Search

IMPORTANCE: There is limited information about trends in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) among Medicaid enrollees. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of medications for OUD and potential indicators of quality of care in multiple states. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory serial cross-sectional study of 1 024 301 Medicaid enrollees in 11 states aged 12 through 64 years (not eligible for Medicare) with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9 or ICD-10) codes for OUD from 2014 through 2018. Each state used generalized estimating equations to estimate associations between enrollee characteristics and outcome measure prevalence, subsequently pooled to generate global estimates using random effects meta-analyses. EXPOSURES: Calendar year, demographic characteristics, eligibility groups, and comorbidities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Use of medications for OUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone); potential indicators of good quality (OUD medication continuity for 180 days, behavioral health counseling, urine drug tests); potential indicators of poor quality (prescribing of opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines). RESULTS: In 2018, 41.7% of Medicaid enrollees with OUD were aged 21 through 34 years, 51.2% were female, 76.1% were non-Hispanic White, 50.7% were eligible through Medicaid expansion, and 50.6% had other substance use disorders. Prevalence of OUD increased in these 11 states from 3.3% (290 628 of 8 737 082) in 2014 to 5.0% (527 983 of 10 585 790) in 2018. The pooled prevalence of enrollees with OUD receiving medication treatment increased from 47.8% in 2014 (range across states, 35.3% to 74.5%) to 57.1% in 2018 (range, 45.7% to 71.7%). The overall prevalence of enrollees receiving 180 days of continuous medications for OUD did not significantly change from the 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 periods (−0.01 prevalence difference, 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.02) with state variability in trend (90% prediction interval, −0.08 to 0.06). Non-Hispanic Black enrollees had lower OUD medication use than White enrollees (prevalence ratio [PR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81; P

This pharmacoepidemiology study uses Medicare data to estimate US prescription fills for antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, opioids, and antiepileptics among community-dwelling older adults with dementia in 2014-2015, and identifies the most commonly prescribed medications.

Importance Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for depression but is infrequently used owing to stigma, uncertainty about indications, adverse effects, and perceived high cost. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants A decision analytic model integrating data on clinical efficacy, costs, and quality-of-life effects of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy was used to simulate depression treatment during a 4-year horizon from a US health care sector perspective. Model input data were drawn from multiple meta-analyses, randomized trials, and observational studies of patients with depression. Where possible, data sources were restricted to US-based studies of nonpsychotic major depression. Data were analyzed between June 2017 and January 2018. Interventions Six alternative strategies for incorporating ECT into depression treatment (after failure of 0-5 lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy) compared with no ECT. Main Outcomes and Measures Remission, response, and nonresponse of depression; quality-adjusted life-years; costs in 2013 US dollars; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year or less were designated cost-effective. Results Based on the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial, we simulated a population with a mean (SD) age of 40.7 (13.2) years, and 62.2% women. Over 4 years, ECT was projected to reduce time with uncontrolled depression from 50% of life-years to 33% to 37% of life-years, with greater improvements when ECT is offered earlier. Mean health care costs were increased by $7300 to $12 000, with greater incremental costs when ECT was offered earlier. In the base case, third-line ECT was cost-effective, with an ICER of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Third-line ECT remained cost-effective in a range of univariate, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Incorporating all input data uncertainty, we estimate a 74% to 78% likelihood that at least 1 of the ECT strategies is cost-effective and a 56% to 58% likelihood that third-line ECT is the optimal strategy. Conclusions and Relevance For US patients with treatment-resistant depression, ECT may be an effective and cost-effective treatment option. Although many factors influence the decision to proceed with ECT, these data suggest that, from a health-economic standpoint, ECT should be considered after failure of 2 or more lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy.