于治疗前5天的禁令以及仅适用于前30天的禁令更常见 治疗天数。结论:近年来,《谅解备忘录》事先授权法禁止的州数量有所增加。这类法律可以通过让临床医生更容易地开具MOUD处方来帮助扩大获得拯救生命的OUD治疗的机会。KEY MESSAGESNo州在2005年至2015年的州法规或条例中没有MOUD事先授权禁令,2016年只有一个州有这样的禁令。到2019年,有15个州有MOUD预先授权禁令。各国在禁止MOUD事先授权方面的做法差异很大,包括保险公司类型、禁令期限和适用药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prior authorization restrictions on medications for opioid use disorder: trends in state laws from 2005 to 2019.

Research objective: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) - including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone - are the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, insurers have required prior authorization for MOUD, but prior authorization is often reported as a key barrier to MOUD prescribing. Some states have passed laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization requirements. We sought to identify the frequency of MOUD prior authorization prohibitions in state laws and to categorize types of prohibitions.

Methods: We searched for regulations and statutes present in all U.S. states and Washington DC between 2005 and 2019 using MOUD-related terms in Westlaw legal software. In qualitative software, we coded laws discussing MOUD prior authorization using template analysis - a mixed deductive/inductive approach. Finally, we used coded laws to identify frequencies of states with prior authorization prohibitions, including changes over time.

Results: No states had laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization between 2005 and 2015, with the first prohibition appearing in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization. In 2019, it was more common for states to have MOUD prior authorization prohibitions applying to all insurers (n = 10 states) than to only Medicaid (n = 7 states) or only non-Medicaid insurers (n = 1 state). In 2019, general prior authorization prohibitions (n = 10 states) were more common than prohibitions only applicable to medications on the formulary, prohibitions only applicable to medications on the preferred drug list, prohibitions only applicable during the first 5 days of treatment, and prohibitions only applicable during the first 30 days of treatment.

Conclusions: The number of states with an MOUD prior authorization law prohibition increased in recent years. Such laws could help expand access to life-saving OUD treatments by making it easier for clinicians to prescribe MOUD.KEY MESSAGESNo states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions between 2005 and 2015 in state statutes or regulations, and only one state had such a prohibition in 2016.By 2019, fifteen states had an MOUD prior authorization prohibition law.States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization, including with respect to the insurer type, duration of the prohibition, and applicable medication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of medicine
Annals of medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
292
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Medicine is one of the world’s leading general medical review journals, boasting an impact factor of 5.435. It presents high-quality topical review articles, commissioned by the Editors and Editorial Committee, as well as original articles. The journal provides the current opinion on recent developments across the major medical specialties, with a particular focus on internal medicine. The peer-reviewed content of the journal keeps readers updated on the latest advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of diseases, and in how molecular medicine and genetics can be applied in daily clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Metabolic landscape in venous thrombosis: insights into molecular biology and therapeutic implications. Predicting sleep based on physical activity, light exposure, and Heart rate variability data using wearable devices. Artificial intelligence-assisted quantitative CT parameters in predicting the degree of risk of solitary pulmonary nodules. Association of serum calcium and metabolically healthy obese in US adults: a cross-sectional study. Necessity of antiviral treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis B in the grey zone based on liver pathology analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1