Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for
- Author or Editor: Julianne M. Falotico x
- Refine by access: All Content x
Abstract
Background: Onychomycosis is the most common nail disease seen in clinical practice. Medication safety, severity of disease, co-morbidities, concomitant medications, patient age, and cost are all important considerations when treating onychomycosis. Since cost may affect treatment decisions, we sought to analyze Medicaid formulary coverage of onychomycosis antifungals.
Methods: Public state Medicaid formularies were searched for coverage of FDA approved onychomycosis medications and off-label oral fluconazole. Total drug cost for a single great toenail was calculated using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare coverage and cost, mycological cure rate, and complete cure rate.
Results: Oral terbinafine and off-label fluconazole were widely covered for onychomycosis treatment. There was poor coverage of oral itraconazole and topical ciclopirox, and no coverage of topical efinaconazole and tavaborole without step-edits or prior authorization. There was a significant negative correlation between medication coverage and cost (r = −0.758, p= 0.040). There was no correlation between medication coverage and mycologic (r = 0.548, p = 0.339) and complete (r = 0.768, p = 0.130) cure rates.
Conclusions: There is poor Medicaid coverage of antifungals for the treatment of onychomycosis, with step-edits and prior authorization based on cost rather than treatment safety and efficacy. We recommend involving podiatrists and dermatologists in developing criteria for insurance approval of onychomycosis treatments.
Background: Onychomycosis is the most common nail disease seen in clinical practice. Medication safety, severity of disease, comorbidities, concomitant medications, patient age, and cost are all important considerations when treating onychomycosis. Because cost may affect treatment decisions, we sought to analyze Medicaid formulary coverage of onychomycosis antifungals.
Methods: Public state Medicaid formularies were searched for coverage of US Food and Drug Administration–approved onychomycosis medications and off-label oral fluconazole. Total drug cost for a single great toenail was calculated using the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare coverage and cost, mycologic cure rate, and complete cure rate.
Results: Oral terbinafine and off-label fluconazole were widely covered for onychomycosis treatment. There was poor coverage of oral itraconazole and topical ciclopirox, and there was no coverage of topical efinaconazole and tavaborole without step-edits or prior authorization. There was a significant negative correlation between medication coverage and cost (r = −0.758; P = .040). There was no correlation between medication coverage and mycologic (r = 0.548; P = .339) and complete (r = 0.768; P = .130) cure rates.
Conclusions: There is poor Medicaid coverage of antifungals for the treatment of onychomycosis, with step-edits and prior authorization based on cost rather than treatment safety and efficacy. We recommend involving podiatrists and dermatologists in developing criteria for insurance approval of onychomycosis treatments.
