Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

< Back to Home

Feb
26

Texas’ efforts to control WC Rx

In the very narrow world of work comp managed care, there’s an even skinnier slice focused on managing pharmacy. As pharma accounts for almost a fifth of all medical dollars spent in comp, its an area that certainly deserves attention – from employers, insurers, legislators and regulators.
There’s a lot going on in work comp pharmacy:
– the basis for fee schedules in 33 of the 34 states with fee schedules for comp will change within a year;
– the use of potent and potentially addictive narcotic opioids is rapidly increasing;
– price increases on brand drugs has raised the price per pill rather dramatically; and
– drug testing and the use of opioid contracts are gaining traction.
Interestingly, there’s only one state that currently has a somewhat restricted formulary in place – Washington, which actually prohibits the use of several controversial drugs for work comp claimants.
Texas has been working on a ‘closed’ formulary for a couple of years now, and has made significant progress. Basing their list of drugs on the ODG guidelines, Texas will be the first non-monopolistic state to require payers’ authorization of a number of drugs before they can be dispensed.
While the review and regulatory drafting process has taken a while, involved many parties, and required many meetings, sources indicate it is getting close to completion. The length of time it takes to get this done is not surprising, as this is new ground for regulators, payers, and clinical personnel as well.
The formulary will allow most drugs commonly used in work comp to be dispensed without any prior authorization (PA) or review (just as they are today) but a relatively few drugs will have to be specifically authorized by the payer. Among the drugs requiring a PA is my old favorite Actiq(r), a very, very expensive, very potent narcotic lollipop that is only FDA approved for breakthrough cancer pain for patients already using a narcotic opioid.
I’ve locked horns with the good folk from Texas’ DWC in the past over their managed care reporting methodologies; I’d be remiss if I didn’t applaud their efforts to address one of the most significant problems in workers comp – the inappropriate use of expensive drugs.
It isn’t just the cost of the pill that’s the issue. Patients taking narcotic opioids for extended periods are at high risk for addiction; are severely limited in their ability to return to work; and often suffer from significant and highly problematic side effects (depression, constipation, erectile dysfunction are just a few).
This is one of those issues that isn’t easy to address. Managing pain can be highly controversial, is a very patient-specific and not-well-understood aspect of medicine, and often puts physicians in a difficult position. If they don’t treat the pain as the patient desires they may be subject to sanction, but if they overtreat they may harm the patient or contribute to abuse or diversion.
Adoption of state-approved prescription medication guidelines will go a long way to helping resolve these issues, and kudos to Texas’ DWC for the thoughtful, careful way they’re going about it.


4 thoughts on “Texas’ efforts to control WC Rx”

  1. Joe,
    Does the Texas DWC formulary plan imply, as I think it does, that private PBM formularies are for some reasons less potent then desirable?

  2. Peter – My interpretation is the formulary and rules surrounding its implementation are more to enable payers to better manage drug use than any other purpose. By linking a specific formulary to compliance mechanisms Texas is avoiding the issues inherent in allowing ‘enforcement’ of any PBM or payer formulary.
    Paduda

  3. I think it is an ongoing issue to dispense drugs that are very costly – there is a fine line between the patients ‘complaints of pain’ and what is actually ordered, how often, and for what period of time. I’m sure the biggest issue at stake is the fact that people are becoming highly addicted to narcotic opioids.

  4. I will be curious to see how dispute resolutions are handled going forward. being able to deny due to expense and safety is important but useless if there are no teeth on the backend. Thanks for a good article Joe

Comments are closed.

Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2024. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives