Consequences of patient access restrictions to branded oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets on healthcare utilization and costs in US health plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of increased access restrictions to branded oxycodone hydrochloride extended-release tablets (oxycodone HCl ER), on healthcare utilization and costs in patients using extended-release and long-acting opioids (ER/LA opioids) from the health plan perspective during the period from 1/1/2009 to 6/30/2012. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed claims data for adult patients from US plans that increased oxycodone HCl ER access restrictions. Study groups were segmented into commercial and Medicare payers, and by prior authorization (PA) and tier change (TC) restrictions. Six-month outpatient visits and prescription utilization and costs were evaluated during the pre- and post-access restriction periods using a bootstrapped t-test and regression to test the differences. RESULTS: Mean 6-month post-restriction combined pharmacy and outpatient visit costs were $1131 (p < 0.001), $660 (p = 0.009), $699 (p < 0.001), and $564 (p < 0.001) higher than pre-restriction costs in commercial PA, commercial TC, Medicare PA, and Medicare TC groups, respectively. Outpatient visits accounted for the greatest proportion of increased costs in the access restriction groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that oxycodone HCl ER access restrictions such as PA and TC may increase medical costs without an offsetting savings in pharmacy costs.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".