What gets prescribed and why: Opioids v. obesity meds

The U.S. health care system doesn’t always make sense. Sometimes, even when there is some logic to it, the reasons underpinning what gets prescribed by practitioners and covered by insurers are disappointing. Two pieces I read recently provide examples.

In one study, we learn that while primary care physicians are prescribing opioids less often, other specialists and nurse practitioners are prescribing them more often. Ultimately, opioid prescribing remains at a high level, despite known issues with misuse and abuse, and the availability of alternative pain treatments.

At the same time, while 40% of U.S. adults are obese, fewer than 2% of obese patients are offered medications for obesity, and ultimately “only about 1% of eligible patients fill a prescription for a weight loss medication.” Even when weight loss medications are prescribed, it is usually for a specific (fairly short) period of time, explained Dr. Caroline M. Apovian, a Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology at Boston University School of Medicine and the Director of Nutrition and Weight Management, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, at Boston Medical Center, in an opinion piece in Medscape.

This is an example of what we like to call at M2: “what do we pay for and why?” If 40% of the public has a disease, why aren’t treatments prescribed and covered? Several chronic obesity management medications have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the past few years, and have proven of efficacy of 5%-10% weight loss, but Dr. Apovian argues that “public perception of obesity as a matter of will power rather than a disease” is a key barrier to lower treatment rates for obesity.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily pay for what works, or the treatments people need. As with all policy decisions, there is a judgment about who deserves what, and who should pay for it. In the case of treating obesity with a prescription, Dr. Apovian succinctly explains the current policy stance: “If obesity is considered a moral failing, why treat it with a pill or surgery?”

What’s the hold up? Why do physicians not turn more frequently to the known effective treatments for obesity? Well, sometimes it is lack of proper training (discussed in our in April). Physicians have a lot to stay up to date on, and obesity treatments are often not prioritized despite the prevalence of comorbidities. As we discussed in a back in February, improved insurance coverage for proven effective weight loss treatments could help avoid expensive complications from obesity down the road and may improve quality of life. We suggest this is a better way to choose what is covered the current approach.

Pain affects a large number of people in the U.S. as well – more than 100 million adults. Nearly 40 million adults experience the highest levels of pain (category 3 or category 4), and there are more than 25 million adults who report chronic (daily) pain. Further, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain is clear: “Opioids are not first-line or routine therapy for chronic pain.” Despite this clear recommendation, as the recent study confirms, opioids continue to be frequently prescribed for pain, even though there are less addictive alternatives available. These medications aren’t that expensive so are frequently covered by insurance.

The M2 blog, Coverage Drives Treatment: The Case of Pain explains how insurance companies seem to prefer to cover what is inexpensive, and perhaps less effective, at least when it comes to opioids for pain.

Confounding situations like this are when we understand why an overhaul of the health care system is appealing to some. It would be an incredible opportunity to step back and create a new system that approaches all situations – obesity, pain, everything – from the perspective of longer term effectiveness. Ultimately this would reduce health care system costs overall, as less time (and money) would be spent covering up symptoms of something that is likely to cause greater expense down the road.

But in order to do this, we’d have to face who we think deserves what kind of care. These decisions are baked in to the system we have and rarely discussed. 2019 is around the corner. Should we start this conversation in the new year?

Right Care at the Right Time in the Right Way – The Case of Antibiotics

One of the most difficult problems to address in the U.S. health care system is treatment recommendations that are out-of-date, inaccurate, or based on an incorrect diagnosis. We write about this topic frequently () and Dr. Atul Gawande (who was recently named as the CEO of the new company being formed by Amazon.com Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.) highlighted it most recently in a conversation with reporter Judy Woodruff at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Gawande argued there are three sources of waste that require different work but the biggest bucket is misutilization, “meaning the wrong care, at the wrong time, in the wrong way.”

A perfect example is antibiotic use. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about 30% of antibiotics prescribed in physician’s offices and other outpatient settings are unnecessary. Further, says the CDC, “even when antibiotics are needed, prescribers often favor drugs that may be less effective and carry more risk over more targeted first-line drugs recommended by national guidelines.” In other words, clinical recommendations are often out-of-date or simply not following guidelines.

In urgent care centers, an increasingly popular site of care, the problem is even worse. According to a brief published this month by The Pew Charitable Trusts, “46% of all urgent care visits for non-antibiotic recommended diagnoses resulted in an antibiotic prescription,” compared to 14% of the time in retail clinics, 25% of the time in emergency departments, and 17% in office-based clinics. Acute respiratory conditions, for example, asthma and allergy, bronchitis, flu, and pneumonia are common reasons for a visit to a physician’s office or clinic, but in urgent care centers, it is fairly likely an antibiotic will be prescribed for these conditions, when they shouldn’t be, as shown in the table from Pew below.

