暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in the quality of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment received by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in health plans that used prior authorization (PA) for buprenorphine-naloxone compared with those enrolled in plans that did not use PA.
METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study, United States. Continuously enrolled beneficiaries (71 294) with an OUD who filled at least one prescription for buprenorphine-naloxone between March 2012 and July 2017.
METHODS: Percentage of patients tested for hepatis B, hepatis C, HIV and liver functioning; percentage of patients with urine drug screens and number of urine drug screens; continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone for at least 180 days; co-use of benzodiazepines; number of outpatient visits with and without an OUD diagnosis.
RESULTS: PA was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of testing for hepatitis B [-3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.4, -2.7] and C (-5.9, 95% CI = -6.9, -4.9), but the findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in HIV (-1.1, 95% CI = -2.5, 0.4) or liver function testing (1.3, 95% CI = -0.1, 2.7). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of urine drug screening (-25.5, 95% CI = -26.8, -24.1) and with fewer drug screens (-2.5, 95% CI = -3.0, -2.1). Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone (0.3, 95% CI = -1.2, 1.8). PA was associated with fewer outpatient visits (-2.1, 95% CI = -3.0, -1.2) and fewer outpatient visits with an OUD diagnosis (-1.7, 95% CI = -2.1, -1.3). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of filling benzodiazepine prescriptions before and after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (-28.9, 95% CI = -29.6, -28.3) but a greater likelihood of only using benzodiazepines after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (10.6, 95% CI = 9.3, 11.8).
CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare patients subject to prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone are not more likely to receive high-quality treatment for opioid use disorder than patients not subject to prior authorization.

The founding members of the Coalition for Psychotherapy Parity present Clinical Necessity Guidelines for Psychotherapy, Insurance Medical Necessity and Utilization Review Protocols, and Mental Health Parity. These guidelines support access to psychotherapy as prescribed by the clinician without arbitrary limitations on duration or frequency. The authors of the guidelines first review the evidence that psychotherapy is effective, cost-effective, and often provides a cost-offset in decreased overall medical expenses, morbidity, mortality, and disability. They highlight the disparity between clinicians\' knowledge of generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders and the much more limited \"crisis stabilization\" focus of many insurance companies. The clinical trials that health insurers cite as justification for authorizing only brief treatment for all patients involve highly selected, atypical populations that are not representative of the general population of patients in need of mental health care, who typically have complex conditions and chronic, recurring symptoms requiring ongoing availability of treatment. The standard for other medical conditions reimbursed by insurance is continuation of effective treatment until meaningful recovery, which is therefore the standard required by the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act for mental health care. However, insurance companies frequently evade the legal requirement to cover treatment of mental illness at parity with other medical conditions. They do this by applying inaccurate proprietary definitions of medical necessity and imposing utilization review procedures much more restrictively for mental health treatment than for other medical care to block access to ongoing care, thus containing insurance company costs in the short term without consideration of the adverse sequelae of undertreated illness (eg, increased costs of other medical services and increased morbidity, mortality, and costs to society in increased disability). The authors of the guidelines conclude that, given appropriate medical necessity guidelines at parity with other medical care, consistent with provider expertise and a broad range of psychotherapy research, there would be no need or place for utilization review protocols. Individuals and psychotherapy organizations are invited to visit the website psychotherapyparity.org to sign on to the guidelines to indicate agreement and support.