Dataset Information

Association Between US State Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Prescribing in the Medicare Part D Population.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Opioid-related mortality increased by 15.6% from 2014 to 2015 and increased almost 320% between 2000 and 2015. Recent research finds that the use of all pain medications (opioid and nonopioid collectively) decreases in Medicare Part D and Medicaid populations when states approve medical cannabis laws (MCLs). The association between MCLs and opioid prescriptions is not well understood.

Objective

To examine the association between prescribing patterns for opioids in Medicare Part D and the implementation of state MCLs.

Design, setting, and participants

Longitudinal analysis of the daily doses of opioids filled in Medicare Part D for all opioids as a group and for categories of opioids by state and state-level MCLs from 2010 through 2015. Separate models were estimated first for whether the state had implemented any MCL and second for whether a state had implemented either a dispensary-based or a home cultivation only-based MCL.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome measure was the total number of daily opioid doses prescribed (in millions) in each US state for all opioids. The secondary analysis examined the association between MCLs separately by opioid class.

Results

From 2010 to 2015 there were 23.08 million daily doses of any opioid dispensed per year in the average state under Medicare Part D. Multiple regression analysis results found that patients filled fewer daily doses of any opioid in states with an MCL. The associations between MCLs and any opioid prescribing were statistically significant when we took the type of MCL into account: states with active dispensaries saw 3.742 million fewer daily doses filled (95% CI, -6.289 to -1.194); states with home cultivation only MCLs saw 1.792 million fewer filled daily doses (95% CI, -3.532 to -0.052). Results varied by type of opioid, with statistically significant estimated negative associations observed for hydrocodone and morphine. Hydrocodone use decreased by 2.320 million daily doses (or 17.4%) filled with dispensary-based MCLs (95% CI, -3.782 to -0.859; P = .002) and decreased by 1.256 million daily doses (or 9.4%) filled with home-cultivation-only-based MCLs (95% CI, -2.319 to -0.193; P = .02). Morphine use decreased by 0.361 million daily doses (or 20.7%) filled with dispensary-based MCLs (95% CI, -0.718 to -0.005; P = .047).

Conclusions and relevance

Medical cannabis laws are associated with significant reductions in opioid prescribing in the Medicare Part D population. This finding was particularly strong in states that permit dispensaries, and for reductions in hydrocodone and morphine prescriptions.

SUBMITTER: Bradford AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6145794 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery.Data sourcesOptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims data covering all 50 states from July 2012 through June 2019.Study designWe 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 methodsWe included the first surgery in the study period for opioid-naïve individuals undergoing one of eight common surgical procedures.Principal findingsState 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.ConclusionsPrescribing cap laws appear to have minimal effects on postsurgical opioid prescribing.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-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.ObjectiveTo examine the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents.Design setting and participantsThis 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.ExposureImplementation 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 measuresOutcomes 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:ImportanceOver the last decade, cannabis has become more accessible through the proliferation of dispensaries in states that have legalized its use. Most patients using cannabis for medical purposes report getting advice from dispensaries, yet there has been little exploration of frontline dispensary staff practices.ObjectiveTo describe the practices of frontline dispensary workers who interact with customers purchasing cannabis for medical purposes and assess whether dispensary practices are associated with medicalization of state cannabis laws (degree to which they resemble regulation of prescription or over-the-counter drugs) and statewide adult use.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from February 13, 2020, to October 2, 2020, using an online survey tool. Potential respondents were eligible if they reported working in a dispensary that sells tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products and interacting with customers about cannabis purchases.Main outcomes and measuresParticipant responses to questions about formulating customer recommendations and talking to customers about risks.ResultsThe 434 survey responses from 351 unique dispensaries were most often completed by individuals who identified as budtenders (40%), managers (32%), and pharmacists (13%). Most respondents reported basing customer recommendations on the customer's medical condition (74%), the experiences of other customers (70%), the customer's prior experience with cannabis (67%), and the respondent's personal experience (63%); fewer respondents relied on clinician input (40%), cost (45%), or inventory (12%). Most respondents routinely advised customers about safe storage and common adverse effects, but few counseled customers about cannabis use disorder, withdrawal, motor vehicle collision risk, or psychotic reactions. A higher state medicalization score was significantly associated with using employer training (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.67) and physician or clinician input (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43) as a basis for recommendation. Medicalization score was not associated with counseling about cannabis risks.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study provides insight into how frontline dispensary staff base cannabis recommendations and counsel about risks. The findings may have utility for clinicians to counsel patients who purchase cannabis, customers who want to be prepared for a dispensary visit, and policy makers whose decisions affect cannabis laws.

