State policy affecting pain management: recent improvements and the positive impact of regulatory health policies

Patients' Experience With Opioid Pain Medication After Discharge From Surgery: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Decreasing the number of prescription opioids has been a leading strategy in combating the opioid epidemic. In Vermont, statewide and institutional policies have affected prescribing practices, resulting in a 40% decrease in postoperative opioid prescribing. The optimal approach to postoperative opioid prescribing remains unknown. In this study, we describe patients' experience with pain control 1 wk after discharge from surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed patients' experience using a telephone questionnaire, 1-wk after discharge after undergoing common surgical procedures between 2017 and 2019 at an academic medical center (n = 1027). Scaled responses regarding pain control, opioids prescribed, and opioids used (response rate 96%) were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach; open-ended patient responses to questions regarding whether the number of opioids prescribed was "correct" were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

One week after discharge, 96% of patients reported that their pain was well controlled. When asked whether they received the correct number of opioid pills postoperatively, qualitative analysis of patient responses yielded the following six themes: (1) I had more than I needed, but not more than I wanted; (2) Rationed medication; (3) Medication was not effective; (4) Caution regarding risks of opioids; (5) Awareness of the public health concerns; and (6) Used opioids from a prior prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported pain control after common surgical procedures was excellent. However, patients are supportive of receiving more pain medications than they actually use, and they fear that further restrictions may prevent them or others from managing pain adequately. Understanding the patients' perspective is important for surgical education and improving discharge protocols.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Current US Policy to Address Pain

Pain is a significant public health problem that needs policy at the national and local level to resolve incidents of insufficient, ineffective, and disparate pain treatment while limiting the risk of inadvertently increasing the use of treatment such as opioids that can result in public harm.The National Pain Strategy serves as the first comprehensive approach to address pain and provides a roadmap with substantial broad and specific policy implications. Although much has been accomplished to date, transitions in political power, available data and funding, and the current opioid epidemic continue to have an impact on implementation of the National Pain Strategy.A sustained, coordinated effort with multipronged policies in many forms on both federal and state levels via regulations, laws, and guidelines is warranted. However, research is needed to evaluate the impact and potential unintended consequences of increased legislation and regulation. Nevertheless, policy related to the management of pain may provide the path to new treatments and models of care to reduce the impact of pain as a public health crisis in this country.

Opioids, pain management and the law

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Approximately 100 million people suffer from chronic pain in the USA. Opioid medications are commonly prescribed to treat pain, but are becoming the most widely misused controlled substance nationally. Physicians who treat patients with chronic pain must be cognizant of the federal and state policies that govern the distribution of opioid medications as well as the current standards of medical practice for opioid prescribing.

RECENT FINDINGS

The laws and policies regarding the standard medical practice for opioid prescribing are constantly subject to revision. The National Drug Control Policy announced its plan to fight prescription drug abuse in 2011 and unveiled the Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy initiative. Currently there is a Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy for Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl. Other resources, such as state-run prescription drug monitoring programs, are also available to many physicians. The level of participation in these programs by physicians and pharmacists varies by state, and funding for continuation of these programs is an ongoing issue.

SUMMARY

The problems of undertreated pain and the epidemic of prescription drug abuse have coincided, creating a need for medical and social policy that protects society and access to appropriate care for those in pain. Federal and state laws are in evolution, and clinicians must remain aware of these changes as well as the issues behind them that will impact safe and appropriate care of patients in pain.

State medical board members' attitudes about the legality of chronic prescribing to patients with noncancer pain: the influence of knowledge and beliefs about pain management, addiction, and opioid prescribing

CONTEXT

In the United States, physicians' practice is regulated at the state level, with medical board members distinguishing legitimate medical practice from unprofessional conduct. For this process to be effective, regulators should have knowledge and beliefs that conform to current standards of practice and medical understanding. Past research has demonstrated that some board members continue to view the prolonged prescribing of opioid analgesics to treat noncancer pain as being unlawful or unacceptable medical practice, especially when the patient with pain has a history of substance abuse.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to determine whether relevant clinical or policy issues can adequately explain regulators' attitudes about the legality of opioid prescribing for patients with noncancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 277 questionnaires were obtained from a national sample of medical board members. Using binomial logistic regression procedures, the predictive significance of 12 factors related to four variable domains was explored: 1) beliefs about opioid addiction and diversion, 2) beliefs and knowledge about federal and state policy, 3) clinical beliefs about opioid prescribing, and 4) demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Separate logistic regression models were computed to determine the extent that knowledge and beliefs contribute to attitudes about the legality of chronic opioid therapy for noncancer pain and for noncancer pain with a history of substance abuse. Three variables demonstrated statistical significance in both regression models: 1) characterizing addiction in terms of physiological phenomena, 2) believing regulatory policy is useful to improve pain relief, and 3) incorrectly believing that federal law limits the amount of Schedule II medication that can be prescribed at one time. When considering the legality of prescribing opioids for patients with noncancer pain, the following additional factors had a notable influence: viewing addiction as common when treating pain with opioids (P=0.030), considering it very important for a board to have a regulatory policy about pain treatment (P=0.038), doubting the legitimacy of more than one opioid prescription for a single patient (P<0.0001), and being younger (P=0.038). Alternatively, for patients with noncancer pain and a history of abuse, only one other factor was significant: reporting the adequacy of their training in pain management as "poor" (P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Study results showed that the parsimonious regression models used in this study reasonably explained such attitudes. Suggestions were offered for achieving more comprehensive insight about the factors that can shape regulators' attitudes about prescribing legality.

