Use of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Final Report

02/12/2019

Truven Health Analytics

Printer Friendly Version in PDF Format (67 PDF pages)


ABSTRACT

This project assessed changes in Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) treatment utilization and expenditures in the employer-sponsored private health insurance market at two timepoints, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015, that mark the periods before and after implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), the Affordable Care Act, the introduction and expanded use of new opioid treatment medications, and other initiatives to expand substance use disorder treatment access.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and views expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the contractor or any other funding organization. This report was completed and submitted on March 30, 2018.


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

  • Legislation to Expand Access to Treatment
  • Private Insurance Coverage for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Medication-Assisted Treatment

OBJECTIVES

METHODS

  • Data
  • Study Population
  • Study Periods
  • Analytic Files
  • Variable Definitions

ANALYTIC APPROACH

  • Coverage
  • Utilization
  • Spending

RESULTS

  • Summary Statistics
  • Health Plan Coverage of Services
  • Member Service Use
  • Spending

CONCLUSION

  • Key Findings
  • Implications
  • Future Directions

NOTES

APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES

  • FIGURE ES1: Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Paying for OUD Treatment Services in the 2-Year Periods, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • FIGURE ES2: Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Enrollees with OUD Who Accessed OUD Services, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • FIGURE ES3: Average Annualized Per Person Out-of-Pocket Spending Adjusted for Inflation for OUD Services by Plan Enrollees with OUD
  • FIGURE 1: Timeline of MAT FDA Approval and Federal Legislation Affecting Access to Substance Use Treatment
  • FIGURE 2: Percentage of Claim Paid by Insurer for Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • FIGURE 3: Average Plan-Level Percentage of Episodes That Met Each Outcome Stratified by Falling Above or Below the Median Reimbursement Rate of 78.5% Among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2014-2015

LIST OF TABLES

  • TABLE 1: OUD Treatment Service Category Definitions
  • TABLE 2: Descriptive Information on Plan, Individual, Episode, and Claims-Level Analytic Datasets from Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans by Time Period, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 3: Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Paying for OUD Treatment Services in the 2-Year Periods, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 4: Utilization of OUD Services among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 5: Change in Rates in OUD Service Use among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, by Respective OUD Treatment Service Category, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 6: Among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, Number and Percentage of OUD Treatment Episodes That Included Each Service Type, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 7: Member Characteristics among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, by Whether Persons with OUD Accessed MAT, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 8: Average Total Spending Per Enrollee with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Standardized to a 12-Month Enrollment Period, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 9: Per Capita Out-of-Pocket Spending Per Enrollee with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Standardized to a 12-Month Enrollment Period, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
  • TABLE 10: Mean Amount Paid per Service Claim for Total Payments for Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015

 

ABSTRACT

This project assessed changes in Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) treatment utilization and expenditures in the employer-sponsored private health insurance market at two timepoints, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015, that mark the periods before and after implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the introduction and expanded use of new opioid treatment medications. We used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database of private employer-sponsored health plans. We included employees, spouses, and dependents aged 12-64 years, required at least 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year, and excluded capitated plans and plans without prescription drug claims. Employer-sponsored health plans paid for a much broader range of OUD treatment services, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) at the second period. MAT use was similar in the two periods, with buprenorphine being the most common and naltrexone seeing a substantial increase in use. In 2014-2015, there was a shift in the types of services used during treatment episodes, with outpatient office visits having the highest frequency (56.2 percent) compared with other OUD services. Women with an OUD were significantly less likely than men with an OUD to receive MAT. The age group with the highest MAT use was 18-44-year-olds. There was a shift in 2014-2015 toward the insured member being more likely than spouses or dependents to receive MAT. Both insurers and enrollees paid more for substance use disorder treatment in the second period, and in 2014-2015, insurers paid a lower portion of total treatment costs. Treatment initiation, engagement, and retention all were positively associated with plan level of reimbursement. The association was strongest with treatment initiation and more modest with engagement and retention.

 

ACRONYMS

The following acronyms are mentioned in this report and/or appendices.

ACA Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
ASAM American Society of Addiction Medicine
 
BH Behavioral Health
 
CCAE Commercial Claims and Encounters
CI Confidence Interval
CPT Current Procedural Terminology
 
DX Diagnosis code
 
ED Emergency Department
EMTALA   Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act
 
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FIL Buccal Film
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center
 
GER Gluteal Extended Release
 
HCPCS Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
HEDIS Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set
 
ICD-9 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision  
ICD-10 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision
IM Intramuscular
 
MAT Medication-Assisted Treatment
MHPAEA Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act
MM Mucous Membrane
 
N/A Not Available
NDC National Drug Code
NQTL Non-Quantitative Treatment Limit
NSDUH National Survey on Drug Use and Health
 
OR Odds Ratio
OTP Opioid Treatment Program
OUD Opioid Use Disorder
 
POS Place Of Service
 
Rev Revenue code
RHC Rural Health Clinic
Rx Prescription fill
 
SD Standard Deviation
SL Sublingual
SUD Substance Use Disorder
 
TAB Tablet
TMS Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Tx Treatment code

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Drug overdose from illegal (e.g., heroin) and prescription (e.g., oxycodone, hydrocodone) opioids is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Among a total of 52,404 deaths from a drug overdose in 2015, 63.1 percent involved opioids.[1] Federal policy initiatives and advancements in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have expanded access to treatment by increasing the number of people with health insurance, requiring health insurance plans to cover substance use disorder (SUD) treatment at the same benefit level that physical health services are covered, and expanding medication-assisted treatment (MAT) options for OUD.

Consequently, private insurance has become a more prominent payer of SUD treatment services. Between 2004 and 2014, the share of the total spending for SUD treatment in the United States paid for by private insurance increased from 13 percent to 18 percent.[2] Among those with commercial insurance, professional charges (e.g., those for physician or psychologist who bill for services) for OUD treatment rose by more than ten-fold from 2011 to 2015 (from $71.66 million to $721.80 million). In 2014 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) were a covered service in 97 percent of private plans, and all health plans covered the treatment medication buprenorphine under the pharmacy benefit in 2010.[3]

Treatment options for OUD include individual or group counseling, medication, and support services to help with housing, employment, or other resources needed to sustain recovery.[4] Generally, both counseling and support services are recommended in conjunction with medication to maximize treatment success. Treatment may be offered in a variety of settings depending on the severity of the SUD and the availability of services. Alignment of treatment intensity with the severity and complexity of an individual's OUD has been shown to improve treatment outcomes.[5]

To understand SUD treatment patterns in private insurance, we used commercial insurance claims data to evaluate OUD treatment paid for by employer-sponsored health insurance plans before and after the implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the introduction of new forms of MAT. The sample of plans included primarily large health plans, but also included small plans. This study expands on the existing literature by examining both the receipt of MAT and other OUD services and settings (i.e., detoxification, psychotherapy) among the population with private insurance.

Objectives

This project assessed changes in OUD treatment utilization and expenditures in the employer-sponsored private health insurance market at two timepoints, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015, that mark the periods before and after implementation of the MHPAEA, the ACA, the introduction and expanded use of new opioid treatment medications, and other initiatives to expand SUD treatment access. It is not an evaluation of any specific law or event, but rather an investigation of: (1) whether access to treatment among those with private insurance improved over time; and (2) any remaining treatment gaps--for example, lack of coverage for specific types of services--and access barriers--for example, high out-of-pocket costs. We organized the analyses around understanding changes in the types of services plans covered, the volume and types of services individuals received, and the associated spending by plans and individuals.

Specifically, we analyzed the following:

  1. Coverage. The coverage analyses examined whether a higher percentage of plans paid for treatment and whether there were changes in the types of services paid for--that is, whether plans paid for a broader range of services. We did not have information on which services were covered by the plans, therefore, we approximated coverage by reporting what services plans paid for.

  2. Utilization. The utilization analyses examined whether a higher percentage of members with an OUD received any treatment or specific types of services including MAT and psychosocial therapy, whether those in treatment used services more frequently, and how treatment episodes compared in terms of the average length of treatment, the types of services received during an episode, and whether there were differences in the characteristics of members who received MAT compared with those who did not.

  3. Spending. The spending analyses examined total spending disaggregated by insurer and out-of-pocket spending, spending per user, and spending per unit of service for different types of services. Further, we investigated whether initiation, engagement, and retention in treatment was influenced by the relative share of treatment costs paid by insurers and individuals.

Methods

Data. We used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) Database for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2014, and 2015. The Marketscan CCAE Database contains private insurance claims from approximately 150 large employers for employees, their dependents, and early retirees. It is the largest commercial convenience sample in the United States.

Study population. We included private employer-sponsored health plan members, which included employees, spouses, and dependents aged 12-64 years. We excluded enrollees under age 12 years because of the low prevalence of OUD and enrollees over age 64 because of Medicare eligibility and the possibility of having secondary insurance. We required at least 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year to capture a complete or nearly complete treatment picture for each individual. We excluded plans without prescription drug claims because of the importance of having complete service records for each enrollee and the need to capture use of MAT. And we excluded claims covered by capitated plans that did not include reimbursement information.

We restricted the enrollee-level analyses to enrollees with OUD, as defined below, and we restricted the plan-level analyses to plans with at least ten enrollees with OUD. For the analyses of the relationship between insurer level of reimbursement and treatment initiation and engagement, we further restricted the sample of plans to exclude plans with fewer than ten treatment episodes, plans with fewer than ten people, and individuals below the 25th and above the 99th percentile of total costs.

Study periods. We examined two study periods over a 10-year timeframe--2006-2007 and 2014-2015--before and after important federal policy changes and changes in the availability and accessibility of OUD treatment. We selected 2-year periods so that we would have enough enrollees with OUD and sufficient volume of less commonly used service types to report detailed service use.

Analytic files. We constructed several analytic files to allow us to report on utilization and spending from the perspectives of what plans paid for, what services individuals used, the composition of treatment episodes, and costs to insurers and enrollees. These included the source claims-level analytic files, which included all inpatient admissions, outpatient services, and prescription drug fills and an individual-level file which included summary variables on service use and spending; demographic and health plan characteristics, and mental and physical health conditions. We aggregated the individual-level file to the plan-level in order to report the percentage of plans that paid for particular OUD services.

Variable definitions. We constructed variables to define OUD, characterize the sample and health plans, and to define service types and utilization rates, number of treatment episodes, and financial variables. Below we describe how we defined each of these variables.

  • Opioid use disorder. As described, the analytic data files included members with OUD defined on the basis of either having an OUD diagnosis or receiving OUD treatment, presuming that individuals receiving treatment qualified for an OUD diagnosis even if the diagnostic code was missing from the claims record. Specifically, individuals were classified as having OUD and included in the analytic files if they: (1) had two or more outpatient visits on different days or one inpatient stay with an OUD diagnosis in any claims field; (2) had an MAT prescription fill; or (3) had an MAT administration procedure code.

  • Service categories. We classified all OUD treatment services into specific service categories using standard billing codes. We defined the following service categories: inpatient treatment, residential services, intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, psychotherapy, peer support, case management, and outpatient detoxification. Use of MAT was captured through the prescription claims codes for buprenorphine and naltrexone, as well as service administration codes, which are used to bill for MAT administration--for example, giving a Vivitrol injection or administering methadone in an OTP.

  • Utilization. We created binary variables indicating whether the member used each service type. We then computed the number of times that each respective service was used and computed a 12-month utilization rate for each service.

  • Coverage. For each included plan, we created binary variables indicating whether any OUD service and each respective OUD service was received by a health plan enrollee.

  • Financial variables. We computed variables to reflect insurer and individual (plan enrollee) spending. These included total payment, insurance payment, and out-of-pocket payment. Out-of-pocket payments included deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance. They did not include the cost of insurance premiums.

  • Treatment initiation, engagement, and retention. We defined whether each treatment episode met the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set treatment initiation and engagement criteria.[6] Additionally, we categorized treatment episode length into 30, 90, and 180+ days to capture varying lengths of treatment.

This project investigated changes in OUD treatment coverage, utilization, and expenditures in the private health insurance market before (2006-2007) and after (2014-2015) phased implementation of the MHPAEA and the ACA and the emergence of new Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved MATs. The coverage analyses examined the percentage of plans paying for any OUD treatment and specific types of treatment. The utilization analyses examined overall treatment use, use of specific service types, and patterns of MAT use by individuals. The spending analyses examined total spending for OUD treatment, cost-sharing between insurers and members, and the impact of cost-sharing on OUD treatment initiation, engagement, and retention.

Results

Coverage. We found that a higher percentage of plans paid for OUD treatment at the second period, and they paid for a much broader range of services, including MAT (Figure ES1). Notably, a higher percentage of plans paid for intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy. This increase may have resulted from health plans adjusting their coverage requirements in accordance with the MHPAEA and the ACA, health plans recognizing the need to increase services given the increasing rates of OUD, or an emphasis on providing support services in conjunction with MAT.[7] Although there was a substantial increase in residential treatment, still only 13 percent of plans paid for this type of treatment in 2014-2015. The general trend of increasing the range of services paid for suggests improved adherence to American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria; however, the continued lower coverage of higher-intensity services--residential, intensive outpatient, and partial hospitalization--reflects a lack of coverage for higher-intensity services.

FIGURE ES1. Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plansa Paying for OUD Treatment Services in the 2-Year Periods, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015b
FIGURE ES1, Bar Chart: We found that a higher percentage of plans paid for OUD treatment at the second period, and they paid for a much broader range of services, including MAT.  Notably, a higher percentage of plans paid for intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy.  This increase may have resulted from health plans adjusting their coverage requirements in accordance with the MHPAEA and the ACA, health plans recognizing the need to increase services given the increasing rates of OUD, or an emphasis on providing support services in conjunction with MAT. Although there was a substantial increase in residential treatment, still only 13% of plans paid for this type of treatment in 2014-2015.  The general trend of increasing the range of services paid for suggests improved adherence to ASAM criteria; however, the continued lower coverage of higher-intensity services--residential, intensive outpatient, and partial hospitalization--reflects a lack of coverage for higher-intensity services.
  1. Includes plans with 10 or more members that provided prescription drug data. Capitated plans without service encounter data were excluded. Enrollee inclusion criteria included enrollees with at least 1 inpatient claim with any listed OUD diagnosis or 2 outpatient claims with any listed OUD diagnosis or a buprenorphine with naloxone prescription, Vivitrol prescription, buprenorphine service administration, or methadone service administration in the relevant period. Enrollees selected were aged 12-64 years from employer-sponsored commercial insurance plans with 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year in the period.
  2. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.

Utilization. We found that members in OUD treatment used intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy more frequently compared with other OUD services and settings in 2014-2015 (Figure ES2). Overall MAT use was similar in the two time periods, with buprenorphine being the most common and naltrexone seeing a substantial increase in use. These findings reflect a long-term trend in the field of behavioral health, shifting away from long-term inpatient and residential stays toward placing more emphasis on effective medication treatment and community-based care.[8]

FIGURE ES2. Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Enrolleesa with OUD Who Accessed OUD Services, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015b
FIGURE ES2, Bart Chart: We found that members in OUD treatment used intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy more frequently compared with other OUD services and settings in 2014-2015.  Overall MAT use was similar in the 2 time periods, with buprenorphine being the most common and naltrexone seeing a substantial increase in use.  These findings reflect a long-term trend in the field of behavioral health, shifting away from long-term inpatient and residential stays toward placing more emphasis on effective medication treatment and community-based care.
  1. Member-level N refers to the total number of enrollees who were included in each of our cohorts using our population definition criteria. The population inclusion criteria included having at least 1 inpatient claim with any listed OUD diagnosis or 2 outpatient claims with any listed OUD diagnosis or having a buprenorphine with naloxone prescription, Vivitrol prescription, buprenorphine service administration, or methadone service administration in the relevant period. Enrollees selected were aged 12-64 years from employer-sponsored commercial insurance plans with 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year in the period. Capitated plans without service encounter data and plans without prescription drug data were excluded.
  2. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.

