Implementation and enforcement of state opioid prescribing laws

Prescription drug monitoring program in Australia: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of a state-wide implementation

BACKGROUND

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are increasingly implemented across the globe with aims of managing and mitigating risks relating to high-risk prescription medicines. There is limited research focused on identifying strategies or processes for large-scale PDMP implementation. This study aimed to identify strategies perceived as necessary for successful state-wide implementation of a PDMP by exploring the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders responsible for the implementation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: to identify (1) the drivers of implementation; (2) perceived strategies that worked well; (3) barriers to implementation; and (4) the elements needed for long-term success of SafeScript NSW.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Theoretical frameworks used to design interview questions and guide thematic analysis were the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework and Quadruple Aim framework. Participants were stakeholders responsible for PDMP implementation in NSW. Recruitment and data collection were completed between March and April 2022. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently reviewed transcripts, generated codes from the data, and mapped these to each NASSS domain. They came together multiple times during data analysis to review the codes and grouped them into higher level themes via a discussion and consensus process. Themes were then organised according to the four objectives of the study.

RESULTS

Eight interviews were conducted and analysed after which thematic saturation was reached. All participants had a common understanding of the perceived benefits and drivers for PDMP implementation. Participants outlined ten key ingredients for perceived successful state-wide implementation. Strong and iterative engagement with a large number of stakeholder groups was viewed as critical, as was targeting user experience, ongoing monitoring and evaluation. These were facilitated by a phased roll-out strategy. Participants identified some barriers to implementation, particularly around poor usability and user experience of the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies focused on strategies for what was perceived to be successful state-wide implementation of PDMP. Successful implementation requires significant time and resourcing, with the design and configuration of the technology being only one component of a multi-strategy process. Knowledge and insights gained from this study may be useful for other implementations of similar digital health tools in large-scale jurisdictions.

Design considerations for developing measures of policy implementation in quantitative evaluations of public health policy

Typical quantitative evaluations of public policies treat policies as a binary condition, without further attention to how policies are implemented. However, policy implementation plays an important role in how the policy impacts behavioral and health outcomes. The field of policy-focused implementation science is beginning to consider how policy implementation may be conceptualized in quantitative analyses (e.g., as a mediator or moderator), but less work has considered how to measure policy implementation for inclusion in quantitative work. To help address this gap, we discuss four design considerations for researchers interested in developing or identifying measures of policy implementation using three independent NIH-funded research projects studying e-cigarette, food, and mental health policies. Mini case studies of these considerations were developed via group discussions; we used the implementation research logic model to structure our discussions. Design considerations include (1) clearly specifying the implementation logic of the policy under study, (2) developing an interdisciplinary team consisting of policy practitioners and researchers with expertise in quantitative methods, public policy and law, implementation science, and subject matter knowledge, (3) using mixed methods to identify, measure, and analyze relevant policy implementation determinants and processes, and (4) building flexibility into project timelines to manage delays and challenges due to the real-world nature of policy. By applying these considerations in their own work, researchers can better identify or develop measures of policy implementation that fit their needs. The experiences of the three projects highlighted in this paper reinforce the need for high-quality and transferrable measures of policy implementation, an area where collaboration between implementation scientists and policy experts could be particularly fruitful. These measurement practices provide a foundation for the field to build on as attention to incorporating measures of policy implementation into quantitative evaluations grows and will help ensure that researchers are developing a more complete understanding of how policies impact health outcomes.

Pain management interventions of the non-communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review

AIM

The utility and uptake of pain management interventions across intensive care settings is inconsistent. A rapid realist review was conducted to synthesise the evidence for the purpose of theory building and refinement.

DESIGN

A five-step iterative process was employed to develop project scope/ research questions, collate evidence, appraise literature, synthesise evidence and interpret information from data sources.

METHODS

Realist synthesis method was employed to systematically review literature for developing a programme theory.

DATA SOURCES

Initial searches were undertaken in three electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL and OVID. The review was supplemented with key articles from bibliographic search of identified articles. The first 200 hits from Google Scholar were screened.

RESULTS

Three action-oriented themes emerged as integral to successful implementation of pain management interventions. These included health facility actions, unit/team leader actions and individual nurses' actions.

