Differences in Medicaid Antipsychotic Medication Measures Among Children with SSI, Foster Care, and Income-Based Aid
Emily Leckman-Westin,Molly Finnerty,Sarah Hudson Scholle,Riti Pritam,Deborah Layman,Edith Kealey,Sepheen Byron,Emily Morden,Scott Bilder,Sheree Neese-Todd,Sarah Horwitz,Kimberly Hoagwood,Stephen Crystal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.3.238
2018-03-01
Abstract:BACKGROUND: Concerns about antipsychotic prescribing for children, particularly those enrolled in Medicaid and with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), continue despite recent calls for selective use within established guidelines.OBJECTIVES: To (a) examine the application of 6 quality measures for antipsychotic medication prescribing in children and adolescents receiving Medicaid and (b) understand distinctive patterns across eligibility categories in order to inform ongoing quality management efforts to support judicious antipsychotic use.METHODS: Using data for 10 states from the 2008 Medicaid Analytic Extract (MAX), a cross-sectional assessment of 144,200 Medicaid beneficiaries aged < 21 years who received antipsychotics was conducted to calculate the prevalence of 6 quality measures for antipsychotic medication management, which were developed in 2012-2014 by the National Collaborative for Innovation in Quality Measurement. These measures addressed antipsychotic polypharmacy, higher-than-recommended doses of antipsychotics, use of psychosocial services before antipsychotic initiation, follow-up after initiation, baseline metabolic screening, and ongoing metabolic monitoring.RESULTS: Compared with children eligble for income-based Medicaid, children receiving SSI and in foster care were twice as likely to receive higher-than-recommended doses of antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 2.3-2.6; AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.4-2.6, respectively) and multiple concurrent antipsychotic medications (AOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 2.0-2.4; AOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 2.0-2.4, respectively). However, children receiving SSI and in foster care were more likely to have appropriate management, including psychosocial visits before initiating antipsychotic treatment and ongoing metabolic monitoring. While children in foster care were more likely to experience baseline metabolic screening, SSI children were no more likely than children eligible for income-based aid to receive baseline screening.CONCLUSIONS: While indicators of overuse were more common in SSI and foster care groups, access to follow-up, metabolic monitoring, and psychosocial services was somewhat better for these children. However, substantial quality shortfalls existed for all groups, particularly metabolic screening and monitoring. Renewed efforts are needed to improve antipsychotic medication management for all children.DISCLOSURES: This project was supported by grant number U18HS020503 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Additional support for Rutgers-based participants was provided from AHRQ grants R18 HS019937 and U19HS021112, as well as the New York State Office of Mental Health. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of AHRQ, CMS, or the New York State Office of Mental Health. Finnerty has been the principle investigator on research grants/contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb and Sunovion, but her time on these projects is fully supported by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Scholle, Byron, and Morden work for the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a not-for-profit organization that develops and maintains quality measures. Neese-Todd was at Rutgers University at the time of this study and is now employed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The other authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Finnerty, Neese-Todd, and Crystal, assisted by Scholle, Leckman-Westin, Horowitz, and Hoagwood. Scholle, Byron, Morden, and Hoagwood collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Pritam, Bilder, Leckman-Westin, and Finnerty, with assistance from Scholle, Byron, Crystal, Kealey, and Neese-Todd. The manuscript was written by Leckman-Westin, Kealey, and Horowitz and revised by Layman, Crystal, Leckman-Westin, Finnerty, Scholle, Neese-Todd, and Horowitz, along with the other authors.
pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services