In 2006-2007, the types of services received during an episode of treatment with the highest frequency included receiving any MAT (54.6 percent) and buprenorphine prescription fills/service administration (50.7 percent). In 2014-2015, there was a shift in the types of services used during treatment episodes, with outpatient office visits having the highest frequency (56.2 percent) compared with other OUD services. Private health plan management strategies of prior authorization and step therapy may partly explain why our findings revealed decreases in the percentage of episodes that included any MAT and buprenorphine prescription fills between the time periods.

The decrease in the percentage of episodes that included any MAT and buprenorphine prescription fills between the time periods may reflect a shortage of waivered physicians qualified to prescribe buprenorphine.

Women with an OUD were significantly less likely than men with an OUD to receive MAT in both periods. The age group with the highest MAT use was 18-44-year-olds, in which the differences were more pronounced in 2014-2015. There was a shift in 2014-2015 toward the insured member being more likely than spouses or dependents to receive MAT. This finding may reflect greater recognition of the impact of the opioid epidemic and lower stigma associated with receiving treatment among employed individuals.

Spending. In 2006-2007, insurers paid 84 percent of the total treatment costs. This fell to 79 percent in 2014-2015. The most substantial cost shifts were for more intensive services, that is, inpatient and residential services. However, insurers began paying a larger portion of MAT costs (from 78 percent to 81 percent) and intensive outpatient/partial hospitalization costs (from 84 percent to 85 percent).

Out-of-pocket spending for all OUD services and settings increased between the time periods (Figure ES3). The largest increase in cost per user was for intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization, which went from $221 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $794 in Time 2. Among all types of OUD services and settings, inpatient services accounted for the highest out-of-pocket costs per user for both time periods. However, less intensive services--outpatient office visits and psychotherapy--saw only modest increases.

FIGURE ES3. Average Annualizeda Per Person Out-of-Pocket Spending Adjustedb for Inflation for OUD Services by Plan Enrollees with OUDc
FIGURE ES3, Bar chart: Out-of-pocket spending for all OUD services and settings increased between the time periods.  The largest increase in cost per user was for intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization, which went from $221 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $794 in Time 2.  Among all types of OUD services and settings, inpatient services accounted for the highest out-of-pocket costs per user for both time periods.  However, less intensive services--outpatient office visits and psychotherapy--saw only modest increases.
  1. Standardization accounts for enrollees with less than 12 months of enrollment and enrollees with 2 years of enrollment.
  2. Means were adjusted using the consumer price index medical care inflation index.
  3. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.

We used the plan level of reimbursement to assess the association between coverage level and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention at 30, 90, and 180+ days. Each treatment outcome was positively associated with plan level of reimbursement. The association was strongest with treatment initiation and more modest with the engagement and retention indicators. This finding suggests that plan level of reimbursement more strongly influenced whether patients began treatment than whether they persisted in treatment. This may relate to deductible requirements that could be a barrier to initiating treatment.

In terms of cost per unit of service, adjusting for inflation, most services types increased in cost. The most substantial increase was for residential services which increased by 160.5 percent. The per unit costs for outpatient office visits and methadone administration fell over time.

The observed increases in total spending by private insurance aligns with national spending trends for SUD which report that private insurance accounted for 18 percent of total SUD spending in 2014, up from 13 percent in 2007.[9]

Conclusion

These findings highlight how the MHPAEA and the ACA as well as new FDA-approved MAT expanded OUD treatment coverage, utilization, and expenditures in the private health insurance market between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015. Overall, our findings reflect expanded availability, greater use of OUD treatment services, and higher payments to service providers for enrollees in large employer-sponsored health plans. The trend toward increasing the range of service types paid for suggests improved adherence to ASAM treatment criteria and reflects a long-term trend in behavioral health, shifting away from long-term inpatient and residential stays toward a greater emphasis on medication treatment and community-based care.

However, there remain significant barriers to treatment access. The higher cost and lower insurance reimbursement for inpatient care and lower utilization of residential services reflects a lack of availability of higher-intensity services which may be needed for more severe cases of OUD, particularly during treatment initiation before patients can be transitioned successfully to outpatient treatment. Further, only half of those who could potentially benefit from MAT received it, and access to MAT was even lower for women and enrollees below or above the 18-44 year age range. It is critical to ensure widespread availability of MAT and access to the range of service types including higher-intensity services.

 

INTRODUCTION

Drug overdose from illegal (e.g., heroin) and prescription (e.g., oxycodone, hydrocodone) opioids now is the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Overdose deaths resulting from prescription opioids have quadrupled since 1999, with approximately 15,000 prescription opioid-related deaths in 2015.[10] Among a total of 52,404 deaths from a drug overdose in 2015, 63.1 percent involved illegal or prescription opioids.[11] As described below, federal policy initiatives and advancements in available treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) have expanded access to treatment by increasing the number of people with health insurance, requiring health insurance plans to cover substance use disorder (SUD) treatment at the same benefit level that physical health services are covered, and expanding medication-assisted treatment (MAT) options for OUD.

This paper examines changes in OUD treatment use and spending among those with private insurance before and after these developments. Below we describe the legislative acts and the MAT advancements and their anticipated impacts on OUD treatment among those with privately insurance. Figure 1 illustrates the timeline of key developments in relation to the time periods selected for the study.

FIGURE 1. Timeline of MAT FDA Approval and Federal Legislation Affecting Access to Substance Use Treatment
FIGURE 1, Timeline: This is a timeline from 1947 with the FDA approval of Methadone to 2013 with the introduction of generic buprenorphine/naloxone, the figure denotes the time periods of 2006-2007 and 2014-2015.

Legislation to Expand Access to Treatment

Despite the availability of effective treatment, use of treatment services has remained extremely low. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimated that in 2015, just 14 percent of adults aged 18-64 years with an SUD received treatment in the past year. Among those with private insurance, just 10 percent received treatment. Based on our own analysis of NSDUH data, an estimated 0.33 percent of individuals aged 18-64 with private insurance had a diagnosis of opioid dependence in 2014, up from 0.23 percent in 2007. These rates of opioid dependence are about half those found in the general population, but show a similar increase over this time period.[12] In addition to several state and local actions to increase access to SUD treatment, two major pieces of federal legislation were enacted to expand access to health services in general and mental health and SUD treatment specifically--the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010. These laws and their potential impact on access to SUD treatment are described below.

The MHPAEA required that the cost-sharing and treatment limitations for SUD treatment, if covered by a health plan, must be comparable to and no more restrictive than medications for other medical or surgical needs.[13] These requirements apply to both quantitative and non-quantitative treatment limits (NQTLs), which include some of the utilization management techniques commonly applied to MAT medications, for example, prior authorization and step therapy.

The MHPAEA prohibits the use of any NQTLs for mental health or SUD benefits unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying the NQTLs to the behavioral health benefits in the classification are comparable to, and applied no more stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying the NQTLs to medical benefits in the same benefit classification (e.g., the prescription drug benefit classification). Both federal-level and state-level efforts have attempted to improve enforcement of the MHPAEA, which should improve access to treatment, including MAT.[14]

A study examining the direct effect of the MHPAEA on SUD treatment outcomes found that, after the first year of implementation, no significant change was observed in patient initiation or engagement.[15] However, the direct effects of this law on patient outcomes may be delayed as health plans adjust to and incorporate their new coverage requirements. Health plans also still are in the process of satisfying more recent regulatory requirements,[16] which may influence implementation and ultimately access and use of treatment services.

The ACA expanded both public and private insurance coverage, providing greater access to health care. Regarding SUD treatment, the ACA eliminated lifetime caps on treatment services and restricted the annual caps that insurance plans can impose.[17] Reducing these insurance-related barriers to treatment may affect the number of individuals initiating and continuing to engage in SUD services, although lack of treatment resources in certain areas may continue to impede access to those services.[18]

The ACA allows young adults to remain on their parents' insurance coverage through the year they turn 26. This provision shifts the insurance pool to include younger enrollees who have higher rates of substance use, which could increase the percentage of private insurance enrollees needing SUD treatment. Initial assessments of the effect of the legislation on young adults' use of SUD services failed to reveal any significant change in treatment uptake.[19] However, given the relatively high rates of substance abuse for this age group,[20] expanded coverage ultimately may promote increased uptake of treatment services.

Private Insurance Coverage for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

As a result, private insurance has become a more prominent payer of mental health and substance use treatment services. Between 2004 and 2014, the share of the total spending for SUD treatment in the United States paid for by private insurance increased from 13 percent to 18 percent.[21] Through telephone surveys with commercial health plan representatives, Reif et al. (2017) found that opioid treatment programs (OTPs) were a covered service in 64.5 percent of commercial health plans in 2003, 69 percent in 2010, and 97 percent in 2014. Buprenorphine was covered under the pharmacy benefit for 70 percent of commercial plans in 2003 and in all health plans in 2010.[22] Another study found that OTPs were more likely to provide buprenorphine if they had a higher percentage of clients with private instead of public insurance.[23] Evidence also shows that, among those with commercial insurance, professional charges for OUD treatment rose by more than 1,000 percent from 2011 to 2015 (from $71.66 million to $721.80 million).[24]

It is unclear whether the increase in overall SUD spending is due to a greater number of enrollees receiving treatment, enrollees receiving more intensive or frequent treatment, or higher costs of treatment. Further, the spending and utilization patterns for OUD treatment and MAT among those with private insurance are unknown. This study examines these issues by examining changes in the number and percent of private health plan enrollees receiving services, the frequency and volume of services, and the unit cost of services.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

Treatment options for OUD include individual or group counseling, medication, and support services to help with housing, employment, or other resources needed to sustain recovery. These services may be offered alone or in combination. Generally, both counseling and support services are recommended in conjunction with medication to maximize treatment success. Treatment may be offered in a variety of settings depending on the severity of the SUD and the availability of services. Alignment of treatment intensity with the severity and complexity of an individual's OUD has been shown to improve treatment outcomes.[25] The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) developed a set of National Practice Guidelines in 2015 for the use of medications in the treatment of addiction involving opioid use.[26] In addition to outlining the recommendations for treating OUD with MAT, ASAM presented the following four levels of treatment settings:

  • Level 1: General outpatient location (i.e., clinician's practice site).

  • Level 2: Intensive outpatient treatment or partial hospitalization program that could be operated within a specialty addiction treatment facility or community mental health center.

  • Level 3: Residential addiction treatment facility or detoxification facility.

  • Level 4: Hospital for inpatient services.

The ASAM guideline stresses that "the venue in which treatment is provided is as important as the specific medication selected".[27] The guideline also recommends that psychosocial treatment be provided to patients receiving each type of MAT. It is important to assess the types and combination of services that individuals with OUD are receiving and evaluate the extent to which services are provided across a continuum of intensity to determine whether patients are receiving optimal, effective care.

Medication-Assisted Treatment

MAT is an effective treatment for OUD.[28], [29], [30], [31], [32] The seriousness of the current epidemic has spurred increased interest in expanding access to MAT as well as other treatment services. New medications, developed over the last decade have expanded OUD treatment options and the venues in which MAT can be provided. The various MAT options have trade-offs that influence their usefulness, accessibility, and acceptability in treatment. Their introduction and some of the key issues that influence their use in treatment are described below.

Methadone was the first MAT approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of OUD. Introduced in 1947, methadone comes in liquid form and is dispensed in highly regulated OTPs. To acquire the medication, patients are required to attend treatment daily. In certain circumstances, take-home doses are permitted; however, the requirement for daily attendance,[33] the stigma associated with attending a treatment program,[34] the limited locations of OTPs,[35] and the high cost of care[36] make methadone treatment a burdensome treatment option.

In 2002, FDA approved buprenorphine and the combination buprenorphine/naloxone for treatment of OUD. These products are sublingual tablets and can be prescribed in office-based settings, referred to as office-based outpatient treatment. However, because the medications are classified as Schedule III by FDA because of their abuse potential, there are limitations on prescribing practices. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 allowed physicians to prescribe the Schedule III-V opioids approved by FDA. Physicians initially were allowed to prescribe buprenorphine to up to 30 patients after obtaining a waiver from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency from the registration requirements of the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974.[37] After 1 year of treating patients, qualified physicians were allowed to file for a second waiver to treat up to 100 patients, and the final rule expanded treatment to up to 275 patients in 2016.[38] Despite this expansion, Jones et al. (2015)[39] found that in 2012 approximately 46 states and the District of Columbia had OUD rates that exceeded their buprenorphine treatment capacity rates.

A third MAT for OUD, naltrexone, first was approved by FDA in 1984 as an oral agent for treating OUD but was not widely used for treatment.[40] In 2010, FDA approved the extended-release injectable formulation of naltrexone (Vivitrol). Studies have found that Vivitrol significantly improved treatment retention and lowered relapse[41], [42] as well as opioid-related mortality compared with no treatment.[43] However, recent studies showed that, although Vivitrol is effective for preventing relapse, its use is not as widespread as that of other MATs, in part because of cost, less extensive evidence base compared with methadone and buprenorphine, and its more limited inclusion in payer formularies.[44] Barriers to the use of Vivitrol include complexity of ordering and administering the medication, cost, health plan reimbursement policies, and lack of knowledge about the medication.[45], [46], [47]

With the increased availability of MAT, passage of the MHPAEA and the ACA as well as other state and local efforts, and shift from public to private coverage for SUD, research is needed to understand whether treatment rates and use of MAT and other recommended services have increased over time for private insurance enrollees, particularly since the prevalence of OUD has increased in this population.[48] Additionally, as payment for SUD shifts from public funding to private insurance, to evaluate financial barriers to receiving care it is important to consider the costs of care shifted to patients--that is, the out-of-pocket costs.

To understand SUD treatment patterns in private insurance, this report evaluates OUD treatment paid for by employer-sponsored health insurance plans before and after the implementation of the MHPAEA and the ACA and the introduction of new forms of MAT using commercial insurance claims data. This study expands on the existing literature by examining both the receipt of MAT and OUD services and settings (i.e., detoxification, psychotherapy) among the population with private insurance.

 

OBJECTIVES

This project investigated changes in OUD treatment utilization and expenditures in the employer-sponsored private health insurance market at two timepoints (2006-2007 and 2014-2015) that mark the periods before and after implementation of the MHPAEA and the ACA, the introduction and expanded use of new opioid treatment medications, and other initiatives to expand SUD treatment access. It is not an evaluation of any specific law or event but rather an investigation of whether access to treatment among those with private insurance improved over time and where treatment gaps may still exist--for example, lack of coverage for specific types of services--and access barriers--for example, high out-of-pocket costs. We organized the analyses around understanding changes in the types of services plans covered, the volume and types of services individuals received, and the associated spending by plans and individuals.

Specifically, we analyzed the following:

  1. Coverage. The coverage analyses examined whether a higher percentage of plans paid for treatment and whether there were changes in the types of services paid for--that is, whether plans paid for a broader range of services. We did not have information on which services were covered by the plans, therefore, we approximated coverage by reporting what services plans paid for.

  2. Utilization. The utilization analyses examined whether a higher percentage of members with OUD received any treatment or specific types of services including MAT and psychosocial therapy; whether those in treatment used services more frequently; and how treatment episodes compared in terms of average length of treatment, types of services received during an episode, and whether there were differences in the characteristics of members who received MAT compared with those who did not.

  3. Spending. The spending analyses examined total spending disaggregated by insurer and out-of-pocket spending, spending per user, and spending per unit of service for different types of services. Further, we investigated whether initiation, engagement, and retention in treatment was influenced by the relative share of treatment costs paid by insurers and individuals.

 

METHODS

Data

We used the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) Database for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2014, and 2015. The Marketscan CCAE Database contains private insurance claims from approximately 150 large employers for employees, their dependents, and early retirees. The MarketScan CCAE Database is the largest commercial convenience sample in the United States. Although the database has fluctuated in size and contributors over time, it has maintained the same age and sex distribution as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau for individuals with employer-sponsored insurance. We linked four MarketScan source files to create the analytic files: (1) the inpatient file containing all inpatient admissions; (2) the outpatient file containing all outpatient services including treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits; (3) the prescription drug claims file of all prescription drug fills; and (4) the enrollment file to identify enrollees with at least 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each year.