Randomized trial of web-based training about opioid therapy for chronic pain

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of chronic noncancer pain with chronic opioid therapy has increased rapidly, but medicine residents receive little training concerning this therapy. Therefore we conducted a trial to determine if an interactive web-based training focusing on shared decision-making for chronic opioid therapy improves knowledge and competence compared with exposure to practice guidelines.

METHODS

A randomized controlled educational trial of 213 internal medicine residents from 5 medicine residencies participating in the Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine's Educational Innovations Project comparing access to interactive web-based training (COPE: Collaborative Opioid Prescribing Education) or access to the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. Pretraining and immediate posttraining knowledge test; pretraining and 60-day posttraining self-reported competence, satisfaction, patient-centeredness, and selected clinical behaviors were analyzed using t tests, Pearson chi, and Generalized Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

The web training group had greater increase in knowledge with training (chi(2)=72.06, P<0.00001) and greater self-rated competence in the management of outpatients with chronic pain (chi(2)=6.48, P=0.01), and specifically in the use of opioids in this management (chi(2)=5.17, P=0.02). Residents in both groups reported more satisfaction with managing chronic pain care after training (chi(2)=52.72, P<0.0001), though the web training was superior on subscales concerning training adequacy (chi(2)=4.94, P=0.026) and relationship quality (chi(2)=5.79, P=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to an interactive web-based training focused on shared decision-making and communication skills was more effective than exposure to compatible practice guidelines for knowledge and self-reported competence in the management of chronic noncancer pain.

Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base

This document reports the consensus of an interdisciplinary panel of research and clinical experts charged with reviewing the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and formulating guidelines for future research. Prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain has recently escalated in the United States. Contrasting with increasing opioid use are: 1) The lack of evidence supporting long-term effectiveness; 2) Escalating misuse of prescription opioids including abuse and diversion; and 3) Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical salience of multiple, poorly characterized adverse drug events (ADEs) including endocrine dysfunction, immunosuppression and infectious disease, opioid-induced hyperalgesia and xerostomia, overdose, falls and fractures, and psychosocial complications. Chief among the limitations of current evidence are: 1) Sparse evidence on long-term opioid effectiveness in chronic pain patients due to the short-term time frame of clinical trials; 2) Insufficiently comprehensive outcome assessment; and 3) Incomplete identification and quantification of ADEs. The panel called for a strategic interdisciplinary approach to the problem domain in which basic scientists and clinicians cooperate to resolve urgent issues and generate a comprehensive evidence base. It offered 4 recommendations in 3 areas: 1) A research strategy for studying the effectiveness of long-term opioid pharmacotherapy; 2) Improvements in evidence-generation methodology; and 3) Potential research topics for generating new evidence.

PERSPECTIVE

Prescribing opioids for CNCP has outpaced the growth of scientific evidence bearing on the benefits and harms of these interventions. The need for a strong evidence base is urgent. This guideline offers a strategic approach to creating a comprehensive evidence base to guide safe and effective management of CNCP.

The concept of addiction in law and regulatory policy related to pain management: a critical review

OBJECTIVE

To present a critical appraisal of the present definitions of addiction-related terminology that appear in US laws and regulatory policies that apply to the prescription of controlled substances for pain management.

METHODS

To establish an appropriate context for existing policy definitions, a historical review was conducted of reports from the World Health Organization expert committees on addiction-related concepts, beginning in 1950. In addition, current World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association diagnostic classification nomenclature were examined. Results from recent criteria-based evaluations of federal and state laws and regulatory policies containing addiction-related terminology also were referenced.