CONCLUSION

Pain assessment interventions are influenced by a constellation of factors which trigger mechanisms yielding effective implementation outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

The results have implications on policy makers, health organisations, nursing teams and nurses concerned with optimising the successful implementation of pain management interventions.

IMPACT

The review enabled formation of a programme theory concerned with explaining how to effectively implement pain management interventions in intensive care.

REPORTING METHOD

This review was informed by RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. 10.17605/OSF.IO/J7AEZ.

Understanding Public Perceptions and Discussions on Opioids Through Twitter: Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study

BACKGROUND

Opioids are used for the treatment of refractory pain, but their inappropriate use has detrimental consequences for health. Understanding the current experiences and perceptions of patients in a spontaneous and colloquial environment regarding the key drugs involved in the opioid crisis is of utmost significance.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to analyze Twitter content related to opioids, with objectives including characterizing users participating in these conversations, identifying prevalent topics and gauging public perception, assessing opinions on drug efficacy and tolerability, and detecting discussions related to drug dispensing, prescription, or acquisition.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we gathered public tweets concerning major opioids posted in English or Spanish between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. A total of 256,218 tweets were collected. Approximately 27% (69,222/256,218) were excluded. Subsequently, 7000 tweets were subjected to manual analysis based on a codebook developed by the researchers. The remaining databases underwent analysis using machine learning classifiers. In the codebook, the type of user was the initial classification domain. We differentiated between patients, family members and friends, health care professionals, and institutions. Next, a distinction was made between medical and nonmedical content. If it was medical in nature, we classified it according to whether it referred to the drug's efficacy or adverse effects. In nonmedical content tweets, we analyzed whether the content referred to management issues (eg, pharmacy dispensation, medical appointment prescriptions, commercial advertisements, or legal aspects) or the trivialization of the drug.

RESULTS

Among the entire array of scrutinized pharmaceuticals, fentanyl emerged as the predominant subject, featuring in 27% (39,997/148,335 posts) of the tweets. Concerning user categorization, roughly 70% (101,259/148,335) were classified as patients. Nevertheless, tweets posted by health care professionals obtained the highest number of retweets (37/16,956, 0.2% of their posts received over 100 retweets). We found statistically significant differences in the distribution concerning efficacy and side effects among distinct drug categories (P<.001). Nearly 60% (84,401/148,335) of the posts were devoted to nonmedical subjects. Within this category, legal facets and recreational use surfaced as the most prevalent themes, while in the medical discourse, efficacy constituted the most frequent topic, with over 90% (45,621/48,777) of instances characterizing it as poor or null. The opioid with the greatest proportion of tweets concerning legal considerations was fentanyl. Furthermore, fentanyl was the drug most frequently offered for sale on Twitter, while methadone generated the most tweets about pharmacy delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The opioid crisis is present on social media, where tweets discuss legal and recreational use. Opioid users are the most active participants, prioritizing medication efficacy over side effects. Surprisingly, health care professionals generate the most engagement, indicating their positive reception. Authorities must monitor web-based opioid discussions to detect illicit acquisitions and recreational use.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on providers' opioid prescribing patterns among patients with chronic non-cancer pain

Prior work suggests opioid prescribing cap laws are not associated with changes in opioid prescribing among patients with chronic pain. It is unknown how these effects differ by provider specialty, provider opioid prescribing volume, or patient insurer. This study assessed effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing among providers of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, by high volume prescribing, provider specialty, and patient insurer. We identified 224,290 providers of patients with low back pain, fibromyalgia, or headache from the IQVIA administrative database. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined impacts of opioid prescribing cap laws implemented between 2016 and 2018 on the annual proportion of a provider's patient panel who received any opioid prescription, as well as on dose and duration of opioid prescriptions. For providers overall, high volume prescribers, all specialties, and patient insurance categories, prescribing cap laws were associated with non-significant changes of <1.0, 1.5, and 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of chronic non-cancer patients receiving any opioid prescription, a prescription with 7 days' supply, or with >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, per year, respectively. There were two exceptions with high dose prescribing: prescribing cap laws were associated with a 1.5 percentage point increase in the proportion of high-volume prescribers' patient panel receiving an opioid prescription with ≥50 MME/day, and a 3.0 percentage point decrease in the same measure among surgeons. Among nearly all measured subgroups of providers and patient insurers, opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing.

