House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing
Testimony by Patrick Conway, Deputy Administrator for Innovation and Quality & CMS Chief Medical Officer, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) work to ensure that all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are receiving the medicines they need while also reducing and preventing prescription drug abuse.
Prescription drugs, especially opioid analgesics–a class of prescription drugs used to treat both acute and chronic pain such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, morphine, and methadone, have increasingly been implicated in drug overdose deaths over the last decade. Deaths related to heroin have also sharply increased since 2010, with a 39 percent increase between 2012 and 2013. Among drug overdose deaths in 2013, approximately 37 percent involved prescription opioids. n1 In 2013 drug overdose was the leading cause of injury death n2 and caused more deaths than motor vehicle crashes among individuals 25-64 years old. n3 The monetary costs and associated collateral impact to society due to Substance Use Disorder (SUD) are high. In 2009, health insurance payers spent $24 billion for treating SUDs, of which Medicaid accounted for 21 percent of spending. n4 The Medicare program, through Part D, spent $2.7 billion on opioids overall in 2011, of which $1.9 billion (69 percent) was accounted for by opioid users with spending in the top five percent. n5
CMS has a responsibility to protect the health of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, by putting appropriate safeguards in place to help prevent overuse and abuse of opioids, while ensuring that beneficiaries can access needed medications and appropriate treatments for SUD.
Preventing Overprescribing and Abuse of Opioids in Medicare Part D
Since its inception in 2006, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program has made medicines more available and affordable for over 55 million Medicare beneficiaries, leading to improvements in access to prescription drugs, better health outcomes, and more beneficiary satisfaction with their Medicare coverage.
Despite these successes, Part D is not immune from the nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse. Based on input from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and stakeholders, over the past several years, CMS has broadened its initial focus of strengthening beneficiary access to prescribed drugs to also address fraud and drug abuse by making sure Part D sponsors implement effective safeguards and provide coverage for drug therapies that meet safety and efficacy standards. The structure of the program, in which Part D plan sponsors do not have access to Part D prescriber and pharmacy data beyond the transactions they manage for their own enrollees, makes it more difficult to identify prescribers or pharmacies that are outliers in their prescribing or dispensing patterns relative to the entire Part D program. CMS is aware of potential fraud at the prescriber and pharmacy levels through “pill mill” schemes. This is a term used by local and state investigators to describe a physician, clinic, or pharmacy that is prescribing or dispensing opioids for non-medical and inappropriate purposes. We believe that broader reforms that result in better-coordinated care will help address several issues with the complex health care delivery system, including abuse of prescription drugs. CMS has, however, taken several steps to protect beneficiaries from the harm and damaging effects associated with prescription drug abuse and to prevent and detect fraud related to prescription drugs.
A centerpiece of our strategy to reduce the inappropriate use of opioid analgesics in Part D is the adoption of a policy and guidance by CMS by which Part D sponsors identify Part D enrollees who have potential opioid or acetaminophen overutilization that may present a serious threat to patient safety. Acetaminophen is included in this strategy because it is manufactured in combination with many opioids, and unlike opioids has an FDA-approved maximum daily dose. Overutilization of opioids or acetaminophen products can result in serious adverse events including death. To strengthen CMS’s monitoring of Part D plan sponsors’ drug utilization management programs to prevent overutilization of these medications, the Medicare Part D Overutilization Monitoring System (OMS) was implemented in 2013. Through this system, CMS provides quarterly reports to sponsors on beneficiaries with potential opioid or acetaminophen overutilization identified through analyses of Prescription Drug Event (PDE) data and through beneficiaries referred by the CMS Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Sponsors are expected to utilize various drug utilization monitoring (DUM) tools, including: formulary-level controls at point of sale (such as safety edits and quantity limits); a review of previous claim and clinical activity to identify at-risk beneficiaries, case management outreach to beneficiaries’ prescribers and pharmacies, and beneficiary-level point of sale claim edits, if necessary to prevent continued overutilization of opioids. Lastly, sponsors that have concluded such point of sale edits are appropriate are expected to share information with a new sponsor when the beneficiary moves to another plan in accordance with applicable law.
