"The DEA would come in and destroy you": a qualitative study of fear and unintended consequences among opioid prescribers in WV

"Saving us to Death": Ideology and Communicative (Dis)enfranchisement in Misapplications of the 2016 CDC Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

Guided by the theory of communicative (dis)enfranchisement (TCD), this study interrogates how interactions in which chronic pain patients are force tapered from their prescribed opioids are constrained and afforded by the hegemonic ideologies. To interrogate the harms caused for chronic pain patients by ideological policies enacted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and assess what communicative mechanisms reify and resist such ideologies, this research analyzes 238 posts authored by chronic pain patient Reddit users. Reflexive thematic analysis illuminated a hegemonic ideology of opiophobia, (im)material ramifications of (a) discrimination by doctors, and (b) political and legal interference; mechanisms of reification: (a) positioning suicide as a rational option, (b) advocating for the use of illicit substances, and (c) stopping opioids voluntarily; and mechanisms of resistance: (a) counter-organizing and (b) counter-generating knowledge. We offer theoretical implications for the TCD and practical implications for patients, providers, patient advocacy organizations, and policymakers.

Back Pain in the Era of Opioid Restriction and Implications for Neurosurgeons Based on Qualitative Findings From a Rural State

Historically, back pain has been an inciting complaint for the initiation of opioids. Aggressive marketing of opioids to treat back pain coupled with the initiation of pain being treated as "the fifth vital sign" contributed to the emerging opioid crisis in the USA. West Virginia (WV) has long been considered the epicenter of the crisis. In 2018, the WV legislature passed a bill that placed prescribing limits on opioids. Our group set out to investigate the impacts of opioid prescribing restrictions through a sequential, mixed methods study evaluating prescription trends and stakeholder experiences. These stakeholder experiences generated emergent themes regarding the evolution of the opioid crisis up to and beyond the implementation of the bill, which is of relevance to neurosurgeons and back pain treatment. This study explores those findings for a neurosurgical audience. This study consisted of open-ended, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 50 physicians, pharmacists, and patients in WV. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was utilized as the methodological orientation. Five theoretical domains relevant to the treatment of back pain emerged, describing the prevalence of opioid use, barriers to access care, the importance of opioids for function in resource-poor rural areas, disconnected and siloed care, and patient views on the impacts of pain care gaps and solutions. Spinal pain care in rural WV is complex due to identified challenges. Care siloing factors in suboptimal spinal pain care. Future work should define, implement, and assess the real-world effectiveness of treatment paradigms for the full spectrum of surgical and non-surgical back pain complaints. Neurosurgeons should be present in this arena.

"They either leave you or they get involved in it": Familial factors influencing drug use amongst Appalachian people

West Virginia, the only state entirely in Appalachia, is considered the epicenter of the opioid crisis. Children raised in families affected by opioid use disorder can develop their own substance use disorder later in life. The continuing opioid crisis coupled with social and health disparities suggest families in West Virginia are vulnerable to generational cycles of substance misuse. This qualitative study uses content analysis to present emergent themes discerned from participant interviews on the opioid epidemic and impacts of a restrictive opioid prescribing law in West Virginia. Participants in this study described how using opioids has impacted their lives, their family, and community. They recognized drug use was embedded along familial groups and influenced by significant others such as partners or peers. Parents described how children were a strong motivator for recovery and how they felt remorse for exposing their children to their drug use. This study highlights the importance of community engagement, parental support, and early identification of vulnerable young people to lessen the intergenerational continuance of substance use.

Opioid Prescribing Patterns After Imposition of Setting-Specific Limits on Prescription Duration

Importance

Despite their widespread adoption across the US, policies imposing one-size-fits-all limits on the duration of prescriptions for opioids have shown modest and mixed implications for prescribing.

Objective

To assess whether a prescription duration limit policy tailored to different clinical settings was associated with shorter opioid prescription lengths.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study examined changes in opioid prescribing patterns for opioid-naive Medicaid enrollees aged 12 to 64 years before and after implementation of a statewide prescription duration limit policy in West Virginia in June 2018. Patients with cancer or Medicare coverage were excluded. The policy assigned a 7-day duration limit to opioid prescriptions for adults treated in outpatient hospital- or office-based practices, a 4-day limit for adults treated in emergency departments, and a 3-day limit for pediatric patients younger than 18 years regardless of clinical setting. Data were examined from January 1, 2017, through September 30, 2019, and data were analyzed from June 12 to October 30, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Whether a patient's initial opioid prescription was longer in days than the June 2018 policy limit for a given care setting before and after policy implementation. Interrupted time series models were used to calculate the association between the policy's implementation and outcomes.