Study Population

We included private employer-sponsored health plan members, which comprised employees, spouses, and dependents aged 12-64 years. We excluded enrollees under age 12 years because of the low prevalence of OUD and enrollees over age 64 years because of Medicare eligibility and the possibility of having secondary insurance. We required at least 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year to capture a complete or nearly complete treatment picture for each individual. We excluded plans without prescription drug claims because of the importance of having complete service records for each enrollee and the need to capture use of MAT. We also excluded claims covered by capitated plans that did not include reimbursement information.

We restricted the analyses to enrollees with OUD, as defined in the Variable Definition section below, and for the plan-level analyses, we restricted the analyses to plans with at least ten enrollees with OUD. For the analyses of the relationship between insurer level of reimbursement and treatment initiation and engagement, to avoid having the results biased by outliers, we further restricted the sample of plans to exclude plans with fewer than ten treatment episodes, plans with fewer than ten people, and individuals below the 25th and above the 99th percentile of total costs.

Study Periods

We examined two study periods over a 10-year timeframe. Study Period 1 included 2006 and 2007. Study Period 2 included 2014 and 2015. We selected 2-year periods so that we would have enough enrollees with OUD and sufficient volume of less commonly used service types to report detailed service use. As described, the study periods are before and after important policy changes such as the MHPAEA and the ACA, as well as changes in the availability of treatment, for example, the introduction of generic buprenorphine/naloxone (see Figure 1). Further, opioid overdose deaths spiked between the time periods. Thus, we were able to examine how coverage, treatment patterns, and spending changed over a decade when there was both a large increase in the number of individuals needing treatment and advancements in policy and treatment approaches to address those increasing needs.

Analytic Files

From the files described above, we constructed several analytic files that would allow us to report on utilization and spending from the perspectives of what plans covered, what services individuals used, the composition of treatment episodes, and costs to insurers and enrollees. Below we describe the construction of these files.

Claims-Level File

The source claims-level analytic files included all inpatient admissions, outpatient services, and prescription drug fills. We categorized the individual claims records to create the service category types described below and to construct the financial variables. The raw claims files served as the building blocks for the individual and episode-level files. We used the claims-level file to report the percentage of plans paying for the various types of services and to estimate service level costs.

Individual-Level File

The individual-level file contained one record per person and included summary variables on service use and spending. The file contained member characteristics including age, sex, relationship to insured (employee, spouse, or dependent), and mental and physical health conditions as defined below. Service use summary variables included binary indicators for use of the defined categories of treatment as well as counts of total services used by service type. The summary spending variables totaled insurer reimbursement and enrollee out-of-pocket amounts paid from the raw claims files to create the total insurer spending and total out-of-pocket spending variables, respectively. We aggregated the individual-level file to create a plan-level file for reporting plan-level results such as the percent of plans having claims for particular service types.

Episode-Level File

The episode-level file was structured as one record per treatment episode and included all episodes of care for persons identified in the individual analytic file. We used the service categories listed in Table 1 to define treatment episodes from the full spectrum of OUD treatments. To separate services into specific episodes of treatment, we determined the set of services that would trigger a new treatment episode and the appropriate length of time between services that would identify the end of one episode and the beginning of a new one.

Episode-triggering events. We used services included in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Initiation measure[49] criteria to define a new episode. This includes any outpatient visit, intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization service, residential service, detoxification, inpatient admission, or emergency department visit in which there is an OUD diagnosis on the service claim. Additionally, we modified the initiation measure criteria to include any MAT, including prescription drug fills or MAT administration codes.

Defining the end of a treatment episode. SUD treatment is commonly marked by starting, stopping, and often restarting treatment after a lapse in receiving services. Defining treatment episodes required defining the length of time between service encounters that would mark distinct episodes of care. To define this "gap," we considered patterns of utilization of both service encounters and MAT fills. We considered clinical guidelines and conventions for frequency of services and the literature on relapse after discontinuing MAT. For non-MAT service encounters--for example, psychotherapy or outpatient visits--we used a treatment gap of 35 days or longer to differentiate between treatment episodes. However, if the last service in question was an MAT prescription fill (Rx), we used a gap length of 15 days after the last day that the person should have had any medication from his or her prescription fill. We used the shorter gap length for MAT prescriptions because of the high risk of relapse and overdose following discontinuation of MAT.[50] In the few cases in which the data field that indicated the number of days of the prescription was missing, we assumed a days-filled value of 7 days for buprenorphine and 30 days for naltrexone.

Episodes could range from one encounter--for example, an emergency department visit with no follow-up or one prescription fill--to continued treatment for the duration of the observation period. They could contain any combination of service types and enrollees could have multiple episodes. Table 2 provides descriptive information for the episodes (i.e., the average number of episodes per person and the average length of episodes).

For all records in the episode-level file, we included a person identifier, the episode number for individuals with multiple episodes, the episode triggering service, identifiers for all service types used in the treatment episode, the count of services in the episode, the length of the episode in days, the reason for the episode end, and whether the episode met the HEDIS definitions[51] for treatment initiation and engagement that are defined below.

Variable Definitions

We constructed variables to identify individuals with OUD, to characterize the sample and health plans, and to define service types and utilization rates, number of treatment episodes, and financial variables. Below we describe how we defined each of these variables.

Opioid Use Disorder

As described, the analytic data files included members with OUD defined on the basis of either having an OUD diagnosis or receiving OUD treatment, presuming that individuals receiving treatment qualified for an OUD diagnosis even if the diagnostic code was missing from the claims record. We used this multipronged approach to include individuals with claims for OUD treatment but who did not have a recorded OUD diagnosis, for example, they had a pharmacy claim for an MAT but no record of an encounter with a provider. Specifically, individuals were classified as having OUD and included in the analytic files if they: (1) had two or more outpatient visits on different days or one inpatient stay with an OUD diagnosis in any claims field (see Appendix A for OUD diagnoses); (2) had an MAT prescription fill; or (3) had an MAT administration procedure code for buprenorphine/naloxone, naltrexone, or methadone.

Thus, we used OUD diagnosis codes, service procedure codes (from the outpatient files), and national drug codes (NDCs) to identify OUD. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Classification of Diseases (for diagnoses on claims with a service date before October 1, 2015), Tenth Revision (ICD-10) (for diagnoses on claims dated October 1, 2015, or latter), diagnostic codes used are listed in Appendix A. The NDCs used to identify buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone prescription drug fills are listed in Appendix B. The service administration codes are listed in Appendix C.

Enrollee and Plan Characteristics

The analytic files included member age, sex, relationship to insured (employee, spouse, or dependent), and physical and behavioral health conditions. They also included the number of months enrolled and health plan-type.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Classification Software[52] to measure physical and mental health conditions. The behavioral health conditions included alcohol use disorder, other drug use disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, and other mental health disorder. For these conditions, we required at least two outpatient claims or one inpatient claim with the respective diagnosis. For physical health conditions, we required just one diagnosis--inpatient or outpatient.

Service Categories for OUD Treatment

We classified all OUD treatment services into specific service categories. The categories were defined using the following types of codes: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) codes, revenue codes, Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes, prescription drug NDCs, and codes to identify the place of service (e.g., office-based). The service categories are listed in Table 1 with brief definitions and notes on codes used. All service categories are mutually exclusive except for detoxification, which usually occurs in residential or intensive outpatient/partial hospitalization service settings but also can occur in an inpatient hospital setting and the outpatient setting.

We captured use of MAT through the prescription claims codes for buprenorphine and naltrexone, as well as through service administration codes, which are used to bill for MAT administration, for example, giving a Vivitrol injection or administering methadone in an OTP. For most analyses, we reported "any MAT," which includes a claim for any prescription or administration claim, and additionally reported the individual categories.

TABLE 1. OUD Treatment Service Category Definitions
Service Category Definition Codes Used
Inpatient Inpatient stays DX (primary)
Outpatient detoxification Detoxification services often delivered as residential, intensive outpatient, or partial hospitalization services DX, HCPCS, POS
Residential SUD care Short-term and long-term residential treatment services DX, CPT, Rev, HCPCS, POS
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services Intensive outpatient (e.g., day programs) or partial hospitalization (<24 hours) services DX, CPT, Rev, HCPCS, POS
Outpatient office visit Includes evaluation and management and other outpatient services not elsewhere classified DX, CPT, Rev, HCPCS, POS
Psychotherapy Psychotherapy delivered in an outpatient setting DX, CPT, POS
Peer support services Outpatient peer support services DX, HCPCS
Case management Outpatient case management services DX, HCPCS, POS
Treat-and-release ED visits ED visits that resulted in a discharge (i.e., did not end in an inpatient admission) DX, CPT, Rev
Buprenorphine prescriptiona Buprenorphine/naloxone Rx or Subutex Rx NDC
Buprenorphine administration Outpatient oral buprenorphine/naloxone provided by physicianb HCPCS
Methadone administration Outpatient methadone service administration in an OTP for MAT (i.e., not for pain) HCPCS
Naltrexone prescription Naltrexone prescription drug fill NDC
Naltrexone administration Outpatient Naltrexone (Vivitrol) injection HCPCS
  1. We excluded buprenorphine without naloxone because it can be prescribed for pain. We included Subutex, which is buprenorphine only, but is prescribed to pregnant women for OUD treatment.
  2. Oral buprenorphine/naloxone might be provided in an outpatient setting during the induction phase, for example as a sample provided by a physician.

Utilization

We created binary variables indicating whether the member used each OUD service type. We then computed the number of times that each service was used among those using each respective service and computed a 12-month utilization rate for each service by dividing the number of times the service was used by the number of months enrolled and multiplying by 12.

Coverage

For each included plan, we created binary variables indicating whether any OUD service and each respective OUD service was received by a health plan enrollee.

Financial Variables

We computed the following variables to reflect insurer and individual spending, adjusting the 2006-2007 results based in the gross domestic product deflator:

  • Total payment: For each service, the total amount paid to providers.

  • Insurance payment: For each service, the total amount paid by insurance to providers.

  • Out-of-pocket payment: For each service, the total amount paid to providers by the member (includes deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance, does not include insurance premiums).

Treatment Initiation, Engagement, and Retention

We defined whether each treatment episode met the HEDIS treatment initiation and engagement criteria.[53] To meet the initiation criteria, a treatment episode must have a clinical follow-up visit that is not an emergency department visit within 14 days of the episode start. The treatment engagement criteria require two clinical visits within 30 days of treatment initiation, and especially important, the episode must have met the initiation criteria in order to meet the engagement criteria. We did not count an MAT prescription fill toward meeting the initiation and engagement criteria because treatment guidelines stress the importance of clinical visits at the start of treatment. Episodes that start with an inpatient admission automatically qualify as meeting treatment initiation. Additionally, we categorized treatment episode length into 30, 90, and 180+ days to capture varying lengths of treatment.

 

ANALYTIC APPROACH

We used descriptive methods to examine changes in coverage, utilization, and spending over time. We used multivariable regression models to examine differences in the characteristics of enrollees with OUD who received MAT and those who did not. We used Students t-tests to evaluate statistical significance in the analyses of the relationship between insurer level of reimbursement and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention. Additional details of these analyses are provided below.

Coverage

Using plan-level data, this descriptive coverage analyses examined whether there was a change in the percentage of health plans paying for any OUD service and each specific type of service. We computed the percentage of individuals who accessed each service type for each plan and reported the number and percentage of enrollees receiving each type of service over each of the 2-year study periods.

Utilization

Descriptive Analysis. The utilization analyses involved individual-level and episode-level analyses. We computed the percentage of individuals with OUD across all plans who accessed each type of service, and the percentage receiving any service in each 2-year time period. Second, we computed the average number of services per user standardized to a 12-month period. We calculated the percent change in utilization between the timepoints using the following formula: percent change = [(Time 2 rate - Time 1 rate) / Time 1 rate].

For the episode-level comparison we compared the length of treatment episodes to see whether treatment retention, which is related to improved outcomes,[54] improved over time. Further, we compared differences in service types used during treatment episodes to assess whether members received care that was consistent with guidelines related to having access to different levels of the care--including inpatient, residential, intensive outpatient, and outpatient--depending on their individual needs and circumstances.

Multivariable Analysis: Comparison of MAT Versus Non-MAT. Among the OUD population we analyzed individual characteristics associated with using MAT at both timepoints. We compared MAT users to non-MAT users in terms of sex, age, relationship to insured (insured, spouse, or dependent), mental health comorbidity, and physical health comorbidity. We ran separate logistic regression models for each period with the dependent variable being a 0-1 binary variable that indicated whether the individual received any MAT services in the associated time period. Explanatory variables include age, sex, and relationship to insured categorical variables, as well as binary indicator variables of behavioral health comorbidities and physical health comorbidities. Summary statistics included the odds ratio (OR) and 95 percent confidence intervals.

Spending

The spending analyses included an examination of OUD treatment spending by insurers and enrollees, amounts paid per user and per claim, cost-sharing between insurers and enrollees, and the impact of cost-sharing on OUD treatment initiation, engagement, and retention. Additional details are provided below.

Insurer and enrollee spending for OUD treatment. For this descriptive analysis we computed insurer and out-of-pocket spending variables for each type of service from the individual-level file. Each service claim details the amount paid by the insurer for the particular service and the out-of-pocket payments for which the member is responsible. The insurer and out-of-pocket spending variables are the sum of payments over the 2-year period for each service type, as well as total service spending. For inpatient stays, we produced insurer and out-of-pocket spending per stay. To control for varying number of months of enrollment, we standardized all spending variables to 12 months of enrollment (e.g., for someone with the full 24 months of enrollment). To annualize spending we divided the resulting spending amount by two. We computed summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, min, max) comparing the time periods.

Cost-sharing between insurers and enrollees. Using the 12-month standardized spending variables, we computed the percentage payment by insurer. These were calculated as the standardized insurer payment divided by the sum of the standardized insurer payment and the standardized out-of-pocket payment per member.

Reimbursement. Using the individual-level file from each period, we reported summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for the following payment variables for each service type: total payment, insurer payment, and out-of-pocket payment. We also reported summary statistics for the percentage payment by insurer variable described above. We also produced summary statistics at the plan-level to compare the mean reimbursement amount between plans in each period.

Relationship between insurer level of reimbursement (cost-sharing) and treatment. We examined the relationship between insurer level of reimbursement for OUD services and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention to understand whether higher reimbursement was associated with increased use of services. We approached this research question as a demand side analysis, in which we hypothesized that higher levels of reimbursement by the insurance plan, which by definition, imply lower out-of-pocket costs to the enrollee, were positively associated with treatment initiation, engagement, and retention using the episode-level dataset described above. For each treatment episode, we created indicators of whether the episode met the HEDIS definitions of treatment initiation and engagement and achieved varying levels of retention (30, 90, and 180+ days) as defined above. We then aggregated the episode results to create a plan-level dataset with indicators for the percentage of episodes in each plan that achieved each utilization outcome.

We implemented exclusions on both the episode-level and person-level files prior to aggregating to the plan-level analysis file to avoid having outliers skew the results. We excluded plans with fewer than ten treatment episodes, plans with fewer than ten people, and individuals below the 25th and above the 99th percentile of total costs.

To assess the association between level of coverage and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention, we stratified plan reimbursement levels at the median. We then calculated the mean and standard deviation of the outcome percentages across plans for plans with levels of reimbursement that were above and below the median. We used Students t-tests to evaluate the statistical significance of the differences in means on each outcome.

 

RESULTS

Summary Statistics

Table 2 provides summary statistics for the plan, individual, episode, and claims-level analytic files. The eligible samples based on applying the exclusion criteria to the person-level file included 11,307,960 enrollees at Time 1 and 16,802,208 enrollees at Time 2. Of these, 0.13 percent of members from Time 1 and 0.41 percent of members from Time 2 were identified with an OUD and included in the individual-level data file (i.e., OUD person-level study population). Appendix D contains the full attrition table for the individual-level file.

Compared with the total insured population, in both time periods, members with an OUD were more likely to be male, to be in the 18-44-year age category, and to have significantly higher rates of both physical and behavioral health comorbidity. There was a difference in the distribution of the samples at the time periods by the relationship to insured (insured, spouse, or dependent). At Time 2, a larger portion of the total insured sample were dependents and fewer were the spouse of the insured. This finding reflects the ACA provision that allows adult children up to age 26 years to stay on their parent's insurance. Further, at Time 2, dependents constituted a larger portion of the OUD-affected population. Dependents were 23.1 percent of the total insured population but accounted for 30.6 percent of the OUD-affected sample. Appendix D provides a detailed comparison of the total insured population compared with the analytic sample composed of members with OUD.

