Medical cost savings associated with an extended-release opioid with abuse-deterrent technology in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the US, prescription opioids with technology designed to deter abuse have been introduced to deter drug abuse without hindering appropriate access for pain patients. The objective of this study was to estimate changes in medical costs following the introduction of a new formulation of extended-release (ER) oxycodone HCl (oxycodone) with abuse-deterrent technology in the US. METHODS: Health insurance claims data were used to estimate changes in rates of diagnosed opioid abuse among continuous users of extended-release opioids (EROs) following the introduction of reformulated ER oxycodone in August 2010. This study also calculated the excess medical costs of diagnosed opioid abuse using a propensity score matching approach. These findings were integrated with published government reports and literature to extrapolate the findings to the national level. All costs were inflated to 2011 US dollars. RESULTS: The introduction of reformulated ER oxycodone was associated with relative reductions in rates of diagnosed opioid abuse of 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 18.0% (p = 0.034) among commercially-insured and Medicaid patients, respectively. There was no significant change among Medicare-eligible patients. The excess annual per-patient medical costs associated with diagnosed opioid abuse were $9456 (p < 0.001), $10,046 (p < 0.001), and $11,501 (p < 0.001) for commercially-insured, Medicare-eligible, and Medicaid patients, respectively. Overall, reformulated ER oxycodone was associated with annual medical cost savings of ∼$430 million in the US. LIMITATIONS: Because of the observational research design of this study, caution is warranted in any causal interpretation of the findings. Portions of the study relied on prior literature, government reports, and assumptions to extrapolate the national medical cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that reformulated ER oxycodone has been associated with reductions in abuse rates and substantial medical cost savings. Payers and policy-makers should consider these benefits as they devise and implement new guidelines and policies in this therapeutic area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".