We believe this Part D overutilization policy has played a key role in reducing opioid and acetaminophen overutilization in the program. A comparison of overutilization shows a significant reduction of opioid and acetaminophen overutilization in Part D since the overutilization policy went into effect. From 2011 through 2014, the number of potential opioid overutilizers, based on the CMS definition in the OMS, decreased by approximately by approximately 26 percent, or 7,500 beneficiaries n6. In addition, from 2011 through 2014, the number of beneficiaries identified as potential acetaminophen overutilizers, based on the CMS definition in the OMS, decreased by more than 91 percent, or 70,000 beneficiaries. n7
CMS also contracts with the Medicare Drug Integrity Contractor (MEDIC), which is charged with identifying and investigating potential fraud and abuse, and developing cases for referral to law enforcement agencies. In September 2013, CMS directed the MEDIC to increase its focus on proactive data analysis in Part D. As a result, the MEDIC identified vulnerabilities and then performed analyses that resulted in notification to plan sponsors to remove records associated with inaccurate data leading to improper payments made in FYs 2011 and 2012. This increased focus on proactive analysis resulted in savings of $4.8 million from decreased provider payments, $21 million for unallowable charges for medications during a hospice stay, and $80 million for Transmucosal Immediate Release Fentanyl drugs without a medically-acceptable indication.
CMS has new tools to take action against problematic prescribers and pharmacies. CMS issued a Final Rule on May 23, 2014, that both requires prescribers of Part D drugs to enroll in Medicare or have a valid opt-out affidavit on file and establishes a new revocation authority for abusive prescribing patterns. Additionally, CMS may now also revoke a prescriber’s Medicare enrollment if his or her Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Certificate of Registration is suspended or revoked, or the applicable licensing or administrative body for any State in which a physician or eligible professional practices has suspended or revoked the physician or eligible professional’s ability to prescribe drugs.
Last year, CMS finalized a rule n8 that includes a provision to give CMS, its antifraud contractors, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the ability to request and collect information directly from pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacies and other entities that contract or subcontract with Part D Sponsors to administer the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The provision streamlines CMS’ and its anti-fraud contractors’ investigative processes. Previously, it took a long time for CMS’ contractors who were often assisting law enforcement to obtain important documents like invoices and prescriptions directly from pharmacies, because they worked through the Part D plan sponsor to obtain this information. This provision provides more timely access to records, including for investigations of Part D fraud and abuse, and responds to recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General.
In addition to these initiatives, the FY 2016 President’s Budget n9 includes several proposals that would provide CMS with additional tools to prevent inappropriate use of opioids. One proposal to prevent prescription drug abuse in Medicare Part D would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to establish a program that would require that high-risk Medicare beneficiaries only utilize certain prescribers and/or pharmacies to obtain controlled substance prescriptions, similar to many State Medicaid programs. The Medicare program would be required to ensure that beneficiaries retain reasonable access to services of adequate quality. Currently, CMS requires Part D sponsors to conduct drug utilization reviews, which assess the prescriptions filled by a particular enrollee. These efforts can identify overutilization that results from inappropriate or even illegal activity by an enrollee, prescriber, or pharmacy. However, CMS’ statutory authority to take preventive measures in response to this information is limited.
The FY 2016 President’s Budget also proposes to provide the Secretary with new authorities to: (1) suspend coverage and payment for drugs prescribed by providers who have been engaged in misprescribing or overprescribing drugs with abuse potential; (2) suspend coverage and payment for Part D drugs when those prescriptions present an imminent risk to patients; and (3) require additional information on certain Part D prescriptions, such as diagnosis and incident codes, as a condition of coverage. While Part D sponsors have the authority to deny coverage for a prescription drug on the basis of lack of medical necessity, there are currently no objective criteria to inform the medical necessity determination, such as maximum daily dosages, for some controlled substances, especially opioids. Therefore, the only basis for establishing medical necessity in these cases is prescriber attestation. If the integrity of the prescriber is compromised, the finding of medical necessity is compromised as well. If the Secretary had clear authority to intervene in these patterns suggestive of abusive prescribing or harmful medical care, the incidence of coverage and payment of such questionable prescribing could be reduced in Medicare.
Preventing Overprescribing and Abuse of Opioids in Medicaid
Many State Medicaid Agencies have started using a variety of approaches to prevent prescription drug abuse. These efforts include expanding the Medicaid benefit to include behavioral health services for those with an addiction to prescription drugs, and provider enrollment and monitoring to ensure providers are appropriately evaluated upon initial enrollment and reevaluated in years following. States are also using pharmacy management review and restriction programs which confine patients with high-utilization of prescription pain medication to a single provider and pharmacy.
The FY 2016 President’s Budget proposes requiring states to track high prescribers and utilizers of prescription drugs in Medicaid. States are currently authorized to implement prescription drug monitoring activities, but not all states have adopted such activities. Under this proposal, states would be required to monitor high risk billing activity to identify and remediate prescribing and utilization patterns that may indicate abuse or excessive utilization of certain prescription drugs in the Medicaid program. States could choose one or more drug classes and would need to develop or review and update their care plan to reduce utilization and remediate preventable episodes to improve Medicaid integrity and beneficiary quality of care.