TABLE 2. Descriptive Information on Plan, Individual, Episode, and Claims-Level Analytic Datasets from Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans by Time Period, 2005-2007 and 2014-2015a
Variable 2006-2007 2014-2015
Individuals
Number of eligible individuals 11,307,960 16,802,208
Number of individuals with OUD 14,988 (0.13%) 69,258 (0.41%)
Plans
Number of plans 2,386 4,659
Number of plans included in the insurer coverage analysisb N/A 1,242
Treatment episodes
Number of episodes 24,063 114,494
Average number of episodes per person 6.77 10.1
Average length of episodes in days 77.9 82.4
Claims
Number of OUD claims 174,874 1,771,549
Average number of OUD claims per person 11.7 25.6
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. For the insurer coverage analysis conducted using the 2014-2015 data, we excluded individuals below the 25th percentile and above the 99th percentile of total costs and plans with fewer than 10 treatment episodes or fewer than 10 people.

Health Plan Coverage of Services

We investigated the change in the percentage of health plans paying for any OUD treatment and specific service types over each 2-year period. Overall, there was essentially no change in the percentage of plans paying for OUD treatment (see Table 3). At each time period, approximately 15 percent of plans that had an individual identified with OUD did not reimburse for any OUD treatment services. This occurred when OUD was recorded on a claim, but the service provided was for something other than OUD treatment, for example the individual was hospitalized for a physical health condition, but OUD was recorded on the claim.

However, in the second period, a greater percentage of plans paid for every type of service except inpatient treatment, demonstrating that plans shifted away from paying for inpatient services but started paying for a broader range of services. For example, the percentage of plans paying for outpatient office visits increased from 52.3 percent to 77.2 percent. Additionally, there was an increase in the percentage of plans paying for psychotherapy (from 34.0 percent to 50.9 percent). Coverage for residential treatment increased substantially, from 2.3 percent to 12.6 percent, but still was relatively uncommon compared with other service types. Coverage of peer support services and case management remained extremely rare; however, a small percentage of plans paid for them at the second period, suggesting a trend toward increasing coverage for these types of support services.

TABLE 3. Percentage of Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plansa Paying for OUD Treatment Services the 2-Year Periods, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015a
Variable 2006-2007
n=2,386a
n
2006-2007
n=2,386a
%
2014-2015
n=4,659b
n
2014-2015
n=4,659b
%
Any treatment service (including MAT) 2,028 85.0 3,996 85.8
Inpatient treatment 1,458 61.1 2,627 56.4
Outpatient detoxification/withdrawal management 20 0.8 252 5.4
Residential services 56 2.3 588 12.6
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 670 28.1 2,059 44.2
Outpatient office visits 1,248 52.3 3,597 77.2
Psychotherapy 811 34.0 2,371 50.9
Peer support services 0 0.0 10 0.2
Case management 2 0.1 150 3.2
Treat-and-release ED visits 548 23.0 1,599 34.3
Any MAT prescription or administration 1,413 59.2 3,039 65.2
Buprenorphine prescription 1,350 56.6 2,884 61.9
Buprenorphine administration 0 0.0 40 0.9
Methadone administration 115 4.8 408 8.8
Naltrexone prescription 336 14.1 1,288 27.6
Naltrexone administration 21 0.9 633 13.6
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. Includes plans with 10 or more members that provided prescription drug data and plans that included members meeting our sample inclusion criteria, which included enrollees aged 12-64 with 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year in the period, with at least 1 inpatient claim with any listed OUD diagnosis or 2 outpatient claims with any listed OUD diagnosis, or received MAT during the relevant period.

The percentage of plans paying for all types of MAT increased between the time periods. In particular, the percentage of plans that had claims for naltrexone prescriptions almost doubled--increasing from 14.1 percent to 27.6 percent. Plans paying for naltrexone administrations increased from 0.9 percent to 13.6 percent.

Member Service Use

Percentage of members with OUD receiving treatment. Consistent with the plan-level results, Table 4 shows that a higher percentage of members with OUD received all types of services except inpatient treatment which decreased and MAT which stayed essentially the same. In the earlier period, inpatient treatment was the most common form of treatment, but the frequency of inpatient treatment decreased from 42.5 percent to 27.8 percent between the two periods. At Time 2, the most common service was outpatient office visits, with 57.8 percent of members having an office visit, up from 32.7 percent at Time 1. Use of outpatient office visits increased from 32.7 percent to 57.8 percent.

TABLE 4. Utilization of OUD Services among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015a
OUD Services and Settings 2006-2007
n=14,988b
n
2006-2007
n=14,988b
%
2014-2015
n=69,258b
n
2014-2015
n=69,258b
%
Any treatment service 14,208 94.8 62,971 90.9
Inpatient treatment 6,376 42.5 19,267 27.8
Outpatient detoxification/withdrawal management 150 1.0 727 1.0
Residential services 64 0.4 1,310 1.9
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 1,713 11.4 11,884 17.2
Outpatient office visits 4,900 32.7 40,020 57.8
Psychotherapy 2,534 16.9 15,396 22.2
Peer support services 0 0.0 10 0.01
Case management 2 0.01 215 0.3
Treat-and-release ED visits 1,090 7.3 6,399 9.2
Any MAT prescription or administration 7,583 50.6 35,066 50.6
Buprenorphine prescription 6,972 46.5 30,487 44.0
Buprenorphine administration 0 0.0 43 0.06
Methadone administration 193 1.3 973 1.4
Naltrexone prescription 650 4.3 4,864 7.0
Naltrexone administration 23 0.2 1,297 1.9
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. Member-level N refers to the total number of enrollees who are included in our each of cohorts using our population definition criteria. To meet our population inclusion, enrollees must have at least 1 inpatient claim with any listed OUD diagnosis or 2 outpatient claims with any listed OUD diagnosis or have received a buprenorphine with naloxone prescription, Vivitrol prescription, buprenorphine service administration, or methadone service administration in the relevant period. Enrollees selected were aged 12-64 years from employer-sponsored commercial insurance plans, and enrollees must have 10 out of 12 months of enrollment in each calendar year in the period. Plans also must provide prescription drug data.

Overall, use of MAT stayed at the same level in the later period, in part because of greater use of naltrexone, which increased from 4.3 percent to 7.0 percent; use of buprenorphine decreased slightly from 46.5 percent to 44.0 percent.

Average number of services per user. As described, compared with Time 1, in Time 2 plans paid for a broader range of services and greater percentages of enrollees received most types of services. Additionally, as shown in Table 5, the average number of services used per user increased for all services except residential services. As shown in Table 5, members used an average of 5.2 intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services in 2006-2007, but this rate increased by 158.5 percent to 13.5 in 2014-2015. Although the percentage of members using residential services was greater between 2014 and 2015 (1.9 percent per Table 4), the average number of days receiving residential services among those receiving residential services decreased from 5.0 to 2.5.

TABLE 5. Change in Rates of OUD Service Use among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, by Respective OUD Treatment Service Category, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015a,b,c
Treatment Service Mean Number of Services
per User 2006-2007
n=14,208
Mean Number of Services
per User 2014-2015
n=62,971
Percent Change Between
Time Periods
Inpatient treatment 0.86 1.06 23.3
Outpatient detoxification/ withdrawal management 2.27 3.17 39.6
Residential services 5.01 2.54 -49.2
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 5.23 13.53 158.7
Outpatient office visits 3.79 5.20 37.2
Psychotherapy 6.76 8.00 18.3
Peer support services N/A 6.25 N/A
Case management 0.75 3.34 N/A
Treat-and-release ED visits 0.76 0.88 15.8
Methadone dispensing visits 13.34 32.75 145.5
Buprenorphine Rx or service administrationd,e 5.62 9.06 61.2
Extended-release naltrexone Rx or service administrationd,f 1.49 2.26 51.7
  1. This descriptive table uses person-level service and prescription drug claims over the full period available for each individual.
  2. Total services over the period were counted as 1 service per day (inpatient counted as number of admissions) multiplied by ratio of 12/number of months enrolled over 24-month period in order to standardize to a 12-month service rate.
  3. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  4. Medication fills and administration were combined to avoid over-counting service use per user, because an enrollee could receive a Rx and administration charge for the same encounter.
  5. 52.1% of buprenorphine Rxs were for 30 days, and 99.4% were for 30 days or less in the 2014-2015 period.
  6. 48.3% of naltrexone Rxs were for 30 days, and 96.1% were for 30 days or less in the 2014-2015 period.

Composition of treatment episodes. To better understand the array of services that members received, we constructed treatment episodes on the basis of service dates as described in the Methods section. Table 6 shows that among the 14,208 (Time 1) and 62,971 (Time 2) members who received any treatment, there were 24,063 treatment episodes in Time 1 and 114,494 in Time 2. Mean episode length was slightly longer at Time 2 (82.4 days) than at Time 1 (77.9 days).

In 2006-2007, the most common type of service included in an episode was MAT (54.6 percent), consisting mostly of buprenorphine prescription fills, but this dropped to 42.9 percent at Time 2. In 2014-2015, there was a shift in the types of services used during treatment episodes, with outpatient office visits having the highest frequency (56.2 percent) compared with other OUD services. Although the use of MAT decreased slightly in Time 2, the percentage of episodes with intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services increased.

TABLE 6. Among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, Number and Percentage of OUD Treatment Episodes That Included Each Service Type, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015a
Variable 2006-2007
n=24,063
n
2006-2007
n=24,063
%
2014-2015
n=114,494
n
2014-2015
n=114,494
%
Inpatient treatment 7,545 31.4 24,142 21.1
Outpatient detoxification/withdrawal management 152 0.6 665 0.6
Residential services 74 0.3 1,378 1.2
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 1,835 7.6 13,958 12.2
Outpatient office visits 6,355 26.4 64,372 56.2
Psychotherapy 3,511 14.6 17,929 15.7
Treat-and-release ED visits 1,227 5.1 7,538 6.6
Any MAT prescription or administrationb 13,137 54.6 49,110 42.9
Methadone dispensing visits 288 1.2 1,016 0.9
Buprenorphine Rx/service administration 12,188 50.7 42,326 37.0
Extended-release naltrexone Rx/service administration 792 3.3 6,956 6.1
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. MAT is defined as having at least 1 service from the following service categories identified in the relevant period: methadone dispensing visits, buprenorphine service administration, buprenorphine Rx and/or service administration, or naltrexone Rxs.

Medication-assisted treatment. We compared the characteristics of individuals with OUD who received MAT with the characteristics of those not receiving MAT. As shown in Table 7, males, and those in the 18-44-year age category were more likely to get MAT in both time periods. Women had decreased odds of receipt of MAT compared with men (OR = 0.71 in 2006-2007; OR = 0.67 in 2014-2015). Individuals aged 12-17 years and individuals aged 46-64 years also had decreased odds of receiving MAT, compared with individuals aged 18-44 years. The odds ratios for both age categories were more extreme in 2014-2015, demonstrating a shift toward MAT being even more concentrated in the middle age group. In 2006-2007, there was no association between relationship to insured and receiving MAT. However, in 2014-2015, both spouses and particularly dependents (OR = 0.66) with OUD were less likely to receive MAT compared with the insured member.

In terms of comorbid mental and physical health conditions, individuals receiving MAT tended to have lower prevalence of most of the behavioral and physical health conditions in both time periods. The differences were slightly less extreme in 2014-2015 suggesting improvement in the use of MAT among individuals with comorbid conditions, as evidenced by fewer statistically significant results in 2014-2015. For example, individuals with a mood disorder had slightly decreased odds of receiving MAT in 2006-2007 (OR = 0.86), whereas the OR for the same variable in 2014-2015 was not statistically significant (OR = 1.00). A concerning result for comorbid behavioral health conditions was a further decreased odds of receiving MAT for individuals with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder (OR = 0.70 in 2006-2007; OR = 0.63 in 2014-2015).

TABLE 7. Member Characteristics among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, by Whether Persons with OUD Accessed MAT, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015a
Variable 2006-2007
MATb
%
2006-2007
No MAT
%
2006-2007
OR
2006-2007
CI
2014-2015
MAT
%
2014-2015
No MAT
%
2014-2015
OR
2014-2015
CI
Sex
Male (reference) 59.7 51.5 Ref.   63.1 51.7 Ref.  
Female 40.3 48.5 0.71* (0.66-0.76) 36.9 48.3 0.67* (0.65-0.70)
Age group, years
12-17 3.5 9.0 0.36* (0.30-0.43) 1.1 4.4 0.22* (0.19-0.25)
18-44 (reference) 62.0 50.2 Ref.   73.9 53.8 Ref.  
45-64 34.5 40.8 0.70* (0.65-0.76) 25.0 41.8 0.56* (0.54-0.58)
Relationship to insured
Insured (reference) 48.2 43.4 Ref.   42.2 38.2 Ref.  
Spouse 33.3 34.7 0.95 (0.88-1.03) 26.3 32.1 0.91* (0.87-0.94)
Dependent 18.5 21.9 0.90 (0.81-1.00) 31.5 29.6 0.66* (0.63-0.69)
Behavioral health conditions
Alcohol use disorder 15.2 19.9 0.79* (0.72-0.86) 19.1 21.7 0.83* (0.79-0.86)
Anxiety disorder 20.2 23.9 0.95 (0.87-1.03) 42.3 43.8 1.19* (1.15-1.23)
Mood disorder 43.6 52.3 0.86* (0.80-0.93) 44.9 50.4 1.00 (0.97-1.04)
Other mental health disorder 17.4 23.8 0.80* (0.73-0.87) 28.4 31.6 0.96 (0.93-1.00)
Other SUD 36.9 44.0 0.83* (0.77-0.89) 45.1 44.7 1.01 (0.98-1.05)
Schizophrenia/other psychotic disorder 2.5 4.7 0.70* (0.58-0.85) 2.6 5.1 0.63* (0.57-0.69)
Physical health conditions
Acquired hypothyroidism 12.8 12.7 1.21* (1.09-1.34) 13.3 18.1 1.10* (1.05-1.15)
Acute myocardial infarction 1.1 1.9 0.83 (0.61-1.11) 0.6 1.7 0.75* (0.63-0.88)
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 2.4 4.3 0.78 (0.64-0.95) 2.1 3.9 0.89 (0.80-0.98)
Anemia 13.4 16.0 0.99 (0.89-1.09) 12.3 19.1 0.95 (0.91-1.00)
Asthma 11.1 11.8 1.07 (0.97-1.20) 11.0 15.5 0.85* (0.81-0.89)
Atrial fibrillation (dysrhythmia) 15.3 18.2 0.98 (0.89-1.08) 16.2 23.6 0.87* (0.84-0.91)
Cancer 9.7 10.5 1.01 (0.90-1.12) 8.6 13.2 0.86* (0.82-0.91)
Chronic kidney disease 0.9 2.0 0.61* (0.45-0.83) 1.2 3.8 0.58* (0.51-0.65)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 14.5 17.2 0.95 (0.86-1.05) 11.4 16.6 0.99 (0.95-1.04)
Congestive heart failure 2.5 4.4 0.80 (0.65-0.98) 1.7 4.0 0.93 (0.84-1.04)
Diabetes 11.3 13.6 0.91 (0.82-1.02) 12.8 21.6 0.82* (0.78-0.86)
HIV/AIDS 0.7 0.6 1.34 (0.88-2.03) 0.7 0.6 1.20 (0.99-1.46)
Hepatitis C 2.7 3.2 1.00 (0.82-1.22) 4.6 3.4 1.60* (1.48-1.74)
Hyperlipidemia 24.5 24.0 1.12* (1.03-1.22) 22.1 33.2 0.89* (0.85-0.93)
Hypertension 30.2 33.5 0.94 (0.86-1.02) 27.4 40.1 0.85* (0.81-0.88)
Ischemic heart disease 7.0 9.7 0.86 (0.75-0.99) 4.0 8.6 0.86* (0.80-0.93)
Non-traumatic joint disorders 46.6 47.4 1.08 (1.00-1.15) 40.2 57.0 0.65* (0.62-0.67)
Stroke/transient ischemic attack 4.7 7.3 0.82* (0.70-0.95) 3.4 7.7 0.76* (0.71-0.82)
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. MAT is defined as having at least 1 service from the following service categories identified in the relevant period: methadone dispensing visits, buprenorphine service administration, buprenorphine Rx and/or service administration, or naltrexone Rx.

