Tag Archives: formulary

Good Answer (Maybe) on Opioids in California

The California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) has added its voice to the growing national consensus that greater controls are needed over the use of Schedule II medications in workers’ compensation medical treatment and disability management. But the CWCI research must be analyzed in a broader context.

First, we continue to view the abuse of these medications in a “going forward” context – we focus on, how can we stop over-prescribing these medications on claims from the effective date of such reforms? Second, we inevitably take these recommendations out of the context of the state being analyzed — can we say that the Texas closed formulary will work in any state whose system otherwise doesn’t bear any resemblance to the Texas system?

One body of work and thought proclaims the overuse of Schedule II medications to treat industrial injuries is “bad medicine” and should be stopped as soon as possible. Guidelines from Ohio, Texas and Washington, however, recognize the need for prescriptions to relieve acute and chronic pain and provide detailed guidance on moving from acute to chronic pain management. Encompassed within that guidance is recognizing when weaning from these medications, or other early interventions, is appropriate and how to taper dosages to maximize clinical effectiveness and minimize adverse consequences to injured workers.

Many of these concepts are embodied in proposed guidelines from the California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) and the Medical Board of California (MBC). It is encouraging that on Sept. 29 of this year the DWC presented its work to the MBC’s Prescription Task Force at a public hearing and that both agencies are moving forward with compatible guidelines. As seen in other states, notably Washington, inter-agency cooperation is critical so as not to create conflicts between the regulatory agencies that oversee benefit delivery systems and licensing agencies that oversee providers.

To take advantage of the potential cost savings in California’s complex workers’ compensation system identified by CWCI and the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), however, more needs to be done than adopting a closed formulary. That aspect of the Texas system requires prior authorization before prescribing an “N” drug, which includes Schedule II pain medications. After all, the California system already has: (1) claims administrators’ authority to direct medical care though the medical provider networks (MPNs); (2) the ability to adopt formularies through the MPN; (3) utilization review; (4) a medical treatment utilization schedule (MTUS) that sets forth presumptively correct guidelines for treatment, and; (5) post-Senate Bill 863 (DeLeón), independent medical review (IMR) for resolution of treatment disputes.

We are continuing to have the discussion  regarding Schedule II medications because over the past decade the controls that have been put in place to manage the care and cost of medical treatment more efficaciously and efficiently have not produced the desired results. Some of this can be attributed to the pre-SB 863 environment where the MTUS was regularly subverted through the med-legal process. Claims where high level of opioids and other medications were approved for continuing treatment are still in the system and are now subject to IMR. While the adoption of IMR may be viewed as beneficial from a payment standpoint, it is not automatically beneficial in terms of patient care. As the actions of other states have shown, for those who have become addicted or incapacitated because of their overuse of these medications – at the direction of their treating physician – necessary care means more than saying you shouldn’t have had these, or as much of these, so we’re cutting you off.

Also, more needs to be understood about the universe of claims that will be most immediately affected by a closed formulary – long-term, open claims and claims where compensability has been denied, whether completely or whether there is a dispute over a consequence of an accepted claim. As the DWC moves forward with its new Guideline for the Use of Opioids to Treat Work-Related Injuries, there needs to be more specific treatment of legacy claims or any claim where the liability of the employer is in dispute. The MBC’s Pain Management Guidelines, currently under revision, are applicable to all practitioners regardless of the nature of the injury or illness or the mechanism by which a provider is compensated. The DWC would do well to incorporate that work product into the MTUS as a reminder to all providers that, even if the claim is not accepted, it is not “off the grid,” and the MBC requirements still apply.

Finally, the claims administration community needs to take a long hard look at how we review these cases. There is a universe of claims where Schedule II medications are being approved that would not seem to be supported by best medical evidence. Payers are an integral part of the close monitoring of claims where pain management is indicated and determining when it is appropriate to start tapering use of opioids with a goal of returning the injured worker to employment. As noted by the MBC in its draft revised Pain Management Guidelines, when referring to workers’ compensation:

“The use of opioids in this population can be problematic. Some evidence suggests that early treatment with opioids may actually delay recovery and a return to work. Conflicts of motivation may also exist in patients on workers’ compensation, such as when a person may not want to return to an unsatisfying, difficult or hazardous job. Clinicians are advised to apply the same careful methods of assessment, creation of treatment plans and monitoring used for other pain patients but with added consideration of the psycho-social dynamics inherent in the workers’ compensation system. Injured workers should be afforded the full range of treatment options that are appropriate for the given condition causing the disability and impairment.”

As payers, we have the ultimate leverage to make certain treatment of injured workers meets this standard. But if we simply want to find a quicker, better way to say “no” when a request for authorization is faxed in, then a closed formulary will only be yet another attempt at lowering medical treatment costs that failed to meet expectations.