Partnering with States to Improve Access to Care
In addition to efforts to prevent opioid abuse, CMS is committed to meeting the needs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries seeking treatment for addiction. Although CMS does not determine what services are provided in each State Medicaid program to prevent and treat opioid abuse, CMS is encouraged by the increased efforts by States to develop effective strategies for designing benefits for this population. Many States have included behavioral health services for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) in their State Plans and various Medicaid managed-care organizations (MCOs) or in Waiver programs. CMS recently released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding the application of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act to the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program. n10 The NPRM seeks to make sure that MCOs’ and states’ benefit limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than those on medical/surgical benefits.
CMS also launched the Medicaid Innovation Accelerator Program (IAP) in July 2014 with the goal of improving health and health care for Medicaid beneficiaries by supporting states’ efforts to accelerate new payment and service delivery reforms. The IAP will enhance CMS’s wide ranging efforts to improve care by supporting system-wide payment and delivery system reform innovation. Through the IAP, states receive technical assistance and other types of technical support designed to accelerate the development and testing of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) service delivery innovations including efforts to curb prescription drug abuse. Strategies being pursued include:
. Payment and health care delivery models: Identify successful service delivery models, benefit strategies, and payment methodologies to promote improved care and better coordination between individuals with SUDs and health care systems;
Filed under: General Problems
The irony that the Feds in all their silos have not realized:
Pain costs 600 billion$/yr.
heading up fast.
If we treat pain: people work, contribute and thrive.
If we fail to treat pain, the drain on government coffers in health costs, disability payments and lost tax income will be massive.
Eventually, someone at cdc, dea, fda, CMS, executive branch or scotus is going to notice the extreme cost of pain and MANDATE it’s treatment.
According to some conservative estimates, approximately 5 to 6% of steroid injections are misplaced (intrathecal) in the spine. If 9 million injections are given per year, this results in approximately 450,000 to 540,000 serious adverse events annually from ESIs alone. According to Dr. Antonio Aldrete, the error rate is up around 10% to 15% risk of dural puncture: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/epidural-steroid-injection-risk-incurable-arachnoiditis/story?id=17552260&page=2
Nancy Epstein MD estimates the rates of injuries in her 2013 publication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3642757/
“Multiple recent reports cite contaminated epidural steroid injections resulting in meningitis, stroke, paralysis, and death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) specifically identified 25 deaths (many due to Aspergillosis), 337 patients sickened, and 14,000 exposed to contaminated steroids. Nevertheless, many other patients develop other complications that go unreported/underreported: Other life-threatening infections, spinal fluid leaks (0.4-6%), positional headaches (28%), adhesive arachnoiditis (6-16%), hydrocephalus, air embolism, urinary retention, allergic reactions, intravascular injections (7.9-11.6%), stroke, blindness, neurological deficits/paralysis, hematomas, seizures, and death.”
The rates of misplaced steroids are even higher according to other experts:
http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2001/05000/Why_Neurologists_Should_Not_Administer_the.17.aspx
If you add up the adverse events from spinal surgeries, epidurals during childbirth, myelograms, bloody spinal taps, etc. the numbers are staggering. Interventional pain physicians are causing patient harm on a grand scale harm, then patients are typically misdiagnosed with misleading conditions such as Fibromyalgia or Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. Lidocaine and various contrast agents administered in the spine are also adding to patient harm – and centralized pain conditions.
The spine/ CSF flow system is poorly understood and many of us are convinced it is the final frontier that desperately needs research/funding. It is the sacred space in the human body – and even blood will alter it’s function (Aldrete): http://www.burtonreport.com/infspine/AdhesArachToxicDump.htm
John F. Kennedy likely suffered arachnoiditis – another closely guarded secret of the medical profession. The oil-based dye (Pantopaque) lights up in the intrathecal space in JFK’s x-ray (before MRI was invented):
http://www.two-views.com/X-RAY/john_f_kennedy.html
Respected sources also think Howard Hughes also suffered Arach following his crash landings.
There was yet another famous case of undiagnosed adhesive arachnoiditis. Dr. Antonio Aldrete explained to me that he spoke with a person who shared with him that Liz Taylor also suffered arach but her doctors in LA purposely did not tell her for fear of reprisal. One confidential source to Aldrete shared: “yep, I saw the clumped nerve roots on Taylor’s MRI studies and we were told NOT to tell her she suffered arach.”
Liz Taylor had multiple spinal surgeries and ESIs and then was accused of being addicted to opioids. This is the exact same attitude that harmed patients are facing today: Denial of Harm topped off with denial of medications for pain control.
Many of us who suffer adhesive arachnoiditis know the condition is progressive – esp. following more trauma (esp. invasive tests, even falls). Many patients with ARC have chemical sensitivities but they find out too late – after myelograms, more ESIs, etc.