RESULTS

Numerous examples are provided to clarify how inaccurate understandings of the nature of addiction, which can be corroborated by archaic definitions in some states' laws, can impact treatment decisions and patient care. Finally, this article discusses terminological and treatment implications of such concepts as "risk mitigation" and "responsible prescribing", which are goals currently emphasized in the pain management field as principal means to reduce addiction to or abuse of prescription opioid medications.

DISCUSSION

Although notable improvement has been achieved, policy content in some states has not kept pace with advancements in medical and scientific knowledge about the interface between pain management and addictive disease. Effective translation of addiction-related concepts into clinical practice remains an important objective for promoting public health related to treating pain and reducing non-medical use of opioids.

Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain

Use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased substantially. The American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain and convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. Although evidence is limited, the expert panel concluded that chronic opioid therapy can be an effective therapy for carefully selected and monitored patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, opioids are also associated with potentially serious harms, including opioid-related adverse effects and outcomes related to the abuse potential of opioids. The recommendations presented in this document provide guidance on patient selection and risk stratification; informed consent and opioid management plans; initiation and titration of chronic opioid therapy; use of methadone; monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy; dose escalations, high-dose opioid therapy, opioid rotation, and indications for discontinuation of therapy; prevention and management of opioid-related adverse effects; driving and work safety; identifying a medical home and when to obtain consultation; management of breakthrough pain; chronic opioid therapy in pregnancy; and opioid-related policies.

PERSPECTIVE

Safe and effective chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain requires clinical skills and knowledge in both the principles of opioid prescribing and on the assessment and management of risks associated with opioid abuse, addiction, and diversion. Although evidence is limited in many areas related to use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, this guideline provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel after a systematic review of the evidence.

Promoting a "good death": determinants of pain-management policies in the United States

Many Americans do not experience a good death. The inadequate treatment of pain at the end of life has been associated with a lack of supportive public policies more than a lack of evidence-based clinical practices or organizational efforts. Given a widespread lack of understanding about pain policies, we examine the critical role played by state medical boards in developing pain policies and then apply event history analysis to identify the variables most critical to the formation of these policies. We develop an integrated model and evaluate the adoption of eight different types of pain policies. The analytic models incorporate fifteen years of observational data and test the impact of contextual, political, extrinsic, and institutional variables. They reveal that the presence of legal counselors on state medical boards has consistently increased the likelihood that state boards adopt policies associated with progressive pain management. Further, policy has been negatively influenced by historical activity: boards that previously adopted one pain policy have been less likely to subsequently adopt additional pain policies. This work illuminates mechanisms behind state pain-policy adoption and provides valuable information for advocates who seek to improve pain-management policy and reduce the amount of pain at the end of life.

How can we make the pain go away? Public policies to manage pain at the end of life

The continued undertreatment of pain at the end of life is a substantive public health problem that has not been resolved through increased public awareness, the issuance of clinical guidance for providers, or expanded organizational commitments. In this forum, we illuminate the role of public policies in promoting pain management. We review federal and state policies and consider empirical evaluations that compared the quality of state policies and the factors that contributed to their formation. We resolve that any organized interest in improving end-of-life care should begin by focusing on the development and expansion of those state policies that support the provision of evidence-based medicine for reducing the amount of pain an individual experiences at the end of life. Although empirical research is needed to determine which particular aspects of state pain policy are most critical and how these policies can be implemented most effectively, any organized effort that advances state medical board activity or another state policy would appear to be making an important step toward making the pain at the end of life go away.

Chronic pain

Physiatrists frequently see patients who have chronic pain, and the physiatric approach is highly relevant to pain management. This article is directed toward physiatrists who do not specialize in pain management. It discusses the epidemiology of pain in patient groups often treated by physiatrists, pathophysiologic processes underlying chronic pain, the assessment of chronic pain patients, and selected treatments for chronic pain.

State medical board members' beliefs about pain, addiction, and diversion and abuse: a changing regulatory environment

Three national surveys were conducted in 1991, 1997, and 2004 to evaluate state medical board members' knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioid analgesics for pain management. Topics addressed include perceived legality of prolonged opioid prescribing, characteristics of addiction, prevalence of medication abuse and diversion, and perceived importance and influence of medical board policy. Questions were added in 2004 to determine board members' views about law enforcement involvement in physician investigations and prosecutions. This study assesses medical regulators' current beliefs and compares the 2004 responses with previous responses to determine how knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioids have changed in recent years. Survey results show that board members have a greater understanding of pain management issues, particularly regarding characteristics of addiction and the legality of prolonged opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain. During the last 15 years, there has been substantial regulatory policy development, with medical boards adopting regulations, guidelines, or policy statements to provide guidance to licensees about using opioids to treat pain. However, many board members believe that federal and state law enforcement agencies have increased criminal investigations and prosecutions of physicians. We discuss appropriate regulatory and law enforcement responses to opioid prescribing violations, and suggest crucial next steps.