* A single asterisk next to the OR represents a statistically significant result at the 0.01 significance level.

For comorbid physical health conditions, results generally suggest decreased odds of receiving MAT for individuals with physical health conditions, with a few exceptions. Two results that stand out are the decreased odds of receipt of MAT for individuals with chronic kidney disease (OR = 0.61 in 2006-2007; OR = 0.58 in 2014-2015) and the increased odds of receipt of MAT for individuals with Hepatitis C in the 2014-2015 results (OR = 1.60).

Spending

Total Insurer spending per user. We compared average total insurer spending per enrollee for each type of OUD service between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015. As shown in Table 8, the costs for all OUD services and settings increased substantially between the time periods. Although a lower percentage of people used inpatient treatment, the cost per user increased by 61 percent for inpatient services from $6,837 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $11,000 in Time 2. The cost was almost triple the amount between Time 1 and Time 2 for residential services. The largest increase in cost per user was for intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization, which went from $1,994 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $8,263 in Time 2. Increases for less intensive services--outpatient office visits (18.1 percent) and psychotherapy (23.6 percent)--were more modest.

TABLE 8. Average Total Spending Per Enrollee with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Standardizeda to a 12-Month Enrollment Period, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015b
OUD Services and Settings 2006-2007
n
2006-2007
Mean, $
2006-2007
Adjusted Mean, $c
2014-2015
n
2014-2015
Mean, $
% Change
in Meand
Any treatment servicee 14,208 3,495 4,385 62,971 7,118 62.3
Inpatient treatment 6376 5,449 6,837 19,267 11,000 60.9
Outpatient detoxification/withdrawal management 2,436 227 285 35,267 424 48.8
Residential services 64 1,541 1,933 1,310 4,536 134.6
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 1,713 1,589 1,994 11,884 8,263 314.5
Outpatient office visits 4,900 413 518 40,020 612 18.1
Psychotherapy 2,534 555 696 15,396 861 23.6
Peer support services 0 N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A
Case management 2 N/A N/A 215 510 N/A
Treat-and-release ED visits 1,090 320 401 6,399 660 64.4
Any MAT prescription or administrationf 7,583 1,023 1,283 35,066 2,141 66.9
  1. Standardization accounts for enrollees with less than 12 months of enrollment and enrollees with 2 years of enrollment, for example totals for a 24 month period were divided by 2 for an annual amount.
  2. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  3. Inflation is adjusted to 2014-2015 dollars using the gross domestic product.
  4. Percent change in mean uses the inflation-adjusted mean from the 2006-2007 period in its calculation.
  5. Any OUD service includes any non-laboratory, non-radiology treatment of OUD (identified by having at least 1 of any of the different service categories in the tables list).
  6. Receipt of any MAT prescription or administration includes a buprenorphine prescription to treat OUD, methadone service administration, and buprenorphine service administration for OUD, naltrexone Rx, and outpatient naltrexone.

Total out-of-pocket spending per user. We compared total out-of-pocket spending per enrollee for each type of OUD service between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015 (Table 9). Similar to insurer spending, out-of-pocket spending for all OUD services and settings increased between the time periods. Specifically, the amount paid per user increased substantially for residential services from $130 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $579 in Time 2. The largest increase in cost per user was for intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization, which went from $221 (inflation-adjusted) in Time 1 to $794 in Time 2. Among all types of OUD services and settings, inpatient services accounted for the highest out-of-pocket costs per user for both time periods. Treat-and-release emergency department visits also increased from $38 to $117. However, less intensive services--outpatient office visits and psychotherapy--saw only modest increases.

TABLE 9. Per Capita Out-of-Pocket Spending Per Enrollee with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans Standardizeda to a 12-Month Enrollment Period, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015b
OUD Services and Settings 2006-2007
n
2006-2007
Mean, $
2006-2007
Adjusted Mean, $c
2014-2015
n
2014-2015
Mean, $
% Change
in Meand
Any treatment servicee 14,208 361 463 62,971 892 92.5
Inpatient treatment 6,376 384 493 19,267 974 97.6
Outpatient detoxification/ withdrawal management 2,436 86 110 35,267 148 34.5
Residential services 64 101 130 1,310 579 345.4
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 1,713 172 221 11,884 794 259.3
Outpatient office visits 4,900 102 131 40,020 169 29.0
Psychotherapy 2,534 122 157 15,396 185 17.8
Peer Support services 0 N/A N/A 10 0 N/A
Case management 2 N/A N/A 215 49 N/A
Treat-and-release ED visits 1,090 38 49 6,399 117 138.8
Any MAT prescription or administrationf 7,583 173 222 35,066 332 49.5
  1. Standardization accounts for enrollees with less than 12 months of enrollment and enrollees with 2 years of enrollment.
  2. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  3. Means were adjusted using the consumer price index medical care inflation index.
  4. Percent change in mean uses the inflation-adjusted mean from the 2006-2007 period in its calculation.
  5. Any OUD service includes any non-laboratory, non-radiology treatment of OUD (identified by having at least 1 of any of the different service categories in the tables list).
  6. Receipt of any MAT prescription or administration includes a buprenorphine prescription to treat OUD, methadone service administration, and buprenorphine service administration for OUD, naltrexone Rx, and outpatient naltrexone.

Percentage payment by insurer. As described in the Methods section, we used the standardized spending variables (standardized to a 12-month enrollment period) to compute the average percentage of spending paid for by the insurer. As shown in Figure 2, the average percentage paid for by the insurer decreased slightly between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015 for inpatient, residential, treat-and-release emergency department visits, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy increasing the financial burden on the enrollee. The average percent paid for by insurer remained over 80 percent for inpatient, residential, and intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization in both time periods. The percentage paid for by the insurer for MAT increased from 78 percent in Time 1 to 81 percent in Time 2. Peer support services and case management also saw change in insurer coverage in 2014-2015, with no insurance reimbursements in Time 1 to some services being reimbursed for in Time 2.

FIGURE 2. Percentage of Claim Paid by Insurer for Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
FIGURE 2, Bar Chart: The average percentage paid for by the insurer decreased slightly between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015 for inpatient, residential, treat-and-release ED visits, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy increasing the financial burden on the enrollee.  The average percent paid for by insurer remained over 80% for inpatient, residential, and intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization in both time periods.  The percentage paid for by the insurer for MAT increased from 78% in Time 1 to 81% in Time 2.  Peer support services and case management also saw change in insurer coverage in 2014-2015, with no insurance reimbursements in Time 1 to some services being reimbursed for in Time 2.
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.

Unit cost of services. Table 10 shows the average amount paid per unit of service for each service type. Controlling for inflation, the average total payment for most service types increased between the time periods. Inpatient treatment services had the highest average cost per unit of service compared with the other OUD services. Residential treatment services had the largest percentage increase between the time periods. Specifically, the total average cost per unit of residential treatment services nearly tripled. Outpatient visits had a small decrease in the total average cost per unit between the periods. Outpatient methadone administration also decreased substantially.

TABLE 10. Mean Amount Paid per Service Claim for Total Payments for Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2006-2007 and 2014-2015
OUD Services and Settings 2006-2007
n
2006-2007M
ean, $
2006-2007S
D
2006-2007A
djusted Mean, $b
2014-2015n 2014-2015M
ean, $
2014-2015S
D
% Change
in Meanc
Inpatient treatment 8,526 6,851 14,610 8,596 31,843 11,292 17,508 31.4
Outpatient detoxification/ withdrawal management 428 270 208 338 3,377 448 524 32.5
Residential services 503 302 752 379 10,405 987 1,532 160.4
Intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization 15,801 293 709 368 288,326 585 721 59.0
Outpatient office visits 33,150 115 330 144 385,762 126 208 -12.5
Psychotherapy 30,580 87 120 109 215,624 117 191 7.2
Peer support services N/A N/A N/A N/A 89 194 121 N/A
Case management 2 63 88 79 1,377 139 148 75.9
Treat-and-release ED visits 1,909 327 501 410 16,029 510 665 24.3
Buprenorphine prescription 65,451 218 174 274 443,247 274 200 0.0
Buprenorphine administration N/A N/A N/A N/A 536 163 348 N/A
Methadone administration 4,501 84 123 105 65,533 60 108 -42.9
Naltrexone prescription 1,622 317 409 398 15,261 574 660 44.3
Naltrexone administration 43 447 373 561 4,682 1,084 579 93.2
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015.
  2. Inflation is adjusted to 2014-2015 dollars using the gross domestic product.
  3. Percent change in mean uses the inflation-adjusted mean from the 2006-2007 period in its calculation.

Relationship between plan level of reimbursement and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention. We hypothesized that plans with higher levels of reimbursement would have higher utilization rates, anticipating that lower out-of-pocket costs would increase patients' ability to initiate and continue in treatment. A total of 1,242 plans in the 2014-2015 period met the inclusion criteria described in the Methods section. The median level of reimbursement across plans was 78.5 percent.

We found positive correlations between plan level of reimbursement and initiation, engagement, and each of the retention variables (Figure 3). Plans with above median level of reimbursement had a higher average percentage of members meeting each outcome compared with plans with lower median reimbursement rates. The mean differences were statistically significant at the 0.05 level for all outcomes. Despite being statistically significant, the difference in means was small in magnitude for all outcomes except for initiation. For example, the difference in mean plan-level percentages was 2.8 percentage for episodes that are at least 30 days, 1.5 percentage points for episodes that are at least 90 days, and 1.3 percentage points for episodes that are at least 180 days. This result suggests that plans above and below the median level of reimbursement are not very different in terms of how long patients are persisting in treatment. There was a larger difference (4.8 percentage points) in the plan-level mean percentage for episodes that meet the initiation definition. This result suggests that the plan level of reimbursement may have more of an influence on whether patients begin treatment and less of an influence on whether patient persist in treatment. This may relate to having to meet deductibles at the beginning of treatment.

FIGURE 3. Average Plan-Level Percentage of Episodes That Met Each Outcome Stratified by Falling Above or Below the Median Reimbursement Rate of 78.5% Among Persons with OUD Aged 12-64 Years Old and Enrolled in Employer-Sponsored Commercial Insurance Plans, 2014-2015a
FIGURE 3, Bar Chart: We found positive correlations between plan level of reimbursement and initiation, engagement, and each of the retention variables.  Plans with above median level of reimbursement had a higher average percentage of members meeting each outcome compared with plans with lower median reimbursement rates.  The mean differences were statistically significant at the 0.05 level for all outcomes.  Despite being statistically significant, the difference in means was small in magnitude for all outcomes except for initiation.  For example, the difference in mean plan level percentages was 2.8 percentage for episodes that are at least 30 days, 1.5 percentage points for episodes that are at least 90 days, and 1.3 percentage points for episodes that are at least 180 days.  This result suggests that plans above and below the median level of reimbursement are not very different in terms of how long patients are persisting in treatment.  There was a larger difference (4.8 percentage points) in the plan level mean percentage for episodes that meet the initiation definition.  This result suggests that the plan level of reimbursement may have more of an influence on whether patients begin treatment and less of an influence on whether patient persist in treatment.  This may relate to having to meet deductibles at the beginning of treatment.
  1. Data source was Truven Health MarketScan CCAE, 2014, 2015.

 

CONCLUSION

This project investigated changes in OUD treatment coverage, utilization, and expenditures in the private, employer-sponsored health insurance market before (2006-2007) and after (2014-2015) phased implementation of the MHPAEA and the ACA and the emergence of new FDA-approved MATs and subsequent development of generic formulations. The study sample had similar rates of OUD compared to national estimates of opioid dependence among the commercially insured indicating that the analysis sample was similar to the general population with private insurance in terms of rates of OUD. According to our own analysis of NSDUH data, an estimated 0.33 percent of individuals aged 18-64 with private insurance had a diagnosis of opioid dependence in 2014, up from 0.23 percent in 2007. By comparison, 0.13 percent and 0.41 percent of the MarketScan samples were identified with OUD in 2006-2007 and 2014-2015, respectively.

The coverage analyses examined the percentage of plans paying for any OUD treatment and specific types of treatment. The utilization analyses examined overall treatment use, use of specific service types, and patterns of MAT use by individuals with OUD. The spending analyses examined total spending for OUD treatment (total payments made to treatment providers), cost-sharing between insurers and enrollees, and the impact of cost-sharing on OUD treatment initiation, engagement, and retention.

Key Findings

Coverage. We found that a similar percentage of plans with enrollees with OUD paid for OUD treatment at the second period, but that they paid for a much broader range of services, including MAT. Notably, a higher percentage of plans paid for intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient office visits, and psychotherapy. This increase may have resulted from health plans adjusting their coverage requirements in accordance with the MHPAEA and the ACA, health plans recognizing the need to increase services given the increasing rates of OUD, or an emphasis on providing support services in conjunction with MAT.[55] However, although there was a substantial increase in coverage of residential treatment, still only 12.6 percent of plans paid for this type of treatment in 2014-2015 (a type of treatment for which the ASAM Guidelines define as a necessary type of SUD care on the continuum of care). The general trend paying for a broader range of services suggests improved adherence to ASAM criteria; however, the continued lower coverage of higher-intensity services--residential, intensive outpatient, and partial hospitalization--reflects a lack of coverage for higher-intensity services.

These findings are consistent with the work of Reif et al. (2017) who found through interviewing health plan representatives that OTPs were covered by 97 percent of commercial health plans in 2014, compared with only 64.5 percent of plans in 2003. Buprenorphine was covered under the pharmacy benefit for 70 percent of commercial plans in 2003 and for all health plans in 2010.[56]

Although Reif et al. (2017) did not assess plan coverage of naltrexone extended-release injections (Vivitrol), we found that the percentage of plans paying for Vivitrol increased from 0.9 percent in Time 1 to 13.6 percent in Time 2. Despite FDA approval of Vivitrol in 2010, this finding illustrates the slow progression of private insurance plans to include Vivitrol in their formulary for covered medical procedures. A higher percentage of plans paid for prescription oral naltrexone in 2014-2015 (27.6 percent) compared with Time 1 (14.1 percent). The higher percentage of plan coverage for oral instead of injection naltrexone may have resulted from the longer availability of both generic and brand name naltrexone tablets. In addition, the tiering of medications[57] and higher cost of Vivitrol ($1,104 in 2010) compared with generic and brand oral naltrexone ($128 and $258 in 2010, respectively), also may have prevented private insurance companies from adding Vivitrol to their formularies.[58] Despite the introduction of a generic form of buprenorphine/naloxone in 2013, the percentage of plans paying for buprenorphine only increased from 56.6 to 61.9.