"Cookbook medicine": Exploring the impact of opioid prescribing limits legislation on clinical practice and patient experiences

Opioid dependence and overdose are serious public health concerns. States have responded by enacting legislation regulating opioid-prescribing practices. Through in-depth interviews with clinicians, state officials, and organizational stakeholders, this paper examines opioid prescribing limits legislation (PLL) in North Carolina and how it impacts clinical practice. Since the advent of PLL, clinicians report being more mindful when prescribing opioids and as expected, writing for shorter durations for both acute and postoperative pain. But clinicians also report prescribing opioids less frequently for acute pain, refusing to write second opioid prescriptions, foisting responsibility for patient pain care onto other clinicians, and no longer writing opioid prescriptions for chronic pain patients. They directly credit PLL for these changes, including institutional policies enacted in response to PLL, and, to a lesser degree, notions of "do no harm." However, we argue that misapplication of and ambiguities in PLL along with defensive medicine practices whereby clinicians and their institutions center their legal interests over patient care, amplify these restrictive changes in clinical practice. Clinicians' narratives reveal downstream consequences for patients including undertreated pain, being viewed as drug-seeking when questioning opioid-prescribing decisions, and having to overuse the medical system to achieve pain relief.

Effects of Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws on Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Persons with Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Many states have adopted laws that limit the amount or duration of opioid prescriptions. These limits often focus on prescriptions for acute pain, but there may be unintended consequences for those diagnosed with chronic pain, including reduced opioid prescribing without substitution of appropriate non-opioid treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid and non-opioid treatment among those diagnosed with chronic pain.

DESIGN

We used a difference-in-differences approach that accounts for staggered policy adoption. Treated states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019.

POPULATION

A total of 480,856 adults in the USA who were continuously enrolled in medical and pharmacy coverage from 2013 to 2019 and diagnosed with a chronic pain condition between 2013 and 2016.

MAIN MEASURES

Among individuals with chronic pain in each state: proportion with at least one opioid prescription and with prescriptions of a specific duration or dose, average number of opioid prescriptions, average opioid prescription duration and dose, proportion with at least one non-opioid chronic pain prescription, average number of such prescriptions, proportion with at least one chronic pain procedure, and average number of such procedures.

KEY RESULTS

State laws limiting opioid prescriptions were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing, non-opioid medication prescribing, or non-opioid chronic pain procedures among patients with chronic pain diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings do not support an association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and changes in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.

Use of Opioids for Adults With Pain From Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

State prescribing cap laws' association with opioid analgesic prescribing and opioid overdose

INTRODUCTION

In response to the role of opioid prescribing in the U.S. opioid crisis, states have enacted laws intended to curb high risk opioid prescribing practices. This study assessed the effects of state prescribing cap laws that limit the dose and/or duration of dispensed opioid prescriptions on opioid prescribing patterns and opioid overdose.

METHODS

We identified 1,414,908 adults from a large U.S. administrative insurance claims database. Treatment states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019. Comparison states included 16 states and DC without a prescribing cap law by 2019. A difference-in-differences approach with staggered policy adoption was used to assess effects of these laws on opioid analgesic prescribing and opioid overdose.

RESULTS

State opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in the proportion of people receiving opioid analgesic prescriptions, the dose or duration of opioid prescriptions, or opioid overdose. States with laws that imposed days' supply limits only versus days' supply and dosage limits, as well as with specific law provisions also showed no association with opioid prescribing or opioid overdose outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

State opioid prescribing cap laws did not appear to impact outcomes related to opioid analgesic prescribing or opioid overdose. These findings are potentially due to the limited scope of these laws, which often apply only to a subset of opioid prescriptions and include professional judgment exemptions.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery.

DATA SOURCES

OptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims data covering all 50 states from July 2012 through June 2019.