Project description:Importance:The ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States has been fueled by prescription opioids. Increases in opioid-related deaths and complications mandate clinicians in all fields to scrutinize their prescribing patterns. Objective:To characterize the current status and potential complications of opioid prescribing practices among dermatologists for Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional study used Medicare Part D prescriber data to evaluate opioid prescriptions by dermatologists from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The number of prescribers, opioid claims, beneficiaries, and days supplied as well as the type of opioid and geographic location of prescribers were extracted and analyzed. The top 1% of dermatologists prescribing opioids were identified and compared with a random sample of the same size among the remaining dermatologists based on sex, geographic location, type of practice, and time in practice. A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the outcome of opioid prescribing practices on the exposed population. Main Outcome and Measures:Practice characteristics, epidemiologic factors, and consequences of opioids prescribed by dermatologists. Results:Of the 12 537 dermatologists in the study, 5305 (42.3%) prescribed no opioid claims, 5408 (43.1%) prescribed 1 to 10 opioid claims, and 1824 (14.5%) prescribed more than 10 opioid claims. Among dermatologists prescribing at least 10 opioid claims, a mean of 1.0 opioid claims was given to each beneficiary, with a supply lasting a mean of 4.4 days. A total of 108 dermatologists (93.9%) in the top 1% of opioid prescribers (n = 115) work in a surgical practice. Estimates suggest that opioids prescribed by dermatologists could annually lead to 3877 to 7602 beneficiaries continuing to use opioids at 1 year and 1825 to 4209 continuing to use opioids at 3 years. A total of 9882 to 22 806 beneficiaries could experience gastrointestinal tract or central nervous system adverse effects and 588 to 999 could experience fractures. Conclusions and Relevance:Opioid prescribing among dermatologists is limited and concentrated in the surgical setting, but it may be associated with a substantial number of adverse events that serve as a reminder to emphasize nonopioid pain medications in the postoperative setting.

Project description:Importance:Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published opioid prescribing guidelines in March 2016, 31 states have implemented legislation to restrict the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. However, the association of these policies with the amount of opioid prescribed following surgery remains unknown. Objective:To examine the association of opioid prescribing duration limits with postoperative opioid prescribing in Massachusetts and Connecticut, the first 2 states to implement limits after March 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants:This interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study examined immediate level and slope changes in monthly outcomes after prescribing limit implementation in Massachusetts and Connecticut. These states implemented 7-day limits on initial opioid prescriptions on March 14, 2016, and July 1, 2016, respectively. Using the 2014 to 2017 IBM MarketScan Research Database, 16?281 opioid-naive adults in these states who filled a prescription within 3 days of surgery between July 1, 2014, and November 30, 2017, were identified. Data were analyzed from December 2018 to June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the prescription size in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) for the initial postoperative opioid prescription (one 5/325 mg hydrocodone-acetaminophen pill?=?5 OMEs). Secondary outcomes included days supplied in the initial prescription and the proportion of initial prescriptions exceeding a 7-day supply. Results:In total, 16?281 opioid-naive patients (9708 [59.6%] female; median [interquartile range] age range, 45-54 [35-44 to 55-64] years) undergoing surgical procedures were included. In Massachusetts, there were 5340 and 5435 patients in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. In Connecticut, there were 2869 and 2637 patients in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. Limit implementation in Massachusetts was associated with an immediate mean level decrease in prescription size (-38 OMEs [95% CI, -44 to -32 OMEs]) and with a mean decrease in slope (-1.5 OMEs/mo [95% CI, -2.1 to -0.9 OMEs/mo]). Implementation was also associated with an immediate mean level decrease in days supplied (-0.4 days [95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2 days]) and the proportion of prescriptions exceeding a 7-day supply (-5.9 percentage points [95% CI, -7.9 to -3.9 percentage points]). In contrast, limit implementation in Connecticut was not associated with level or slope changes in any outcome. Conclusions and Relevance:Opioid prescribing duration limits had a variable association with postoperative opioid prescribing in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The mean opioid prescription size filled, days supplied, and prescribing exceeding a 7-day supply decreased after limit implementation in Massachusetts only. Given the potential differences in policy dissemination and uptake, efforts to reduce opioid prescribing should also include surgeon education and evidence-based prescribing recommendations.