Utilization. Research has shown that individuals needing OUD treatment often do not access it because of the lack of adequate insurance coverage.[59] Because we found that more private insurance plans paid for OUD service types endorsed by the ASAM's National Practice Guideline for OUD Treatment,[60] we next examined whether there was a higher percentage of members with OUD who used treatment services in 2014-2015. We found that enrollees with OUD used intensive outpatient treatment and outpatient office visits more frequently compared with other OUD services and settings in 2014-2015. The percentage of enrollees using inpatient treatment fell from 42.5 percent to 27.8 percent. These findings reflect a long-term trend described by Mark et al. (2016) in the field of behavioral health shifting away from long-term inpatient and residential stays toward placing more emphasis on effective medication treatment and community-based care.[61]

In 2006-2007, the types of services received during an episode of treatment with the highest frequency included receiving any MAT (54.6 percent) and buprenorphine prescription fills/service administration (50.7 percent). In 2014-2015, there was a shift in the types of services used during treatment episodes, with outpatient office visits having the highest frequency (56.2 percent) compared with other OUD services. Private health plan management strategies of prior authorization and step therapy may partly explain why our findings revealed decreases in the percentage of episodes that included any MAT and buprenorphine prescription fills between the time periods. Reif et al. (2016) found that between 2003 and 2010, commercial health plans increased their requirements of physicians to obtain prior authorization (plan approval for treatment) for brand oral naltrexone and buprenorphine. Injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol) was the only medication to have both prior authorization and step therapy restrictions in 2010.[62] However, efforts are underway to remove these requirements. For example, the American Medical Association has recommended that insures from the prior approval requirement[63] the State of Pennsylvania has removed the requirement for its Medicaid program.[64]

The percentage of enrollees receiving MAT was similar in the time periods and there was a decrease in the percentage of episodes that included any MAT and buprenorphine prescription fills, despite the availability of the generic formulation. This may reflect a shortage of waivered physicians qualified to prescribe buprenorphine. Stein et al. (2015) used the 2008-2011 Buprenorphine Waiver Notification System data to calculate the number of buprenorphine-waivered physicians/100,000 county residents. They found that 43 percent of United States counties had no buprenorphine-waivered physicians and 7 percent had 20 or more waivered physicians.[65] In addition, Jones et al. (2015) reported a gap between treatment need for OUD and buprenorphine treatment capacity among 46 states and the District of Columbia.[66]

It should be noted however, that use of methadone cannot be captured reliably in claims data. Some enrollees may be receiving methadone through a different payment source, so overall use of MAT may be under-represented in the sample.

Women with OUD were significantly less likely than men to receive MAT in both periods. This finding, though not well-understood, is consistent with other research showing lower treatment rates among women.[67] Many women entering treatment may have more complex needs such as comorbid mental health conditions and other social problems that require more specialized services, as well has having increased need for child care services.[68] The age group with the highest MAT use was 18-44-year-olds, in which the differences were more pronounced in 2014-2015. There was a shift in 2014-2015 toward the insured member being more likely to receive MAT compared with spouses or dependents. This finding may reflect greater recognition of the impact of the opioid epidemic and lower stigma associated with receiving treatment among those employed.

Spending. The spending analyses examined OUD treatment expenditures by plans and individuals (excluding premiums), cost-sharing between plans and individuals, the unit cost of services, and the relationship between cost-sharing and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention. Between the two periods, per person expenditures increased for both plans and individuals for all services.

We computed the share of OUD treatment costs paid for by insurers. In 2006-2007, insurers paid 84 percent of the total treatment costs. This fell to 79 percent in 2014-2015. The most substantial cost shifts were for more intensive services, that is, inpatient and residential services. Insurers began paying a larger portion of MAT costs (from 78 percent to 81 percent) and intensive outpatient/partial hospitalization costs (from 84 percent to 85 percent). However, savings for these less intensive/lower cost services does not offset the higher costs associated with more intensive services.

We used the calculated plan level of reimbursement to assess the association between coverage level and treatment initiation, engagement, and retention at 30, 90, and 180+ days. Each of the treatment outcomes were positively associated with plan level of reimbursement. The association was strongest with treatment initiation and more modest with the engagement and retention indicators. This suggests that plan level of reimbursement more strongly influenced whether patients began treatment than whether they persisted in treatment. This may relate to deductible requirements that could be a barrier to initiating treatment.

In terms of cost per unit of service, adjusting for inflation, most services types increased in cost. The most substantial increase was for residential services which increased by 160.5 percent. The per unit costs for outpatient office visits, and methadone administration fell over time.

The observed increases in average total spending by private insurance aligns with national spending trends for SUD reported in the most recent Behavioral Health Expenditure and Use Accounts report, which reported that private insurance accounted for 18 percent of total SUD spending in 2014 compared with 13 percent in 2007.[69] The percentage increase in insurer spending, which we estimated at 103.4 percent, was in line with growth in general health care spending over the same period of 104 percent.

Implications

Our study findings highlight how the MHPAEA and the ACA as well as new FDA-approved MAT expanded OUD treatment coverage, utilization, and expenditures in the private health insurance market between 2006-2007 and 2014-2015. Federal legislation such as the 21st Century Cures Act passed in December 2016 is expected to continue with this effort. Specifically, the Cures Act has allotted $1 billion for states to use over 2 years to combat the opioid epidemic. This Act also enhances parity enforcement of the MHPAEA.[70] In July 2016, federal regulations under DATA 2000 expanded buprenorphine treatment by permitting qualified physicians to treat up to 275 patients.[71] In addition, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 amended the Controlled Substances Act to allow qualifying nurse practitioners and physician assistants to receive a DATA 2000 waiver and prescribe buprenorphine up to 30 patients initially, and up to 100 patients following waiver approval after the first year.[72]

Overall, our findings reflect expanded availability, greater use of OUD treatment services, and higher payments to service providers among enrollees in large employer-sponsored health plans. The trend toward increasing the range of services paid for suggests improved adherence to ASAM criteria and reflects a long-term trend in behavioral health, shifting away from long-term inpatient and residential stays toward a greater emphasis on medication treatment and community-based care. However, there still are significant barriers to be addressed. The lower coverage of inpatient care and lower utilization of residential services reflects a potential lack of coverage for higher-intensity services which may be needed for more severe cases of OUD, particularly during treatment initiation, before patients can be transitioned successfully to outpatient treatment. Further, only half of those who could potentially benefit from MAT received it, and access to MAT was even lower for women and enrollees outside the 18-44 year age range. It is critical that MAT be made available to those could benefit from it. Cost-sharing, that is, the relative percentage of total costs paid for by the insurer versus the enrollee impacted treatment initiation. Higher out-of-pocket costs represent a serious barrier to starting treatment.

Future Directions

Our results point to several potential avenues for future research. First, although overall use of buprenorphine increased, the percentage of those with OUD who accessed buprenorphine MAT fell in the second period. We know that prevalence escalated during the period and that capacity is limited. More research is needed on the supply of providers; finding a provider, particularly one that is affordable (i.e., in-network) and accessible (easy-to-get appointments, not too far in distance) is a barrier to MAT treatment and exploring other financial barriers to initiating treatment. Secondly, additional research is needed on the determinants of treatment retention to better understand what contributes to maintaining recovery. Finally, additional research is needed to better understand why women and individuals outside the 18-44 year age range are less likely to receive MAT and how mental and physical health comorbidity may affect participation in SUD treatment.

 

APPENDIX A. ICD-9 AND ICD-10 DIAGNOSTIC CODES FOR OUD

ICD-9-CM ICD-9 Description
30400 Opioid dependence-unspecified
30401 Opioid dependence-continuous
30402 Opioid dependence-episode
30403 Opioid type dependence in remission
30470 Opioid/other dep-unspecified
30471 Opioid/other dep-continuous
30472 Opioid/other dep-episode
30473 Opioid w/other drug dependence in remission
30550 Opioid abuse-unspecified
30551 Opioid abuse-continuous
30552 Opioid abuse-episodic
30553 Opioid abuse in remission
96500 Poisoning by opium (alkaloids), unspecified
96501 Poisoning by heroin
96502 Poisoning by methadone
96509 Poisoning by other opiates
E8500 Accidental poisoning by heroin
E8501 Accidental poisoning by methadone
E8502 Accidental poisoning by other opiates and related narcotics
E9800 Undetermined cause poisoning by opiates

 

ICD-10 ICD-10 Description
F111 Opioid abuse
F1110 Opioid abuse uncomplicated
F1112 Opioid abuse with intoxication
F11120 Opioid abuse with intoxication uncomplicated
F11121 Opioid abuse with intoxication delirium
F11122 Opioid abuse w/intoxication w/perceptual disturb
F11129 Opioid abuse with intoxication unspecified
F1114 Opioid abuse with opioid-induced mood disorder
F1115 Opioid abuse with opioid-induced psychotic disorder
F11150 Opioid abuse w/induced psychosis d/o w/delusions
F11151 Opioid abuse w/induced psychosis d/o w/hallucinations
F11159 Opioid abuse w/opioid-induced psychosis d/o unspecified
F1118 Opioid abuse with other opioid-induced disorder
F11181 Opioid abuse w/opioid-induced sexual dysfunction
F11182 Opioid abuse with opioid-induced sleep disorder
F11188 Opioid abuse with other opioid-induced disorder
F1119 Opioid abuse w/unspecified opioid-induced disorder
F112 Opioid dependence
F1120 Opioid dependence, uncomplicated
F1121 Opioid dependence, in remission
F11220 Opioid dependence with intoxication, uncomplicated
F11221 Opioid dependence with intoxication delirium
F1122 Opioid dependence with intoxication
F11222 Opioid dependence with intoxication with perceptual disturbance
F11229 Opioid dependence with intoxication, unspecified
F1123 Opioid dependence with withdrawal
F1124 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced mood disorder
F1125 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced psychotic disorder
F11250 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced psychotic disorder with delusions
F11251 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced psychotic disorder with hallucinations
F11259 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced psychotic disorder, unspecified
F1128 Opioid dependence with other opioid-induced disorder
F11281 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced sexual dysfunction
F11282 Opioid dependence with opioid-induced sleep disorder
F11288 Opioid dependence with other opioid-induced disorder
F1129 Opioid dependence with unspecified opioid-induced disorder
F1190 Opioid use, unspecified, uncomplicated
F11920 Opioid use, unspecified with intoxication, uncomplicated
F11921 Opioid use, unspecified with intoxication delirium
F11922 Opioid use, unspecified with intoxication with perceptual disturbance
F11929 Opioid use, unspecified with intoxication, unspecified
F1193 Opioid use, unspecified with withdrawal
F1194 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced mood disorder
F11950 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced psychotic disorder with delusions
F11951 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced psychotic disorder with hallucinations
F11959 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced psychotic disorder, unspecified
F11981 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced sexual dysfunction
F11982 Opioid use, unspecified with opioid-induced sleep disorder
F11988 Opioid use, unspecified with other opioid-induced disorder
F1199 Opioid use, unspecified with unspecified opioid-induced disorder
T400X1A Poisoning by opium, accidental (unintentional), initial encounter
T400X2A Poisoning by opium, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
T400X4A Poisoning by opium, undetermined, initial encounter
T401X1A Poisoning by heroin, accidental (unintentional), initial encounter
T401X2A Poisoning by heroin, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
T401X4A Poisoning by heroin, undetermined, initial encounter
T402X1A Poisoning by other opioids, accidental (unintentional), initial encounter
T402X2A Poisoning by other opioids, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
T402X4A Poisoning by other opioids, undetermined, initial encounter
T403X1A Poisoning by methadone, accidental (unintentional), initial encounter
T403X2A Poisoning by methadone, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
T403X4A Poisoning by methadone, undetermined, initial encounter

 

APPENDIX B. NDC CODES IDENTIFYING MAT

NDC Product Name Route of Admin Master Form Code Strength in MG Generic Name
00054-0188-13 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00054-0189-13 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00093-5720-56 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00093-5721-56 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00228-3154-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00228-3154-73 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00228-3155-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00228-3155-73 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00406-1923-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00406-1924-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00490-0051-00 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00490-0051-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00490-0051-60 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
00490-0051-90 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1202-01 SUBOXONE SL FIL 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1202-03 SUBOXONE SL FIL 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1204-01 SUBOXONE SL FIL 4-1 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1204-03 SUBOXONE SL FIL 4-1 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1208-01 SUBOXONE SL FIL 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1208-03 SUBOXONE SL FIL 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1212-01 SUBOXONE SL FIL 12-3 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1212-03 SUBOXONE SL FIL 12-3 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1278-02 SUBUTEX SL TAB 2 Buprenorphine
12496-1283-02 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1306-02 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
12496-1310-02 SUBUTEX SL TAB 8 Buprenorphine
16590-0666-05 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
16590-0666-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
16590-0667-05 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
16590-0667-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
16590-0667-90 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
23490-9270-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
23490-9270-06 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
23490-9270-09 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
35356-0004-07 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
35356-0004-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
42291-0174-30 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
42291-0175-30 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
43063-0184-07 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
43063-0184-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
49999-0395-07 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
49999-0395-15 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
49999-0395-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
49999-0638-30 SUBUTEX SL TAB 2 Buprenorphine
49999-0639-30 SUBUTEX SL TAB 8 Buprenorphine
50383-0287-93 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
50383-0294-93 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
52959-0304-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
52959-0749-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
53217-0138-30 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54123-0114-30 ZUBSOLV SL TAB 11.4-2.9 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54123-0914-30 ZUBSOLV SL TAB 1.4-0.36 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54123-0929-30 ZUBSOLV SL TAB 2.9-0.71 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54123-0957-30 ZUBSOLV SL TAB 5.7-1.4 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54123-0986-30 ZUBSOLV SL TAB 8.6-2.1 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-5496-00 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-5739-00 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-5739-01 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-5739-02 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-6399-00 SUBOXONE SL FIL 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54569-6408-00 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5707-00 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5707-01 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5707-02 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5707-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5707-04 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
54868-5750-00 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
55045-3784-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
55700-0147-30 SUBOXONE SL FIL 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
55700-0184-30 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
55887-0312-04 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
55887-0312-15 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0012-01 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 2.1-0.3 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0012-30 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 2.1-0.3 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0014-01 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 4.2-0.7 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0014-30 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 4.2-0.7 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0016-01 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 6.3-1 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
59385-0016-30 BUNAVAIL MM FIL 6.3-1 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63629-4028-01 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63629-4034-01 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63629-4034-02 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63629-4034-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63629-4092-01 SUBUTEX SL TAB 8 Buprenorphine
63874-1084-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63874-1085-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63874-1173-03 SUBUTEX SL TAB 8 Buprenorphine
63874-1174-03 SUBUTEX SL TAB 2 Buprenorphine
65162-0415-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
65162-0416-03 BUPRENORPHINE-NALOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
66336-0015-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
66336-0016-30 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
68071-1380-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 8-2 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
68071-1510-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
68258-2999-03 SUBOXONE SL TAB 2-0.5 Buprenorphine/Naloxone
63459-0300-42 VIVITROL IM GER 380 VIVITROL
65757-0300-01 VIVITROL IM GER 380 VIVITROL
FIL = buccal film; GER = gluteal extended release; IM = intramuscular; MAT = medication-assisted treatment; MM = mucous membrane; NDC = National Drug Code; SL = sublingual; TAB = tablet.