Now that 100 million Americans suffer chronic pain, CMS should take a hard look at the underlying reasons for opioid consumption in the U.S. Patient harm is obviously at an all-time high and CMS is paying for it! CMS has bought the lie from interventional pain management. The taxpayers cannot afford to pay for the unsustainable levels of injury.
The bodies keep piling up in social media forums and now over 1000 arachnoiditis cases are in one Facebook support group. There are only two physicians willing to diagnose Arachnoiditis. This is not rocket science – institutional corruption is hidden in plain view.
“(..CMS) work to ensure that all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are receiving the medicines they need while also reducing and preventing prescription drug abuse”
Hello friends. Boy do i feel privileged. I have had two encounters with CMS in the past year addressing both of these ‘concerns’ over my well being. The first in Nov ’14 regarding access (lack thereof) and more recently (last week) concerning possible over-utilization.
Last Tue I went to my PM clinic for monthly visit. After vitals were taken questions answered and paperwork signed for procedure nurse goes hmmm……then states that there was a PHARMACY FLAG in my files from Medicare. i am struggling to think what it is but she cannot help as it wasn’t specific. She left and set about to get to the bottom of it.
During visit she pops her head in and notifies the doc that everything was fine and it was just a mistake.(translation- all’s clear, you can give him his Rx now)
I asked what it was. She told me that the FLAG was to alert the doctor that I had received and filled prescriptions from 2 separate doctors for the same medication.
It just so happened that the ‘other doctor’ was located in the same building and same pain clinic as my main PM doc-same practice, same address!!!
When sending these flags wouldn’t it be a bit hard to miss something like that? I mean damn that is pitiful. And these are the dipshits who are supposed to be looking out for our interests? They can’t find their ass w/ both hands and a set of instructions. It would be laughable if it were not so ridiculous. It they can’t get something this simple solved before sending flags to doctors then there is no way the bumbling bureaucrats can monitor all this crap in the article w/out screwing half of Part D beneficiaries.
As for medicare patients using a higher number of pills and prescriptions? It doesn’t take much common sense to realize that the disabled and elderly may be in a bit more pain than the average citizen. DUH !!
In Nov i was refused (for the second time, other one was April ’14) pharmacy services at a regional medical center where I have been a patient for over 5 yrs. In April I was ‘assigned’ to use one of their 7 pharmacies only when I had scheduled meds to fill. If they were out,
I was out too, out of luck. I told them the first thing other pharmacies want to know is why didn’t i just get it filled at the hospital !! These pharmacies are open to the public too I might add. The pharmacy I was assigned to was their smallest and in same building as pain clinic.
I appealed to patient advocates at the hospital who directed me to the head of outpatient pharmacy who after avoiding my calls for almost a month (tracked her down by calling her assistant and ironically she was right there. After pointing out the conditions of participation in Part D that they were required to fill ANY medication at any of their pharmacies as stated in my EOB from BC/BS. Tough tater chips, deal w/ it is what I got for my troubles. I reported them to BC/BS who never bothered to call me back after guaranteeing resolution w/in 30 days for any grievance.(Irony would have it they called me a few days after this in reference to my complaint) but said they could not help me.
After this I reported the issue to CMS w/ two grievances, one for breach of contract and insurance fraud due to ignoring my legally binding contract with them as a beneficiary. The second for taking over 30 days to notify me of a decision. CMS also assured me that I would hear something w/in 30 days and if not to call them. Waited 30+ days and called. NOTHING had been done. The manager ( i have had to bypass the phone jocky at each step just to get the time of day) stated that while my grievance was important it was not the only one and these things take time, blah blah blah. After 3 more calls to check on the status I have not received so much as a hint as to what if anything has
or will be done. It WAS assigned to an investigative body was the only response I got. We are now going on 6 mos w/out ONE word from any of these nincompoops, I dont expect I ever will.
Ok I take that back, I did get a letter from BC/BS back in JAN ’15 stating the following (this is word for word):
“We sincerely apologize that you were unable to get your prescription filled at the location you chose. Unfortunately we are unable to dictate what policies individual pharmacies have and don’t have regarding the filling of prescriptions. We do apologize that you were not given the level of service you expected……………………..Please be assured we appreciate your business and the trust you place in us to provide your prescription drug coverage”
The writer must have a heck of a sense of humor or they are totally sadistic.
Terrible confusion over addiction and overuse. CMS and CDC are shamefully overusing the term “epidemic” fir something that is not. It is endemic.
[…] https://www.pharmaciststeve.com/?p=10256 […]
Ugh!!? More pharmacists practicing medicine. Yes my doctor has me select one pharmacy, BUT I’m not locked in like some Medicaid programs already do. What are the provisions when the pharmacy you are “locked into” is out of your medications??