PERSPECTIVE

The authors examine the evolution of state medical board members' knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioid analgesics to treat chronic pain, demonstrate that medical regulators believe that there have been increased criminal investigations and prosecutions of physicians for their prescribing practices, and suggest ways to avoid unwarranted criminal prosecutions.

Addiction Severity Index in a chronic pain sample receiving opioid therapy

The treatment of chronic pain with opioids remains controversial. Physicians are concerned about addiction and drug diversion, and there is limited empirical information on the use of opioids in patients with chronic pain. This report presents data on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) collected in a sample of patients (N = 908) receiving opioids from their primary care physicians. The ASI provides clinically important information about patients receiving opioid therapy. The ASI consists of seven subscales, including medical, alcohol, drug, employment/support, legal, family/social, and psychiatric domains. Clinically relevant findings include high ASI medical score (0.87), high psychiatric severity score (0.27), lifetime treatment of alcohol problems (reported by 22% of men), prior delirium tremens (5.6%), prior treatment for drug problems (10.1%), prior drug overdose (12.1%), and drunk-driving citations (28%); 40.3% of women had serious suicidal thoughts, and 23.8% had suicide attempts. The ASI provides important information that can help primary care physicians manage patients with chronic pain who are receiving opioid therapy.

U.S. Board-Certified Pain Physician Practices: Uniformity and Census Data of Their Locations

We determined the profiles of the board-certified pain physician workforce and the profiles of those residing near medical pain practices. Data from a mail survey of U.S. pain specialists were compared with U.S. Census data, and different settings and types of practices were contrasted. The 750 respondents (32.1%) were similar to the entire board-certified group in age, geographic distribution, and primary specialty. Although pain practices were underrepresented in rural areas, their prevalence was unrelated to other demographic data. Ninety-six percent of pain physicians treated chronic pain; 84% followed patients longitudinally; 31% worked in an academic environment; 50% had an interdisciplinary practice; and 29% focused on a single modality. Academics were more likely to be neurologists (P < .05) and to have had a pain fellowship (P < or = .0001). Modality-oriented practitioners were more likely to be anesthesiologists (P < or = .0001) and were less likely to follow patients with chronic pain longitudinally (P < or = .0001), provide training to fellows, prescribe controlled substances (P < or = .0001, respectively), or require an opioid contract (P < or = .01). Although boarded specialists learn from similar curricula and must pass a certifying examination, their practices vary considerably. Data are needed to further clarify the nature of workforce variation, its impact on patient care, and the role of other pain management clinicians.

PERSPECTIVE

A survey of board-certified pain specialists reveals considerable variation in practice and a total number of specialists that is probably insufficient to meet the needs of the population with chronic pain. The location of pain management practices largely corresponds to census data, with the exception of underrepresentation in rural areas.

Foundations of opioid risk management

Increased abuse and diversion of prescription opioids has been a consequence of the increased availability of opioids to address the widespread problem of undertreated pain. Opioid risk management refers to the effort to minimize harms associated with opioid therapy while maintaining appropriate access to therapy. Management of these linked public health issues requires a coordinated and balanced effort among a disparate group of stakeholders at the federal, state, industry, practitioner, and patient levels. This paper reviews the principles of opioid risk management by examining the epidemiology of prescription opioid abuse in the United States; identifying key stakeholders involved in opioid risk management and their responsibilities for managing or monitoring opioid abuse and diversion; and summarizing the mechanisms currently used to monitor and address prescription opioid abuse. Limitations of current approaches, and emerging directions in opioid risk management, are also presented.

Legal aspects of chronic opioid therapy

Although many Americans suffer from undertreated pain, the regulatory and legal environment for the use of opioids in pain relief is currently in a state of flux. The federal government's efforts to curb drug abuse have complicated the use of opioids for pain relief. Recent actions by the US Drug Enforcement Agency have added to an atmosphere of mistrust and confusion and have increased physician concerns about increased scrutiny and legal, regulatory, or administrative sanctions. Despite a disturbing shift in regulatory authority over opioid analgesics away from health agencies and toward law enforcement agencies, recent state policies and guidelines from national medical organizations are playing an important role in promoting the use of opioids for pain treatment and helping to reduce practitioners' concerns over regulatory oversight. Current and future trends concerning the legal and regulatory aspects of chronic opioid treatment are discussed in this article.