Drug diversion has cost the health care industry and the public billions of dollars. How can we reverse this trend?
John Burke, commander of
the Warren County, Ohio,
drug task force and retired
commander of the Cincinnati
Police Pharmaceutical
Diversion Squad, is a 40-year
veteran of law enforcement.
Cmdr Burke also is the current
president of the
National Association of Drug Diversion
Investigators. For information, he can be
reached by e-mail at , via
the Web site www.rxdiversion.com, or by
phone at 513-336-0070.
My friend Bill Mahon recently
authored an excellent report,
entitled "Prescription
for Peril," in the December 2007
Coalition Against Insurance Fraud
Insight series. This detailed report
explains the problem of drug diversion
that has cost health care insurers and
ultimately the general public billions of
dollars.
The report cites a 2005 edition of the
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
that indicated that opioid abusers had
health care costs that were roughly 8
times higher than those of nonabusers.
Per-patient costs of opioid abusers
were $15,884 per year, compared with
only $1830 for nonabusers. These statistics
were compiled from data of insured
members of 16 large self-insured
employers in a variety of industries.
Although prescription drugs are the
goal of abusers, they represent only a
relatively small percentage of the cost
associated with drug diverters. Enormous
costs associated with physician
visits, procedures, x-rays, and hospital
and emergency department visits far
outweigh the mere costs of the pharmaceuticals
obtained.
Notably, some of these people are
uninsured, but many continue to soak
up the public’s resources by using
Medicaid, Workers’ Compensation, and
Veterans’ Hospitals. In fact, private insurers
are the victims in about one
third of abuse cases.
One estimate is that drug diversion
costs all insurers about $72.5 billion
each year. Of course, as health care
costs increase, this figure also is likely
to increase. Remember that this study
involves only opioids, not other abused
pharmaceuticals, such as stimulants,
benzodiazepines, and steroids.
My experience over the years in drug
diversion work is that, with a few
notable exceptions, private health
insurers have been slow to respond to
this decade-long problem of prescription
drug abuse. This phenomenon has
always been perplexing to me because
it obviously affects the private health
insurers’ bottom line.
From our readers...
The January 2008 edition of this column,
"Drug Diversion and Abuse: ‘Do
Not Fill Until...,'" generated some
interest in the question of whether
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) ruling (in the Federal Register,
stating that prescribers could write
prescriptions for CII controlled substances
for up to a 90-day supply)
would also extend to stimulant medications,
as used for the treatment of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
After verifying with the DEA and
his state pharmacy board (Ohio), the
author reports that both organizations
agree that the rule encompasses
all CII drugs, including stimulants
like methylphenidate. There is no reason
that prescribers cannot write
under the same rules as discussed
for analgesics. Thank you very much
for your feedback!
According to Mahon’s report, the
cost of drug diversion to private health
insurers is close to $25 billion per year!
This is no small amount of money in
any insurer’s eyes and a definite influence
on the health care insurance premiums
we all pay.
State Medicaid and Workers’ Compensation
enforcement efforts have
been more diligent than those of their
private-insurance peers, in my experience.
Although oftentimes operating
with less than adequate staffing and
limited funding, most seem to do the
best they can in this seemingly neverending
battle to identify abusers and
try to bring them to justice. Good
health care insurance-fraud investigators
will save their companies or public
agencies many times their individual
salaries, to say nothing of the prevention
effects generated by a few wellplaced
press releases on arrests.
Mahon offers one method of identifying
and ultimately reducing this
crime problem: prescription-monitoring
programs. I have written and testified
multiple times on the fact that
effective prescription-monitoring programs
more than pay for themselves in
the reduction of health care fraud for
the states. It would be money and time
well spent for private insurers to lobby
for these programs and to step up to
provide funding to ensure that these
programs work. The return on investment
for these for-profit companies
would be huge.
The programs need to be law
enforcement friendly—meaning easy,
legal access to the information without
a subpoena or a search warrant. This
may require some legislative changes,
but a model exists in my home state of
Ohio that covers all controlled-substance
prescriptions, with easy and
quick access by law enforcement.
I applaud the efforts of Mahon and
this revealing report. He urges a consolidated
effort by all of the parties concerned
to make a significant reduction
in health care fraud caused by drug
diversion.