Understanding the Challenges in Narcotic Management

At a cost of more than $1.4 billion annually, narcotics and opioids have rapidly become one of the highest-cost therapeutic categories for workers’ compensation injuries.* They are also among the most difficult to manage. No employer wants to have injured workers in undue pain or discomfort – and narcotics do alleviate pain. However, there are serious issues to consider with regard to prescription abuse and misuse, especially for opioids such as Oxycontin and Vicodin.

How can employers help injured workers while ensuring appropriate use of narcotics and reducing unnecessary costs? Comprehensive, clinically based narcotic management programs can help.

Over the past 10 years, opioids, a type of narcotic, have become more commonly used to treat chronic to severe pain associated with workers’ compensation injuries. Known by the generic names of morphine or codeine, and now more frequently by the brand names Oxycontin and Vicodin, opioids are powerful pain relievers.

However, many of these medications were initially intended for end-stage cancer, not for common workplace injuries. While there is likely some benefit in some cases for the use of such medications to treat workers’ compensation injuries, clinicians note that those benefits are typically seen by just a small percentage of patients. There is little evidence to support their long-term or widespread use in standard workers’ compensation injuries. In fact, a study reported by the American Insurance Association found that only a minority of workers with back injuries improved their level of pain (26%) and function (16%) with the use of opioids.** What’s more, there is a high risk for abuse, dependency, and overutilization with this classification of drugs. Indeed, the strongest predictor of long-term opioid use was when it was prescribed within the first 90 days post-injury; that means that every prescription – especially the first one – must be scrutinized to ensure appropriate utilization and optimal benefit. Employers are also concerned about the cost of narcotics. While narcotic use is concentrated among a small percentage of claimants, per-claim costs for narcotics have increased more than 50% over the past decade

Key statistics

  • From 1997 to 2007, the milligram per person use of prescription opioids in the U.S. increased from 74 milligrams to 369 milligrams – that’s an increase of 400%.
  • In 2000, retail pharmacies dispensed 174 million prescriptions for opioids; by 2009, 257 million prescriptions were dispensed – an increase of more than 40%.
  • Opioid overdoses, once almost always because of heroin use, are now increasing because of abuse of prescription painkillers.

White House Office of National Drug Control Policy

Managing narcotics is not about removing viable medications for mitigating pain from the therapies available to providers – it is about ensuring the best possible medications for workers’ compensation injuries are used.

As a result, claims examiners should be trained to look for red flags, such as:

  • Higher-than-normal physician dispensing.
  • Lower-than-average generic dispensing.
  • Higher-than-average prescribing of opioids such as Fentanyl Citrate.

But prescribing medications is a complex issue – reports and percentages alone don’t tell the whole story. So, it’s crucial to look beyond simple prescribing reports to uncover additional information that could indicate why prescribers’ patterns are outside the norm. For example, use of amphetamines could indicate that a patient has a traumatic brain injury, where such medications are a standard treatment protocol.

Drugs that are not suitable for the injury type and the age of the claim need to be identified at the point-of-sale, so claims examiners or nurses are alerted before a prescription that is outside the formulary is filled at the retail pharmacy and can intercede with drug management, if needed. This is particularly useful in the acute injury stage to eliminate early narcotic use where it is not appropriate. If a narcotic is prescribed, the injured worker’s entire medical history needs to be reviewed, using both in-network and out-of-network transactions and non-occupational associated medications to evaluate actual medication use and ensure appropriate utilization.

Follow-up appointments should be required, and only a few days of treatment should be authorized initially. This helps determine whether the medication has improved pain control and function.

Another critical step to managing narcotics is to thoroughly educate employees as to the benefits, dangers, and alternatives for narcotics. The education should include:

  • Training the injured workers about their medication, adverse side effects, and alternative medication options.
  • Required screenings for risk of addiction or abuse (history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regular use of sedatives).
  • Opioid use agreement/contract with urine drug screenings and avoidance of other sources for medication, such as emergency rooms.

A number of factors should trigger a review:

  • Narcotic-class medications for the treatment of pain (Oxycontin, Demerol, etc.).
  • Use of multiple medications excessively or from multiple therapeutic classes.
  • Using medications not typical for the treatment of workers’ compensation injuries.
  • High-cost medications.
  • Receiving high doses of morphine equivalents daily for treatment of chronic pain.
  • Using three or more narcotic analgesics.
  • Receiving duplicate therapy with NSAIDs, muscle relaxants or sedatives.
  • Using both sedatives and stimulants concurrently.
  • Using compounded medications instead of commercially available products.

* “Narcotics in Workers Compensation,” NCCI Research Brief, Dec. 2009

** http://www.aiadc.org/AIAdotNET/docHandler.aspx?DocID=351901