Considering urgent care usage has skyrocketed in recent years, increasing by 1,675% (that is not a typo!) in rural areas and 2,308% in urban areas between 2007 and 2016, the higher rate of inappropriate antibiotic use is an even bigger problem than just comparing prescribing rates across site of care might indicate.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescription use plus skyrocketing urgent care visits equals a perfect case of “wrong care, at the wrong time, in the wrong way.”

Avoidable ED visits – what does “avoidable” mean and what can we do about this issue?

An employer group in Massachusetts is coming together to reduce avoidable emergency department (ED) visits, in large part because they claim ED visits are a key driver of health care costs in the Commonwealth. According to the coalition, “ED visits can be five times more expensive than primary care or urgent care visits.” Not only are ED visits expensive compared to other health care services, the coalition cites a Massachusetts Health Policy Commission estimate of $300-350 million in annual costs, in total, just for commercially insured people in Massachusetts.

While this seems laudable, it turns out there’s a big difference of opinion about the definition of “avoidable ED visit.” The coalition’s statement claims studies show more than 40% of ED visits are avoidable. Some of the most common conditions for avoidable ED visits, accordingly to this employer group, include acid reflux, allergies, back pain, bronchitis, sinusitis, stomach pain, and urinary tract infections. At first glance, these maladies don’t seem like they need to be treated in an emergent setting.

At issue is the definition of “avoidable.” According to the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) only 3.3% of ED visits are avoidable. In a study based on data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for years 2005 to 2011, Renee Hsia, MD, MSc, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, found many of the visits to EDs that are classified as “avoidable,” such as those listed above, also involve either mental health or dental issues.

Dr. Hsia argues, “This suggests a lack of access to health care rather than intentional inappropriate use is driving many of these ‘avoidable’ visits. These patients come to the ER because they need help and literally have no place else to go.”

So, are more than 40% of ED visits avoidable or is it less than 5%? This is a fairly big difference. In ACEP’s view, the entire concept of “avoidable ED visits” should be questioned. “Despite a relentless campaign by the insurance industry to mislead policymakers and the public into believing that many ER visits are avoidable, the facts say otherwise,” said Becky Parker, MD, FACEP, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). “Most patients who are in the emergency department belong there and insurers should cover those visits. The myths about ‘unnecessary’ ER visits are just that – myths.”

It seems essential to know more about why people are going to the ED for health issues that don’t fall into the category of: I was taken to the ED in an ambulance because I was unconscious, or my friend drove me after I sliced off my finger…The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission has been gathering all sorts of data the past few years, and below is the chart they have published on avoidable ED use.

As the chart shows, nearly 70% of “avoidable ED visits” happen between 8am and 8pm. This is probably not the typical idea that people have in their minds about when “avoidable ED” visits occur. So based on Massachusetts data showing the majority of avoidable ED visits happening during daytime hours, it seems more likely that the ACEP point of view is correct: Maybe these visits really do indicate access to care problems more than patient choice – which possibly could be changed simply by improved education.

The Health Commission chart is accompanied by some analysis from the 2014 Massachusetts Health Insurance Survey. In the survey, of the respondents who had been to the ED in the past year, “over half said they had done so because they could not get a timely appointment with their usual source of care.” Ideas to address this lack of access include encouraging patients to seek care at retail clinics or urgent care centers, encouraging providers to expand office hours, making hotlines and telehealth more available, and “granting Nurse Practitioners full practice authority.”

Reducing unnecessary health care costs is a common goal across individuals, families, employers, and governments. The Massachusetts Employer-Led Coalition to Reduce Health Care Costs zeroes in on “avoidable ED visits,” listing a focus on four levers for impact:

1. Employee engagement
2. Data and measurement
3. Multi-sector collaboration
4. Policy advocacy

We often focus on what works, and it seems notable that the Commonwealth has a range of data showing expanding access to a broader range of providers (by changing scope of practice laws and reimbursing more convenient types of care) seems highly likely to reduce “avoidable ED visits.” As more specificity is put forth by the coalition, time will tell whether their policy solutions match the problem.

Proof Point: Addressing Social Determinants of Health Reduces ED and Hospital Visits, and Reduces Costs

Just a couple weeks ago, I about social determinants of health (SDH), so I was intrigued to come across this recent study in Health Affairs showing that improved access to care and a consideration of SDH can lower emergency room use and inpatient hospitalizations, and reduce costs.