 

APPENDIX C. CPT, REVENUE, AND HCPCS SERVICE CODES

Category Code Description of CPT or Revenue Code Additional Codes
Residential H0010 Alcohol and/or drug services; subacute detoxification (residential addiction program inpatient) DX
Residential H0011 Alcohol and/or drug services; acute detoxification (residential addiction program inpatient) DX
Residential H0017 Behavioral health; residential (hospital residential treatment program), without room and board, per diem DX
Residential H0018 Behavioral health; short-term residential (non-hospital residential treatment program), without room and board, per diem DX
Residential H0019 Behavioral health; long-term residential (non-medical, non-acute care in a residential treatment program where stay is typically longer than 30 days), without room and board, per diem DX
Residential T2048 Behavioral health; long-term care residential (non-acute care in a residential treatment program where stay is typically longer than 30 days), with room and board, per diem DX
Residential H0012 Alcohol and/or drug services; subacute detoxification (residential addiction program outpatient) DX
Residential H0013 Alcohol and/or drug services; acute detoxification (residential addiction program outpatient) DX
Residential 1001 (rev) Residential treatment--psychiatric DX
Residential 1002 (rev) Residential treatment--chemical dependency DX
Residential 90791 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, initial diagnostic interview, excludes medical services DX, POS
Residential 90792 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation with medical services DX, POS
Residential 90801 Diagnostic interview examination *code deleted in 2013 and replaced by 90791* DX, POS
Residential 90802 Interactive diagnostic interview examination *code deleted in 2013 replaced by 90792* DX, POS
Residential 90816 Individual psychotherapy, 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90817 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90818 Individual psychotherapy, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90819 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90821 Individual psychotherapy, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90822 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90823 Interactive individual psychotherapy 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90824 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90826 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90827 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90828 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90829 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90832 Psychotherapy, 30 min DX, POS
Residential 90833 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 30 min DX, POS
Residential 90834 Psychotherapy, 45 min DX, POS
Residential 90836 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 45 min DX, POS
Residential 90837 Psychotherapy, 60 min DX, POS
Residential 90839 Psychotherapy for crisis DX, POS
Residential 90840 Psychotherapy for crisis, add-on for each additional 30 min DX, POS
Residential 90845 Psychoanalysis DX, POS
Residential 90847 Family psychotherapy, conjoint psychotherapy with patient present DX, POS
Residential 90849 Multiple-family group psychotherapy DX, POS
Residential 90853 Group psychotherapy, more than of a multiple-family group DX, POS
Residential 90857 Interactive group psychotherapy *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90862 Pharmacologic management *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Residential 90867 Therapeutic repetitive TMS DX, POS
Residential 90868 Subsequent TMS Delivery and Management DX, POS
Residential 90869 Subsequent TMS Motor Threshold Re-Determination with Delivery and Management DX, POS
Residential 90870 Electroconvulsive Therapy DX, POS
Residential 90875 Individual Psychophysiological Therapy Incorporating Biofeedback Training by any Modality, 20-30 min DX, POS
Residential 90876 Individual Psychophysiological Therapy Incorporating Biofeedback Training by any Modality, 45-50 min DX, POS
Residential 99221 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, low severity DX, POS
Residential 99222 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, moderate severity DX, POS
Residential 99223 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, high severity DX, POS
Residential 99231 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, low complexity DX, POS
Residential 99232 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, moderate complexity DX, POS
Residential 99233 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, unstable or high complexity DX, POS
Residential 99238 Hospital discharge services, 30 min or less DX, POS
Residential 99239 Hospital discharge services, more than 30 min DX, POS
Residential 99251 Inpatient consultation, self-limited or minor, 20 min at bedside DX, POS
Residential 99252 Inpatient consultation, low severity, 40 min at bedside DX, POS
Residential 99253 Inpatient consultation, moderate severity, 55 min at bedside DX, POS
Residential 99254 Inpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 80 min at bedside DX, POS
Residential 99255 Inpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 110 min at bedside DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. G0410 Group psychotherapy other than of a multiple-family group, in a partial hospitalization setting, approximately 45-50 min DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. G0411 Interactive group psychotherapy, in a partial hospitalization setting, approximately 45-50 min DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. H0015 Alcohol and/or drug services; intensive outpatient (treatment program that operates at least 3 hours/day and at least 3 days/week and is based on an individualized treatment plan), including assessment, counseling; crisis intervention, and activity therapies or education DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. H0035 Mental health partial hospitalization, treatment, less than 24 hours DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. H2001 Rehabilitation program, per 1/2 day DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. H2012 Behavioral health day treatment, per hour DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. S0201 Partial hospitalization services, less than 24 hours, per diem DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. S9480 Intensive outpatient psychiatric services, per diem DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. S9484 Crisis intervention mental health services, per hour DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. S9485 Crisis intervention mental health services, per diem DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. 0905 (rev) Intensive outpatient services--psychiatric DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. 0906 (rev) Chemical dependency DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. 0907 (rev) Community behavioral health program--day treatment DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. 0912 (rev) Partial hospitalization-less intensive DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. 0913 (rev) Partial hospitalization-intensive DX
IOP or Partial Hosp. h0009 Alc/drug services--acute detox (hosp inpt) DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. g0378 Hospital observation service, per hour DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90791 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, initial diagnostic interview, excludes medical services DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90792 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation with medical services DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90801 Diagnostic interview examination *code deleted in 2013 and replaced by 90791* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90802 Interactive diagnostic interview examination *code deleted in 2013 replaced by 90792* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90816 Individual psychotherapy, 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90817 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90818 Individual psychotherapy, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90819 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90821 Individual psychotherapy, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90822 Individual psychotherapy with E/M, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90823 Interactive individual psychotherapy 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90824 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90826 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90827 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90828 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90829 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90832 Psychotherapy, 30 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90833 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 30 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90834 Psychotherapy, 45 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90836 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 45 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90837 Psychotherapy, 60 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90839 Psychotherapy for crisis DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90840 Psychotherapy for crisis, add-on for each additional 30 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90845 Psychoanalysis DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90847 Family psychotherapy, conjoint psychotherapy with patient present DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90849 Multiple-family group psychotherapy DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90853 Group psychotherapy, more than of a multiple-family group DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90855 psych eval hosp records dx purposes DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90857 Interactive group psychotherapy *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90862 Pharmacologic management *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90867 Therapeutic repetitive TMS DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90868 Subsequent TMS Delivery and Management DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90869 Subsequent TMS Motor Threshold Re-Determination with Delivery and Management DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90870 Electroconvulsive Therapy DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90875 Individual Psychophysiological Therapy Incorporating Biofeedback Training by any Modality, 20-30 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 90876 Individual Psychophysiological Therapy Incorporating Biofeedback Training by any Modality, 45-50 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99221 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, low severity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99222 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, moderate severity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99223 Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, high severity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99224 Subsequent observation care/day 15 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99225 Subsequent observation care/day 25 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99226 Subsequent observation care/day 35 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99231 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, low complexity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99232 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, moderate complexity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99233 Inpatient services, subsequent hospital care, unstable or high complexity DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99234 Observation/inpatient hospital care 40 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99235 Observation/inpatient hospital care 50 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99238 Hospital discharge services, 30 min or less DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99239 Hospital discharge services, more than 30 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99251 Inpatient consultation, self-limited or minor, 20 min at bedside DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99252 Inpatient consultation, low severity, 40 min at bedside DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99253 Inpatient consultation, moderate severity, 55 min at bedside DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99254 Inpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 80 min at bedside DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. 99255 Inpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 110 min at bedside DX, POS
ED Visits 0450 (rev) ER-General DX
ED Visits 0451 (rev) EMTALA emergency medical screening services DX
ED Visits 0452 (rev) ER beyond EMTALA screening DX
ED Visits 0456 (rev) Urgent Care DX
ED Visits 0459 (rev) Other DX
ED Visits 0981 (rev) Professional fees-ER DX
ED Visits 99281 ED Services, self-limited or minor DX
ED Visits 99282 ED Services, low or moderate severity DX
ED Visits 99283 ED Services, moderate severity DX
ED Visits 99284 ED Services, high severity DX
ED Visits 99285 ED Services, high severity and pose immediate and significant threat to life or physiological function DX
Outpatient Visit 98960 Education and training for patient self-management by a qualified, non-physician health care professional using a standardized curriculum, face-to-face with the patient; individual patient DX
Outpatient Visit 98961 Education and training for patient self-management by a qualified, non-physician health care professional using a standardized curriculum, face-to-face with the patient; 2-4 patients DX
Outpatient Visit 98962 Education and training for patient self-management by a qualified, non-physician health care professional using a standardized curriculum, face-to-face with the patient; 5-8 patients DX
Outpatient Visit 99078 Physician educational services rendered to patients in a group setting DX
Outpatient Visit 99201 Office or Other outpatient services, new patient, self-limited or minor, 10 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99202 Office or Other outpatient services, new patient, low to moderate severity, 20 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99203 Office or Other outpatient services, new patient, moderate severity, 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99204 Office or Other outpatient services, moderate to high severity, 45 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99205 Office or Other outpatient services, moderate to high severity, 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99211 This code is used for a service that may not require the presence of a physician. Presenting problems are minimal, and 5 min is the typical time that would be spent performing or supervising these services. DX
Outpatient Visit 99212 Established patient, self-limited or minor, 10 mins DX
Outpatient Visit 99213 Established patient, low to moderate severity, 15 mins DX
Outpatient Visit 99214 Established patient, moderate to high severity, 25 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99215 Established patient, moderate to high severity, 40 mins DX
Outpatient Visit 99217 This code is used to report all services provided on discharge from "observation status" if the discharge occurs after the initial date of "observation status." DX
Outpatient Visit 99218 Initial observation care, low severity DX
Outpatient Visit 99219 Initial observation care, moderate severity DX
Outpatient Visit 99220 Initial observation care, high severity DX
Outpatient Visit 99241 Office or other outpatient consultations, self-limited or minor, 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99242 Office or other outpatient consultation, low severity, 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99243 Office or other outpatient consultation, moderate severity, 40 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99244 Office or other outpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99245 Office or other outpatient consultation, moderate to high severity, 80 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99341 Home services, new patient, low severity, 20 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99342 Home services, new patient, moderate severity 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99343 Home services, new patient, moderate to high severity, 45 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99344 Home services, new patient, high severity, 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99345 Home services, new patient, patient unstable or developed significant new problem, 75 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99347 Home services, established patient, low severity, 20 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99348 Home services, established patient, low to moderate severity 25 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99349 Home services, established patient, moderate to high severity, 40 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99350 Home services, established patient, moderate to high severity, patient may be unstable, 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99384 Initial evaluation of new patient, 12-17 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99385 Initial evaluation of new patient, 18-39 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99386 Initial evaluation of new patient, 40-64 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99387 Initial evaluation of new patient, 65 and over DX
Outpatient Visit 99394 Initial evaluation of established patient, 12-17 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99395 Initial evaluation of established patient, 18-39 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99396 Initial evaluation of established patient, 40-64 years DX
Outpatient Visit 99397 Initial evaluation of established patient, 65 and over DX
Outpatient Visit 99401 Preventive medicine counseling and/or risk factor reduction intervention(s) provided to an individual (separate procedure); approximately 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99402 Preventive medicine counseling and/or risk factor reduction intervention(s) provided to an individual (separate procedure); approximately 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99403 Preventive medicine counseling and/or risk factor reduction intervention(s) provided to an individual (separate procedure); approximately 45 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99404 Preventive medicine counseling and/or risk factor reduction intervention(s) provided to an individual (separate procedure); approximately 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99408 Counseling risk factor reduction and behavior change, 15-30 min, includes the administration of an alcohol and/or substance abuse screening tool and brief intervention DX
Outpatient Visit 99409 Counseling risk factor reduction and behavior change, 30 min or more DX
Outpatient Visit 99411 Group counseling services, preventative medicine, 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99412 Group counseling services, preventative medicine, 60 min DX
Outpatient Visit 99510 Home visit for individual, family, or marriage counseling DX
Outpatient Visit 99605 Medication therapy initial, 15 min new patient DX
Outpatient Visit 99606 Medication therapy initial, 15 min established pt DX
Outpatient Visit G0155 Services of clinical social worker in home health or hospice settings, each 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit G0176 Activity therapy, such as music, dance, art or play therapies not for recreation, related to the care and treatment of patient's disabling mental health problems, per session (45 min or more) DX
Outpatient Visit G0177 Training and educational services related to the care and treatment of patient's disabling mental health problems per session (45 min or more) DX
Outpatient Visit G0396 Alcohol and/or substance (other than tobacco) abuse structured assessment (e.g., audit, dast), and brief intervention 15-30 min DX
Outpatient Visit G0397 Alcohol and/or substance (other than tobacco) abuse structured assessment (e.g., audit, dast), and intervention, greater than 30 min DX
Outpatient Visit G0409 Social work and psychological services, directly relating to and/or furthering the patient's rehabilitation goals, each 15 min, face-to-face; individual (services provided by a corf-qualified social worker or psychologist in a corf) DX
Outpatient Visit G0443 Brief face-to-face behavioral counseling for alcohol misuse, 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit G0463 Hospital outpatient clinic visit for assessment and management of a patient DX
Outpatient Visit H0001 Alcohol and/or drug assessment DX
Outpatient Visit H0002 Behavioral health screening to determine eligibility for admission to treatment program DX
Outpatient Visit H0004 Behavioral health counseling and therapy, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H0005 Alcohol and/or drug services; group counseling by a clinician DX
Outpatient Visit H0007 Alcohol and/or drug services; crisis intervention (outpatient) DX
Outpatient Visit H0014 Alc/drug ambulatory detox DX
Outpatient Visit H0016 Alcohol and/or drug services; medical/somatic (medical intervention in ambulatory setting) DX
Outpatient Visit H0022 Alcohol and/or drug intervention service (planned facilitation) DX
Outpatient Visit H0031 Mental health assessment, by non-physician DX
Outpatient Visit H0034 Medication training and support, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H0036 Community psychiatric supportive treatment, face-to-face, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H0037 Community psychiatric supportive treatment program, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H0039 Assertive community treatment, face-to-face, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H0040 Assertive community treatment program, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H2000 Comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation DX
Outpatient Visit H2010 Comprehensive medication services, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2011 Crisis intervention service, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2013 Psychiatric health facility service, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H2014 Skills training and development, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2015 Comprehensive community support services, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2016 Comprehensive community support services, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H2017 Psychosocial rehabilitation services, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2018 Psychosocial rehabilitation services, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H2019 Therapeutic behavioral services, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit H2020 Therapeutic behavioral services, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H2035 Alcohol and/or other drug treatment program, per hour DX
Outpatient Visit H2036 Alcohol and/or other drug treatment program, per diem DX
Outpatient Visit H0046 Mental health services not otherwise specified DX
Outpatient Visit H0047 Alc/drug abuse svc not otherwise specified DX
Outpatient Visit H0050 Alc/drug brief intervention, per 15 min DX
Outpatient Visit M0064 Brief office visit for the sole purpose of monitoring or changing drug prescriptions used in the treatment of mental psychoneurotic and personality disorders DX
Outpatient Visit S9475 Ambulatory setting substance abuse tx/detox DX
Outpatient Visit T1006 Alcohol and/or substance abuse services, family/couple counseling DX
Outpatient Visit T1012 Alcohol and/or substance abuse services, skills development DX
Outpatient Visit T1015 Clinic visit/encounter, all-inclusive DX
Outpatient Visit 0510 (rev) General clinic visit DX
Outpatient Visit 0513 (rev) Psychiatric clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0515 (rev) Pediatric clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0516 (rev) Urgent care clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0517 (rev) Family practice clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0519 (rev) Other clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0520 (rev) Freestanding clinic, general DX
Outpatient Visit 0521 (rev) Clinic visit by member to RHC/FQHC DX
Outpatient Visit 0522 (rev) Home visit by RHC/FQHC practitioner DX
Outpatient Visit 0523 (rev) Family practice clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0526 (rev) Urgent care clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0527 (rev) Visiting nurse services to member's home in a home health shortage area DX
Outpatient Visit 0528 (rev) Visit by RHC/FQHC practitioner to other non-RHC/FQHC site (e.g., scene of accident) DX
Outpatient Visit 0529 (rev) Other Freestanding clinic DX
Outpatient Visit 0900 (rev) BH Treatment/services, general DX
Outpatient Visit 0902 (rev) Milieu therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0903 (rev) Play therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0904 (rev) Activity therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0911 (rev) Rehabilitation DX
Outpatient Visit 0914 (rev) Individual therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0915 (rev) Group therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0916 (rev) Family therapy DX
Outpatient Visit 0917 (rev) Biofeedback DX
Outpatient Visit 0919 (rev) BH treatments DX
Outpatient Visit 0944 (rev) Drug rehabilitation DX
Outpatient Visit 0945 (rev) Alcohol rehabilitation DX
Outpatient Visit 0982 (rev) Outpatient services, fees DX
Outpatient Visit 0983 (rev) Clinic, fees DX
Outpatient Visit 90791 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, initial diagnostic interview, excludes medical services DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90792 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation with medical services DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90801 Diagnostic Interview Examination DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90802 Interactive diagnostic interview examination DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90862 Pharmacologic management *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90867 Therapeutic repetitive TMS DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90868 Subsequent TMS Delivery and Management DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90869 Subsequent TMS Motor Threshold Re-Determination with Delivery and Management DX, POS
Outpatient Visit 90870 Electroconvulsive Therapy DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90785 Psychotherapy complex interactive, add-on for "difficult" patient DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90804 Individual psychotherapy, insight-oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office or outpatient facility, 20-30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90805 Individual psychotherapy, insight-oriented, behavior modifying and/or supportive, in an office or outpatient facility, with medical evaluation and management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90806 Individual therapy, 45-50 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90807 Individual therapy with med management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90808 Individual therapy, 75-80 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90809 Individual therapy with med management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90810 Interactive therapy 20-30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90811 Interactive therapy, med management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90812 Interactive therapy, 45-50 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90813 Interactive therapy, med management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90814 Interactive therapy, 75-80 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90815 Interactive therapy, med management DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90857 Interactive group psychotherapy *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90832 Psychotherapy, 30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90833 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90834 Psychotherapy, 45 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90836 E/M plus psychotherapy add-on, 45 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90837 Psychotherapy, 60 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90838 Individual Psychotherapy, 60 min with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90853 Group psychotherapy, more than of a multiple-family group DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90839 Psychotherapy for crisis DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90840 Psychotherapy for crisis, add-on for each additional 30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90844 Psychotherapy 45-50 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90845 Psychoanalysis DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90847 Family psychotherapy, conjoint psychotherapy with patient present DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90849 Multiple-family group psychotherapy DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90863 Pharm management w/ psych add-on for prescribing psychologist in certain states DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90875 Individual psychophysiological therapy incorporating biofeedback training by any modality, 20-30 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90876 Individual psychophysiological therapy incorporating biofeedback training by any modality, 45-50 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 99355 Individual psychophysiological therapy incorporating biofeedback training by any modality, 45-50 min DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90823 Interactive individual psychotherapy 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90824 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 20-30 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90825 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90826 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 45-50 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90827 Interactive individual psychotherapy, 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90828 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90829 Interactive individual psychotherapy with E/M 75-80 min *code deleted in 2013* DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90839 Psychotherapy for crisis DX, POS
Outpatient Codes: Psychotherapy Codes 90840 Psychotherapy for crisis, add-on for each additional 30 min DX, POS
Outpatient: Peer Support H0038 Self-help/peer services, per 15 min DX, POS
Outpatient: Bupr service admin. J0571 Buprenorphine/naloxone, oral, less than or equal to 3mg buprenorphine (Buprenorphine oral 1mg) none
Outpatient: Bupr service admin. J0572 Buprenorphine/naloxone, oral, less than or equal to 3mg buprenorphine (Bupren/nal up to 3mg bupreno) none
Outpatient: Bupr service admin. J0573 Buprenorphine/naloxone, oral, greater than 3mg, but less than or equal to 3.1-6mg (Bupren/nal 3.1-6mg bupren) none
Outpatient: Bupr service admin. J0574 Buprenorphine/naloxone, oral, greater than 6mg, but less than or equal to 10mg buprenorphine (Bupren/nal 6.1-10mg bupre) none
Outpatient: Bupr service admin. J0575 Buprenorphine/naloxone, oral, greater than 10mg buprenorphine (Bupren/nal over 10mg bupreno) none
Outpatient: Methadone H0020 Alcohol and/or drug services; methadone administration and/or service (provision by a licensed program) none
Outpatient: Methadone S0109 Methadone, oral, 5mg none
Outpatient: Methadone J1230 Methadone, injection, up to 10mg none
Outpatient: Naltrexone J2315 Vivitrol, injection, 1mg none
Outpatient: Naloxone J2310 Naloxone Hydrochloride, injection, per 1mg none
Outpatient: case management H0006 Alcohol/and or drug services case management DX, POS
Outpatient: case management T1007 Treatment plan dev and/or mod for alcohol/sa DX, POS
Outpatient: case management T1017 Targeted case management, each 15 min DX, POS
Outpatient: case management T2023 Targeted case management, per month DX, POS
Outpatient: case management T1016 Case management, each 15 min DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. H0008 Alcohol and/or drug services; subacute detoxification (hospital inpatient) DX, POS
IOP or Partial Hosp. H0009 Alc/drug services--acute detox (hosp inpt) DX, POS
Residential H0010 Alcohol and/or drug services; subacute detoxification (residential addiction program inpatient) DX
Residential H0011 Alcohol and/or drug services; acute detoxification (residential addiction program inpatient) DX
Residential H0012 Alcohol and/or drug services; subacute detoxification (residential addiction program outpatient) DX
Residential H0013 Alcohol and/or drug services; acute detoxification (residential addiction program outpatient) DX
Outpatient Visit H0014 Alc/drug ambulatory detox DX
Outpatient Visit S9475 Ambulatory setting substance abuse tx/detox DX

