Controlled substance lock-in programs: Examining an unintended consequence of a prescription drug abuse policy

Andrew W. Roberts, Joel F. Farley, G. Mark Holmes, Christine U. Oramasionwu, Chris Ringwalt, Betsy Sleath, Asheley C. Skinner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Controlled substance lock-in programs are garnering increased attention from payers and policy makers seeking to combat the epidemic of opioid misuse. These programs require high-risk patients to visit a single prescriber and pharmacy for coverage of controlled substance medication services. Despite high prevalence of the programs in Medicaid, we know little about their effects on patients' behavior and outcomes aside from reducing controlled substance-related claims. Our study was the first rigorous investigation of lock-in programs' effects on out-of-pocket controlled substance prescription fills, which circumvent the programs' restrictions and mitigate their potential public health benefits. We linked claims data and prescription drug monitoring program data for the period 2009-12 for 1,647 enrollees in North Carolina Medicaid's lock-in program and found that enrollment was associated with a roughly fourfold increase in the likelihood and frequency of out-of-pocket controlled substance prescription fills. This finding illuminates weaknesses of lock-in programs and highlights the need for further scrutiny of the appropriate role, optimal design, and potential unintended consequences of the programs as tools to prevent opioid abuse.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1884-1892
Number of pages9
JournalHealth Affairs
Volume35
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Roberts, A. W., Farley, J. F., Holmes, G. M., Oramasionwu, C. U., Ringwalt, C., Sleath, B., & Skinner, A. C. (2016). Controlled substance lock-in programs: Examining an unintended consequence of a prescription drug abuse policy. Health Affairs, 35(10), 1884-1892. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0355