STUDY DESIGN

We included individuals from 20 states that had implemented prescribing cap laws without exemptions for postsurgical pain by June 2019 and individuals from 16 control states plus the District of Columbia. We used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for differential timing in law implementation across states to estimate the effects of state prescribing cap laws on postsurgical prescribing of opioids. Outcome measures included filling an opioid prescription within 30 days after surgery; filling opioid prescriptions of specific doses or durations; and the number, days' supply, daily dose, and pill quantity of opioid prescriptions. To assess the validity of the parallel counterfactual trends assumption, we examined differences in outcome trends between law-implementing and control states in the years preceding law implementation using an equivalence testing framework.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We included the first surgery in the study period for opioid-naïve individuals undergoing one of eight common surgical procedures.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

State prescribing cap laws were associated with 0.109 lower days' supply of postsurgical opioids on the log scale (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.139, -0.080) but were not associated with the number (Average treatment effect on the treated [ATT]: -0.011; 95% CI: -0.043, 0.021) or daily dose of postsurgical opioid prescriptions (ATT: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.030, 0.005). The negative association observed between prescribing cap laws and the probability of filling a postsurgical opioid prescription (ATT: -0.041; 95% CI: -0.054, -0.028) was likely spurious, given differences between law-implementing and control states in the pre-law period.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing cap laws appear to have minimal effects on postsurgical opioid prescribing.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012–2019

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days’ supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012–2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

Association Between State Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws and Receipt of Opioid Prescriptions Among Children and Adolescents

Importance

High-dose and long-duration opioid prescriptions remain relatively common among children and adolescents, but there is insufficient research on the association of state laws limiting the dose and/or duration of opioid prescriptions (referred to as opioid prescribing cap laws) with opioid prescribing for this group.

Objective

To examine the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents.

Design Setting and Participants

This repeated cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for staggered policy adoption to assess the association of state opioid prescribing cap laws in the US from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2019, with receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Analyses were conducted between March 22 and December 15, 2021. Data were obtained from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national commercial insurance claims database. The analysis included 482 118 commercially insured children and adolescents aged 0 to 17 years with full calendar-year continuous insurance enrollment between 2013 and 2019. Individuals were included for every year in which they were continuously enrolled; they did not need to be enrolled for the entire 7-year study period. Those with any cancer diagnosis were excluded from analysis.

Exposure

Implementation of a state opioid prescribing cap law between January 1, 2017, and July 1, 2019. This date range allowed analysis of the same number years for both pre-cap and post-cap data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest included receipt of any opioid prescription and, among those with at least 1 opioid prescription, the mean number of opioid prescriptions, mean morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day, and mean days' supply.

Results

Among 482 118 children and adolescents (754 368 person-years of data aggregated to the state-year level), 245 178 (50.9%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 9.8 (4.8) years at the first year included in the sample (data on race and ethnicity were not collected as part of this data set, which was obtained from insurance billing claims). Overall, 10 659 children and adolescents (2.2%) received at least 1 opioid prescription during the study period. Among those with at least 1 prescription, the mean (SD) number of filled opioid prescriptions was 1.2 (0.8) per person per year. No statistically significant association was found between state opioid prescribing cap laws and any outcome. After opioid prescribing cap laws were implemented, a -0.001 (95% CI, -0.005 to 0.002) percentage point decrease in the proportion of youths receiving any opioid prescription was observed. In addition, percentage point decreases of -0.01 (95% CI, -0.10 to 0.09) in high-dose opioid prescriptions (>50 MMEs per day) and -0.02 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.08) in long-duration opioid prescriptions (>7 days' supply) were found after cap laws were implemented.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, no association was observed between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Alternative strategies, such as opioid prescribing guidelines tailored to youths, are needed.

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

METHODS

Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea).

RESULTS

Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.

Factors influencing opioid prescribing after tooth extraction

BACKGROUND

Tooth extractions account for most opioid prescriptions from dentists, but specific characteristics that influence likelihood are less established. Improving understanding can facilitate development of tailored interventions to reduce unnecessary opioid prescribing.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients 12 years and older undergoing tooth extraction at the College of Dentistry at the University of Kentucky from 2013 through 2020. The primary end point was issuance of an opioid prescription related to the encounter.

RESULTS

In 44,387 eligible records analyzed, 10,628 (23.9%) patients received an opioid prescription. Results of multivariable logistic regression found that the factors associated with an opioid prescription included receipt of a nonopioid analgesic prescription (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 11.36; 95% CI, 10.37 to 12.44), receipt of an antibiotic prescription (aOR, 8.29; 95% CI, 7.57 to 9.08), procedural sedation (aOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.93 to 2.31), surgical extraction (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.84 to 2.10), and third molar extractions (1 tooth: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25; 2 teeth: aOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 2.87 to 2.34; 3 teeth: aOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.36 to 3.15; 4 teeth: aOR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.10 to 3.83). Factors that decreased risk included having an appointment in 2018 or later (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.33), in a student (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.65) or resident (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.36) clinic, and on any day other than Friday (Monday: aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91; Tuesday: aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.99; Wednesday: aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.97; Thursday: aOR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid prescriptions after tooth extraction were common in patients undergoing more extensive procedures. Provider perceptions, habits, and several clinical factors appeared to influence prescribing patterns.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The decision to prescribe an opioid appears to be associated with habits and factors perceived to modulate postoperative pain, which may serve as targets for opioid reduction strategies.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults

BACKGROUND

There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time.