 

APPENDIX D. SAMPLE ATTRITION TABLE

Variable 2006-2007 2014-2015
Individuals in Truven Health MarketScan® CCAE Database 41,849,679 54,215,535
General Restrictions    
I. Restrict to self-insured employers with plans that submitted prescription drug claims (enrollees) 17,365,707 25,205,277
   Number of plans that meet restriction I 7,758 10,036
II. Restrict to enrollees with prescription drug data (enrollees) 17,348,720 25,205,277
   Number of plans that meet restriction I and II 7,751 10,036
III. Restrict to individuals enrolled for at least 10 out of 12 months (enrollees) 13,649,697 20,015,302
IV. Restrict to age 12-64 years (enrollees) FINAL SAMPLE 11,307,960 16,802,208

 

NOTES

  1. Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, et al. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths--United States, 2010-2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations and Reports. 2016; 65(50-51): 1445-1452. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051e1.htm.

  2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Behavioral Health Spending and Use Accounts, 1986-2014. HHS Publication No. SMA-16-4975. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2016.

  3. Reif S, Creedon TB, Horgan CM, et al. Commercial health plan coverage of selected treatments for opioid use disorders from 2003 to 2014. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2017; 49(2): 102-110.

  4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Treatment for Substance Use Disorders. 2016. https://www.samhsa.gov/treatment/substance-use-disorders.

  5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. Early intervention, treatment, and management of substance use disorders. In: Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General's Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016: 6-1-6-71. https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/.

  6. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Initiation and Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment. Available from http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality/2016-table-of-contents/alcoholtreatment.

  7. Dufour R, Joshi AV, Pasquale MK, et al. The prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse in commercial and Medicare managed care populations. Pain Practice. 2014; 14(3): E106-E115.

  8. Mark TL, Yee T, Levit KR, et al. Insurance financing increased for mental health conditions but not for substance use disorders, 1986-2014. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2016; 35(6): 958-965.

  9. Mark TL, Yee T, Levit KR, et al. Insurance financing increased for mental health conditions but not for substance use disorders, 1986-2014. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2016; 35(6): 958-965.

  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prescription Opioid Overdose Data. 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html.

  11. Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, et al. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths--United States, 2010-2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations and Reports. 2016; 65(50-51): 1445-1452. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051e1.htm.

  12. Authors' analysis of NSDUH data.

  13. Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Fact Sheet. 2013. https://cciio.cms.gov/programs/protections/mhpaea/mhpaea_factsheet.html.

  14. National Conference of State Legislatures. Drug Overdose Immunity and Good Samaritan Laws. 2017. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/drug-overdose-immunity-good-samaritan-laws.aspx.

  15. Busch SH, Epstein AJ, Harhay MO, et al. The effects of federal parity on substance use disorder treatment. American Journal of Managed Care. 2014; 20(1): 76-82.

  16. Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; the Application of Mental Health Parity Requirements to Coverage Offered by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Alternative Benefit Plans. Federal Register. 2016; 81:18389. To be codified at 42 CFR §438, §440, §456, §457.

  17. Tai B, Volkow ND. Treatment for substance use disorder: Opportunities and challenges under the Affordable Care Act. Social Work in Public Health. 2013; 28(3-4): 165-174.

  18. Cummings JR, Wen H, Ko M, et al. Race/ethnicity and geographic access to Medicaid substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014; 71(2): 190-196.

  19. Saloner B, Lê Cook B. An ACA provision increased treatment for young adults with possible mental illnesses relative to comparison group. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2014; 33(8): 1425-1434.

  20. Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, et al. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths--United States, 2010-2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations and Reports. 2016; 65(50-51): 1445-1452. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051e1.htm.

  21. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Behavioral Health Spending and Use Accounts, 1986-2014. HHS Publication No. SMA-16-4975. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2016.

  22. Reif S, Creedon TB, Horgan CM, et al. Commercial health plan coverage of selected treatments for opioid use disorders from 2003 to 2014. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2017; 49(2): 102-110.

  23. Andrews CM, D'Aunno TA, Pollack HA, et al. Adoption of evidence-based clinical innovations: The case of buprenorphine use by opioid treatment programs. Medical Care Research and Review. 2014; 71(1): 43-60.

  24. Fair Health. (2016). The Impact of the Opioid Crisis on the Healthcare System: A Study of Privately Billed Services. New York, NY: FAIR Health.

  25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. Early intervention, treatment, and management of substance use disorders. In: Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General's Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016: 6-1-6-71. https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/.

  26. American Society of Addiction Medicine. The ASAM National Practice Guideline for the Use of Medications in the Treatment of Addiction Involving Opioid Use. Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 2015. https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/practice-support/guidelines-and-consensus-docs/asam-national-practice-guideline-supplement.pdf.

  27. American Society of Addiction Medicine. The ASAM National Practice Guideline for the Use of Medications in the Treatment of Addiction Involving Opioid Use. Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 2015: 6. https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/practice-support/guidelines-and-consensus-docs/asam-national-practice-guideline-supplement.pdf.

  28. Fullerton CA, Kim M, Thomas CP, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services. 2014; 65(2): 146-157.

  29. Thomas CP, Fullerton CA, Kim M, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services. 2014; 65: 158-170.

  30. Mattick R, Breen, C, Kimber, J, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD002209; 2009.

  31. Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, et al. Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD001333; 2011.

  32. Krupitsky E, Nunes EV, Ling W, et al. Injectable extended-release naltrexone for opioid dependence: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2011; 377: 1506-1513.

  33. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Medication-Assisted Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Pocket Guide. SMA 16-4892PG. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/Medication-Assisted-Treatment-of-Opioid-Use-Disorder-Pocket-Guide/SMA16-4892PG.

  34. Reichert J, Gleicher L, Salisbury-Afshar E. An Overview of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders for Criminal Justice-Involved Individuals. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 2017. http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/an-overview-of-medication-assisted-treatment-for-opioid-use-disorders-for-criminal-justice-involved-individuals.

  35. Ibid.

  36. Noysk B, Anglin MD, Brissette S, et al. A call for evidence-based medical treatment of opioid dependence in the United States and Canada. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2013; 32(8): 1462-1469.

  37. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines. Updated September 28, 2015. https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/legislation-regulations-guidelines.

  38. Medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorders. Federal Register. 2016; 81: 44711. To be codified at 42 CFR §8. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/08/2016-16120/medication-assisted-treatment-for-opioid-use-disorders.

  39. Jones CM, Campopiano M, Baldwin G, et al. National and state treatment need and capacity for opioid agonist medication-assisted treatment. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105(8): e55-e61.

  40. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. TIP 43: Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs. 2012. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/TIP-43-Medication-Assisted-Treatment-for-Opioid-Addiction-in-Opioid-Treatment-Programs/SMA12-4214.

  41. Brooks AC, Comer SD, Sullivan MA, et al. Long-acting injectable versus oral naltrexone maintenance therapy with psychosocial intervention for heroin dependence: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2010; 71(10): 1371-1378.

  42. Lee JD, Friedmann PD, Kinlock TW, et al. Extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse in criminal justice offenders. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 374(13): 1232-1242.

  43. Harris AHS, Bowe T, Del Re AC, et al. Extended release naltrexone for alcohol use disorders: Quasi-experimental effects on mortality and subsequent detoxification episodes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2015; 39(1): 79-83.

  44. Lee J, Kresina TF, Campopiano M, et al. Use of pharmacotherapies in the treatment of alcohol use disorders and opioid dependence in primary care. BioMed Research International. 2015; 2015: 137020.

  45. Alanis-Hirsch K, Cross R, Ford JH, et al. Extended-release naltrexone: A qualitative analysis of barriers to routine use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016; 62: 68-73.

  46. Lee JD, Friedmann PD, Kinlock TW, et al. Extended-release naltrexone to prevent opioid relapse in criminal justice offenders. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 374(13): 1232-1242.

  47. NYU Langone Medical Center. Opioid Relapse Rates Fall With Long-Term Use of Medication for Adults Involved in Criminal Justice System. Press release. March 30, 2016. https://nyulangone.org/press-releases/opioid-relapse-rates-fall-with-long-term-use-of-medication-for-adults-involved-in-criminal-justice-system.

  48. Dufour R, Joshi AV, Pasquale MK, et al. The prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse in commercial and Medicare managed care populations. Pain Practice. 2014; 14(3): E106-E115.

  49. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Initiation and Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment. Available from http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality/2016-table-of-contents/alcoholtreatment.

  50. Weiss RD, Potter JS, Fiellin DA, et al. Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: A 2-phase randomized controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2011; 68(12): 1238-1246.

  51. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Initiation and Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment. Available from http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality/2016-table-of-contents/alcoholtreatment.

  52. HCUP CCS. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). March 2017. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available from http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp.

  53. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Initiation and Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment. Available from http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality/2016-table-of-contents/alcoholtreatment.

  54. Weiss RD, Potter JS, Fiellin DA, et al. Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: A 2-phase randomized controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2011; 68(12): 1238-1246.

  55. Dufour R, Joshi AV, Pasquale MK, et al. The prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse in commercial and Medicare managed care populations. Pain Practice. 2014; 14(3): E106-E115.

  56. Reif S, Creedon TB, Horgan CM, et al. Commercial health plan coverage of selected treatments for opioid use disorders from 2003 to 2014. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2017; 49(2): 102-110.

  57. Horgan CM, Reif S, Hodgkin D, et al. Availability of addiction medications in private health plans. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016; 34: 147-156.

  58. Reif S, Horgan CM, Hodgkin D, et al. Access to addiction pharmacotherapy in private health plans. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016; 66: 23-29.

  59. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Behavioral Health Trends in the United States: Results From the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. HHS Pub No. (SMA) 15-4927, NSDUH Series H-50. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2015. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH-FRR1-2014.pdf.

  60. Kampman K, Jarvis M. American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) national practice guideline for the use of medication in the treatment of addiction involving opioid use. Journal of Addiction Medicine. 2015; 9(5): 358-367.

  61. Mark TL, Yee T, Levit KR, et al. Insurance financing increased for mental health conditions but not for substance use disorders, 1986-2014. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2016; 35(6): 958-965.

  62. Reif S, Horgan CM, Hodgkin D, et al. Access to addiction pharmacotherapy in private health plans. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016; 66: 23-29.

  63. See http://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/ama-to-insurers-drop-prior-approval-for-opioid-treatment.

  64. See http://www.paproviders.org/governor-wolf-removing-pre-authorization-for-mat/.

  65. Stein BD, Gordan AJ, Dick AW, et al. Supply of buprenorphine waivered physicians: the influence of state policies. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2015; 48: 104-111.

  66. Jones CM, Campopiano M, Baldwin G, et al. National and state treatment need and capacity for opioid agonist medication-assisted treatment. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105(8): e55-e61.

  67. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women's Health. Final Report: Opioid Use, Misuse, and Overdose in Women. July 13, 2017.

  68. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women's Health. Final Report: Opioid Use, Misuse, and Overdose in Women. July 13, 2017.

  69. Mark TL, Yee T, Levit KR, et al. Insurance financing increased for mental health conditions but not for substance use disorders, 1986-2014. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2016; 35(6): 958-965.

  70. American Society of Addiction Medicine. The 21st Century Cure Act--Highlights for ASAM Members. 2016a. https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2016/12/07/the-21st-century-cures-act---highlights-for-asam-members.

  71. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Apply to Increase Patient Limits. 2017. https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/buprenorphine-waiver-management/increase-patient-limits.

  72. American Society of Addiction Medicine. Summary of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. 2016b. https://www.asam.org/advocacy/issues/opioids/summary-of-the-comprehensive-addiction-and-recovery-act.


Use of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

This report was prepared under contract #HHSP233201600023I between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy (DALTCP) and Truven Health Analytics. For additional information about this subject, you can visit the DALTCP home page at http://aspe.hhs.gov/office-disability-aging-and-long-term-care-policy-daltcp or contact the ASPE Project Officers, Laurel Fuller and D.E.B. Potter, at HHS/ASPE/DALTCP, Room 424E, H.H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201; Laurel.Fuller@hhs.gov.

Reports Available

Use of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Final Report

Use of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Out-of-Pocket Costs