A health clinic in Dallas, the Baylor Scott & White Health and Wellness Center (we’ve also highlighted before), partnered with the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department to create a primary care clinic in a rec center in an underserved Dallas community. The public-private partnership offers clinical services such as routine primary care, regardless of the person’s ability to pay. But it also offers access to other health-supporting interventions. For example, the partnership provides access to programs that help community members participate in physical activity and get healthy food.

Community health workers are also a component of the approach. Patients often need help navigating both the health care system and support programs, for example, free exercise classes at the rec center. Community health workers assist patients with that navigation in a culturally relevant way for the Dallas center. Local churches – more than 25 of them – provide an additional level of support by increasing awareness of the health clinic/rec center offerings and availability of community health workers.

The clinic “exemplifies the integration of social determinants of health within a population health strategy,” according to the study by David Wesson, President, Baylor Scott & White Health and Wellness Center, and his colleagues.

While increasing access to both clinical health care services and health-supporting programs, such as those offered by rec centers, is worthy goal on its own, to health policy wonks the added proof point of cost savings due to a population based approach that integrates SDH is just as exciting.

The study examined emergency department (ED) and inpatient care use for 12 months after initiation of the program. People who used the center’s services experienced a reduction in ED use of 21.4% and a reduction in inpatient care use of 36.7%, with an average cost decrease of 34.5% and 54.4%, respectively. All of these are notable proof points: “These data support the use of population health strategies to reduce the use of emergency services,” the authors conclude.

The Baylor Scott White/Dallas Recreation Center partnership is a great example of how improving access to health care and addressing the social determinants of health can have a positive impact on both health outcomes as well as costs, by reducing expensive types of care such as emergency and inpatient services. We are still building the evidence-base, but this study shows taking a holistic approach to patient care, including addressing the social determinants of health such as culture and language, can help achieve what everyone wants: improved health and lower costs.

Want to Fix the Opioid Crisis? First, Think Structurally

I am often asked to come up with creative ways to address various health care problems. When I was asked by a client a few years ago to come up with some ideas to address the opioid crisis, I dove in to the latest academic literature, news reports, and books (if you haven’t read it yet, and are interested in the bigger picture of opioids, check out Dreamland by Sam Quinones). Thousands of pages later, I came to what seemed an obvious conclusion: opioid misuse and abuse is not a singular crisis, but the effect of a huge set of policy decisions that have occurred over years.

In a recent commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, author Nabarun Dasgupta of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues are blunt – “The structural and social determinants of health framework is widely understood to be critical in responding to public health challenges. Until we adopt this framework, we will continue to fail in our efforts to turn the tide of the opioid crisis.”

Using a structural framework to analyze causes of the opioid crisis generates “an alternate hypothesis…that an environment that increasingly promotes obesity coupled with widespread opioid use may be the underlying drivers of increasing White middle-class mortality,” the authors point out. “Complex interconnections between obesity, disability, chronic pain, depression, and substance use have not been adequately explored.” Also, suicides “may be undercounted among overdose deaths,” they say. “Under both frameworks, social distress is a likely upstream explanatory factor.”

In order to “turn the tide” on the opioid crisis, the authors urge a focus on patient suffering, tied to things like social disadvantage, isolation, and pain. However, one of the challenges is that the U.S. health care system is “unprepared to meet the demands elucidated by a structural factors analysis.”

Again, seems obvious, but still bears repeating: the health care delivery system is not built to deal with structural problems.

Addressing these types of factors requires “meaningful clinical attention that is difficult to deliver in high-throughput primary care.” Indeed, the current “institutional, legal, and insurance architecture have robbed clinicians of time and incentives to continue care for these patients,” the authors say.

Incorporating social determinants of health (SDH) into care plans also highlights the need to “integrate clinical care with efforts to improve patients’ structural environment,” the commentary says. While the commentary authors recommend, “Training health care providers in ‘structural competency’” as promising, as the system scales up “partnerships that begin to address upstream structural factors such as economic opportunity, social cohesion, racial disadvantage, and life satisfaction,” I’m not as inclined to think health provider training alone will suffice. When I was first taught the basic premises of SDH and structural thinking as a young graduate student, the discipline was already decades old.

Knowing the importance of SDH is not enough. Until the evidence base is deeper, it is difficult to get payers to reimburse such as activities. (See next week’s blog for a great example though!)