OBJECTIVE

To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions.

DESIGN

Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes.

SETTING

United States, 2008 to 2019.

PATIENTS

7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month.

RESULTS

Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids.

LIMITATIONS

Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Implementation of mandatory opioid prescribing limits in North Carolina: healthcare administrator and prescriber perspectives

BACKGROUND

Recent increases in state laws to reduce opioid prescribing have demonstrated a need to understand how they are interpreted and implemented in healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to explore the systems, strategies, and resources that hospital administrators and prescribers used to implement the 2017 North Carolina Strengthen Opioid Prevention (STOP) Act opioid prescribing limits, which limited initial prescriptions to a five (for acute) or seven (for post-surgical) days' supply.

METHODS

We interviewed 14 hospital administrators and 38 prescribers with degrees in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, business administration and public health working across North Carolina. Interview guides, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, explored barriers and facilitators to implementation. Interview topics included communication, resources, and hospital system support. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then analyzed using flexible coding, integrating inductive and deductive coding, to inform analytic code development and identify themes.

RESULTS

We identified three main themes around implementation of STOP act mandated prescribing limits: organizational communication, prescriber education, and changes in the electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Administrators reflected on implementation in the context of raising awareness and providing reminders to facilitate changes in prescriber behavior, operationalized through email and in-person communications as well as dedicated resources to EMR changes. Prescribers noted administrative communications about prescribing limits often focused on legality, suggesting a directive of the organization's policy rather than a passive reminder. Prescribers expressed a desire for more spaces to have their questions answered and resources for patient communications. While hospital administrators viewed compliance with the law as a priority, prescribers reflected on concerns for adequately managing their patients' pain and limited time for clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital administrators and prescribers approached implementation of the STOP act prescribing limits with different mindsets. While administrators were focused on policy compliance, prescribers were focused on their patients' needs. Strategies to implement the mandate then had to balance patient needs with policy compliance. As states continue to legislate to prevent opioid overdose deaths, understanding how laws are implemented by healthcare systems and prescribers will improve their effectiveness through tailoring and maximizing available resources.

Effects of Implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 States: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin

Background and aims:

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were designed to curb opioid misuse and diversion by tracking scheduled medications prescribed by medical providers and dispensed by pharmacies. The effects of PDMPs on opioid prescription, misuse and overdose rates have been mixed due in part to variability in states’ PDMPs and difficulties measuring this complexity, and a lack of attention to implementation and enforcement of PDMP components. The current study uses qualitative interviews with key informants from 3 states with different PDMPs, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin to explore differences in the characteristics of the PDMPs in each state; how they are implemented, monitored and enforced; and unintended negative consequences of these programs.

Methods:

We conducted in-depth interviews with key informants from each state representing the following sectors: PDMP and pain clinic regulation agencies, Medicaid programs, state licensing boards, pharmacies, emergency medicine departments, pain management clinics, first responders, drug courts, drug treatment programs, medication assisted treatment (MAT) providers, and harm reduction organizations. Interview guides explored participants’ experiences with and opinions of PDMPs according to their roles. Data analysis was conducted using a collaborative, constant comparison method.

Results:

While all 3 states had mandated registration and reporting requirements, the states differed in the implementation and enforcement of these and the extent to which provider prescribing was monitored. These, in turn, influenced how medical providers perceived the PDMP and changed how providers prescribed opioids. Unintended consequences of state PDMPs included under-prescribing for pain and “dumping” patients who were long term users of opioids or who had developed opioid use disorders and may explain the increase in illicit heroin or opioid use.

Conclusion:

State PDMPs with similar mandates may differ greatly in implementation and enforcement. These differences are important to consider when determining the effects of PDMPs on opioid misuse and overdose.