Results

The analytic sample included 44 703 Medicaid enrollees (27 957 patients [62.5%] before policy implementation and 16 746 patients [37.5%] after policy implementation; mean [SD] age, 33.9 [13.4] years; 27 461 females [61.4%]). Among adults treated in outpatient hospital- or office-based settings, the duration limit policy was associated with a decrease of 8.83 (95% CI, -10.43 to -7.23) percentage points (P < .001), or a 56.8% relative reduction, in the proportion of prescriptions exceeding the 7-day limit. In the emergency department setting, the policy was associated with a decrease of 7.03 (95% CI, -10.38 to -3.68) percentage points (P < .001), a 37.5% relative reduction, in the proportion of prescriptions exceeding the 4-day limit. The proportion of pediatric opioid prescriptions longer than the 3-day limit decreased by 12.80 (95% CI, -17.31 to -8.37) percentage points (P < .001), a 26.5% relative reduction, after the policy's implementation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that opioid prescription duration limits tailored to different clinical settings are associated with reduced length of prescriptions for opioid-naive patients. Additional research is needed to evaluate whether these limits are associated with reductions in the incidence of opioid use disorder or with unintended consequences, such as shifts to illicit opioids.

A qualitative study of chronic pain and opioid use: The impact of restrictive prescribing

OBJECTIVES

To explore the continuum of pain and addiction for patients with chronic pain (CP) who used opioids during a time of restrictive opioid prescribing in West Virginia.

DESIGN

This qualitative descriptive study used a content analysis of semistructured interviews. Themes were identified through a reflective, iterative coding process. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines were followed.

SETTING

West Virginia.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty people who used opioids to treat a CP condition, 10 pharmacists, 10 primary care providers, and 10 specialists.

INTERVENTION

Semistructured interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

To better understand the impact of restrictive prescribing measures on people who used opioids for CP.

RESULTS

Patients initiated opioids for acute, painful conditions and described how long-term use led to physical dependence and, for some, opioid use disorder. Restrictive opioid prescribing laws led to care interruptions and decreased access and availability of prescribed opioid pain medication, driving some patients to seek illicit drugs. Economic considerations influenced drug use as the price of purchasing prescription opioids on the street went up, making heroin a cheaper alternative. Patients who transitioned to buprenorphine/naloxone as a treatment for pain or opioid use disorder viewed it as a positive change and a "life saver."

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use for CP is complex and multifaceted. The continuum of pain and opioid use disorder can begin with a prescription for acute pain and continue for the treatment of CP. Patients described how continued opioid use was not to "get high" but for pain control to improve their quality of life, continue to work, and be productive. For those who experience physical dependence on opioids, access to treatment is vital to recovery and pain management.

KEY MESSAGE

Without individualized managed care, people confronted with a sudden interruption in prescription opioids may turn to illicit drugs to mitigate symptoms of opioid withdrawal and physical dependence.

Using an individualized pain management plan for African American adults with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

The increased lifespan of individuals having sickle cell disease (SCD) causes an overall increase in hospitalizations and more instances in which pain may not be well controlled.

LOCAL PROBLEM

The mainstay treatment for severe pain is opioids and the underlying cause. Laws affecting opioid prescribing, implicit bias, racial inequity, poor research funding, and lack of knowledge contribute to poor patient outcomes.

METHOD

Data were collected retrospectively using electronic medical record data from before and after the intervention.

INTERVENTION

The individualized pain management plan (IPMP) was initiated in collaboration with the patient, pain nurse practitioner (NP), and hematologist.

RESULT

The mean length of stay for the traditional pain management plan (TPMP) was 7.89 days compared with 5.66 days for the IPMP, with a mean difference of 2.23 days, t = 2.278, p = .024 ( p < .05). There was a decrease in the admission of the individuals with the IPMP, with 25% readmitted within 30 days of discharge, versus 59.0% who were readmitted using the TPMP. Chi-square showed statistical significance (χ 2 = 61.667, p = .000) in using nonpharmacological interventions with the IPMP group.

CONCLUSION

The IPMP with a patient-centered approach did improve patient outcomes for African American adults living with SCD.