Thinking structurally is not so difficult to learn, but acting structurally is extremely difficult. Still, the opioid crisis – like so many health care conundrums – can’t be solved without it. Let’s get to it.

Obesity: Survey Finds Primary Care Providers’ Knowledge “Inconsistent” with Evidence-Based Recommendations

Despite the high prevalence of obesity in the US, a new study finds that providers’ knowledge of evidence-based recommendations for obesity is low.

For example, only 15% were able to identify the “appropriate indication” for prescribing pharmacotherapy for patients: a BMI over 27 with an obesity-associated comorbid condition. Two-thirds said it is appropriate to continue long-term pharmacotherapy under conditions inconsistent with evidence-based guidelines. Providers were “most knowledgeable” regarding the physical activity guidelines, with 49% answering correctly.

In addition, “only 16% of respondents indicated that obesity counseling should be provided approximately twice monthly in an individual or group setting for at least 6 months,” in accordance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and CMS guidelines, according to the study by Monique Turner, George Washington University, Milken Institute of Public Health, et al., and published in the journal Obesity. (Shout out to my colleague at GWU, Dr. Monique!)

Overall, providers’ understanding of clinical care for obesity, which includes intensive behavioral therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy, is “inconsistent with evidence-based recommendations” the study found – despite the fact that most health care providers believe they are responsible for ensuring patients are informed about obesity treatments.

Given the current obesity epidemic and the known costs associated with obesity, it seems obvious that primary care physicians should make it a priority to be up-to-date with current treatments and approaches to weight loss and optimal health. This would also help them advocate for better coverage of interventions.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert Kushner, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, appears to agree:

“Knowledge of the guidelines is a reasonable objective but is not sufficient to change practice behavior,” Kushner says. Nonadherence to practice guidelines “may be due to other factors independent of knowledge,” including fragmentation of care, disagreement between guidelines, and “external practice barriers.”

He cites the need for effective dissemination and implementation approaches for practice guidelines. He also points out that other educational initiatives are under way “that will impact the practice of obesity in the primary care setting,” for example, through the Obesity Medicine Education Collaborative (OMEC), which is “currently finalizing a set of 32 obesity-specific competencies” as part of undergraduate, postgraduate, and fellowship training. “By taking a continual and comprehensive educational approach, we are on our way to get primary care ready to treat obesity,” he concludes.

Obesity is a growing problem in the U.S. in terms of both health outcomes and costs; in fact, as I’ve about recently, it is also linked to declining mortality improvements in the US compared to other wealthy countries. Unfortunately, despite the availability of a range of non-surgical interventions supported by evidence-based practice guidelines, primary care providers generally are not appropriately trained in this area, nor do they keep pace with new treatment findings on how to address this problem. If we want to tackle the obesity problem and improve health outcomes, life expectancy and costs, we must find ways to address barriers of this kind, and our reimbursement policies will need to incentivize providers to focus on this issue.

An Alternative to Opioids? Other Interventions Show Significant Improvements in Pain and Physical Function For Disadvantaged Populations

Pain is a common, yet difficult to treat condition; it is one of the top reasons people go to the doctor. Opioids are commonly prescribed to treat pain; opioids are quite effective but addictive. The use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is known to be efficacious in addressing chronic pain; however, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is not well understood.

To help shed light on this question, a team led by Beverly Thorn, University of Alabama, conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care.

The randomized controlled trial enrolled 290 adults with chronic pain symptoms. Most had incomes at or below the poverty level, and about one-third read below a fifth grade level. Many participants were taking opioids at the beginning of the study.

Both the CBT and EDU were delivered in ten weekly 90-minute group sessions. Participants in all three groups reported their pain levels and physical functioning via questionnaires at baseline, ten weeks, and six months.

The study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that patients in the CBT and EDU groups had greater decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and post-treatment than participants receiving usual care.

However, while treatment gains were still present in the EDU group at six-month follow-up, these gains were not maintained in the CBT group, Thorn, et al., say.

Regarding the secondary outcome of physical function, those in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater post-treatment improvement than patients who received usual care; this progress was maintained at six-month follow-up. Changes in depression, another secondary outcome, did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and those receiving usual care, the researchers state.

This study highlights the fact that when done correctly, i.e., when materials are adjusted and tailored to a patient’s reading level, there are non-opioid interventions like behavioral therapy and education that work. While it is probably easier to prescribe opioids for pain, given the increasing severity of the opioid addiction epidemic, insurers really should consider these effective alternative treatments which positively impact pain. Why NOT prescribe effective, non-addictive treatment whenever possible?