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

A Longitudinal Multivariable Analysis: State Policies and Opioid Dispensing in Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Surgery

BACKGROUND

States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common.

EXPOSURES

State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management.

MAIN MEASURES

Opioid dispensing rates, days' supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED).

KEY RESULTS

The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days' supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days' supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days' supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies.

Massachusetts' opioid limit law associated with a reduction in postoperative opioid duration among orthopedic patients

Postoperative orthopedic patients are a high-risk group for receiving long-duration, large-dosage opioid prescriptions. Rigorous evaluation of state opioid duration limit laws, enacted throughout the country in response to the opioid overdose epidemic, is lacking among this high-risk group. We took advantage of Massachusetts' early implementation of a 2016 7-day-limit law that occurred before other statewide or plan-wide policies took effect and used commercial insurance claims from 2014-2017 to study its association with postoperative opioid prescriptions greater than 7 days' duration among Massachusetts orthopedic patients relative to a New Hampshire control group. Our sample included 14 097 commercially insured, opioid-naive adults aged 18 years and older undergoing elective orthopedic procedures. We found that the Massachusetts 7-day limit was associated with an immediate 4.23 percentage point absolute reduction (95% CI, 8.12 to 0.33 percentage points) and a 33.27% relative reduction (95% CI, 55.36% to 11.19%) in the percentage of initial fills greater than 7 days in the Massachusetts relative to the control group. Seven-day-limit laws may be an important state-level tool to mitigate longer duration prescribing to high-risk postoperative populations.

Impact of state opioid laws on prescribing in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Excessive opioid prescribing has resulted in opioid diversion and misuse. In July 2018, Michigan's Public Act 251 established a state-wide policy limiting opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a 7-day supply. Traumatic injury increases the risk for new persistent opioid use, yet the impact of prescribing policy in trauma patients remains unknown. To determine the relationship between policy enactment and prescribing in trauma patients, we compared oral morphine equivalents prescribed at discharge before and after implementation of Public Act 251.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, adult patients who received any oral opioids at discharge from a Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2021, were identified. The exposure was patients admitted starting July 1, 2018. Inpatient oral morphine equivalents per day 48 hours before discharge and discharge prescription oral morphine equivalents per day were calculated. Student's t test and an interrupted time series analysis were performed to compare mean oral morphine equivalents per day pre- and post-policy. Multivariable risk adjustment accounted for patient/injury factors and inpatient oral morphine equivalent use.

RESULTS

A total of 3,748 patients were included in the study (pre-policy n = 1,685; post-policy n = 2,063). Implementation of the prescribing policy was associated with a significant decrease in mean discharge oral morphine equivalents per day (34.8 ± 49.5 vs 16.7 ± 32.3, P < .001). After risk adjustment, post-policy discharge prescriptions differed by -19.2 oral morphine equivalents per day (95% CI -21.7 to -16.8, P < .001). The proportion of patients obtaining a refill prescription 30 days post-discharge did not increase after implementation (0.38 ± 0.48 vs 0.37 ± 0.48, P = .7).

CONCLUSION

Discharge prescription amounts for opioids in trauma patients decreased by approximately one-half after the implementation of opioid prescribing policies, and there was no compensatory increase in subsequent refill prescriptions. Future work is needed to evaluate the effect of these policies on the adequacy of pain management and functional recovery after injury.

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.

Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

BACKGROUND

State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain.

DESIGN

Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law.

SETTING

United States, 2010 to 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month.

RESULTS

In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented.

LIMITATIONS

This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

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.