Cannabis Policy in the 21st Century: Mandating an Equitable Future and Shedding the Racist Past

The cannabis legalization movement in the United States has experienced unprecedented success in the past decade due to a wave of grassroots reforms in states across the country. The current legalization movement began in 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize the use and sale of cannabis for adults aged ≥ 21 years. Since then, the use of cannabis has been legalized in 21 states, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Washington, DC. Many of these states have explicitly framed the law change as a rejection of the War on Drugs and its harms, felt disproportionately in Black and Brown communities. However, racial inequities in cannabis arrests have increased in states that have legalized cannabis for adult use. Moreover, states working to implement social equity and community reinvestment programs have made little progress toward their goals. This commentary describes how US drug policy, racist in intention, gave way to drug policy that perpetuates racism, even when its ostensible or stated goal is equity. As the United States prepares for national legalization of cannabis, it is critical that we break away from past legislation and mandate equity in cannabis policy. Developing meaningful mandates will require us to acknowledge our history of using drug policy for the racist goals of social control and extortion, study the experience of states that are trying to implement social equity programs, listen to Black leaders and other leaders of color who have developed guidance for equity-focused cannabis policy, and commit to a new paradigm. If we are willing to do these things, we may be able to legalize cannabis in an anti-racist way that will stop causing harm and enable us to effectively implement reparative practices.

"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.

Using Medical Cannabis for Chronic Pain: A Social-Ecological Framework

Early studies suggest medical cannabis (MC) has the potential to benefit people who suffer from chronic pain by offering a less addictive alternative to opioids; however, most investigators agree more research is indicated. Today, in 2023, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug and is an illegal substance in the United States under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Despite this designation, as of February 2022, 37 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia allowed using cannabis products to treat certain painful medical conditions. The contradictory status of federal and state legislation regarding cannabis use has resulted in delays and restrictions on relevant research. As a result, an inadequate foundation of knowledge exists needed to inform policy, program, and practice decisions concerning MC to treat pain. Implementing and controlling access to MC is influenced by overlapping individual, interpersonal, community, and organizational influences that all fall under the umbrella of federal and state policies. Increasingly, the legalization and expanded access to MC necessitates the integration of evidence, policy, and social-ecological reality. To adequately delineate these complex factors to anticipate and plan future interventions at multiple levels, we propose a social-ecological framework (SEF) for using MC to treat pain. This SEF assumes the transactional relationship between the individual and the environment and that no single factor can predict behavior or health outcomes. Our framework illustrates five dynamic levels of analysis that interact between dimensions. Key elements and intersections are discussed at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy levels.

"You didn't have a choice, but to be on your train. The train was moving": West Virginia pharmacists' perspectives on opioid dispensing during the evolution of the opioid crisis

BACKGROUND

West Virginia (WV) has been at the forefront of the opioid crisis in the United States, with the highest rate of opioid overdose mortality involving prescription opioids in the country. To curb the crisis, the state government implemented a restrictive opioid prescribing law in March 2018, Senate Bill 273 (SB273), to decrease opioid prescribing. However, sweeping changes in opioid policy can have downstream effects on stakeholders such as pharmacists. This study is part of a sequential mixed methods investigation of the impact of SB273 in WV in which we interviewed various stakeholders-including pharmacists-about the impact of the law.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to explore how pharmacy practice during the opioid crisis impacted the need for restrictive legislation and how SB273 impacted subsequent pharmacy practice in WV.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 pharmacists who were practicing in counties that had been designated as high-prescribing counties based upon county-level prescribing/dispensing data from state records. Analysis of the interviews was informed by the methodological orientation of content analysis to identify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Participants described confronting questionable opioid prescriptions, treatment costs, and insurance coverage driving opioids as a first-line choice for pain management, as well as the influence of corporate policies and the immense responsibility of being the "last line of defense" in the opioid crisis. A central impediment to the care of patients was the inability of the pharmacists to effectively communicate their concerns to prescribers, making improved prescriber-dispenser communication an essential next step in minimizing opioid care gaps.

CONCLUSION

This is one of few qualitative studies that have explored pharmacists' experiences, perceptions, and role in the opioid crisis leading up to and during the enactment of a restrictive opioid prescribing law. In light of the difficulties they faced, a restrictive opioid prescribing law was viewed positively by pharmacists.