Dataset Information

The association between pain clinic laws and prescription opioid exposures: New evidence from multi-state comparisons.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

States in the US are controlling opioid prescribing to combat the opioid epidemic. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were widely adopted, whereas less attention was given to pain clinic laws. This study examined the associations of mandatory use of PDMPs and pain clinic laws with prescription opioid exposures.

Methods

State-level quarterly prescription opioid exposures reported to the National Poison Data System during 2010-2017 were analyzed. The primary outcome was age-adjusted rates of prescription opioid exposures per 1,000,000 population. The primary policy variables included the implementation of mandatory use of PDMPs alone, the implementation of pain clinic laws alone, and the implementation of both mandatory use of PDMPs and pain clinic laws. Linear regressions were used to examine the associations, controlling for other opioid policies, marijuana policies, socioeconomic factors, state fixed effects, time fixed effects, and state-specific time trends.

Results

Requiring mandatory use of PDMPs alone was not associated with significant changes in prescription opioid exposures. The implementation of pain clinic laws with or without concurrent mandatory use of PDMPs was associated with 5 fewer prescription opioid exposures per 1,000,000 population or a 9 % reduction compared to the pre-policy period (p?ConclusionsThis multi-state study provided new evidence that the implementation of pain clinic laws was associated with a significant reduction in prescription opioid exposures. Pain clinic laws may deserve further evaluation and consideration.

SUBMITTER: Liang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6980704 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The association between pain clinic laws and prescription opioid exposures: New evidence from multi-state comparisons.

Liang Di D Shi Yuyan Y

Drug and alcohol dependence 20191121

<h4>Objectives</h4>States in the US are controlling opioid prescribing to combat the opioid epidemic. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were widely adopted, whereas less attention was given to pain clinic laws. This study examined the associations of mandatory use of PDMPs and pain clinic laws with prescription opioid exposures.<h4>Methods</h4>State-level quarterly prescription opioid exposures reported to the National Poison Data System during 2010-2017 were analyzed. The primary ou ...[more]

PMID: 31786399

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBetween 1997 and 2017, the United States saw increases in nonmedical prescription opioid use and its consequences, as well as changes in marijuana policies. Ecological-level research hypothesized that medical marijuana legalization may reduce prescription opioid use by allowing medical marijuana as an alternative.ObjectivesTo investigate the association of state-level medical marijuana law enactment with individual-level nonmedical prescription opioid use and prescription opioid use disorder among prescription opioid users and to determine whether these outcomes varied by age and racial/ethnic groups.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used restricted data on 627 000 individuals aged 12 years and older from the 2004 to 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a population-based survey representative of the civilian population of the United States. Analyses were completed from March 2018 to May 2018.ExposuresTime-varying indicator of state-level medical marijuana law enactment (0 = never law enactment, 1 = before law enactment, and 2 = after law enactment).Main outcomes and measuresPast-year nonmedical prescription opioid use and prescription opioid use disorder among prescription opioid users. Odds ratios of nonmedical prescription opioid use and prescription opioid use disorder comparing the period before and after law enactment were presented overall, by age and racial/ethnic group, and adjusted for individual- and state-level confounders.ResultsThe study sample included 627 000 participants (51.51% female; 9.88% aged 12-17 years, 13.30% aged 18-25 years, 14.30% aged 26-34 years, 25.02% aged 35-49 years, and 37.50% aged ≥50 years; the racial/ethnic distribution was 66.97% non-Hispanic white, 11.83% non-Hispanic black, 14.47% Hispanic, and 6.73% other). Screening and interview response rates were 82% to 91% and 71% to 77%, respectively. Overall, there were small changes in nonmedical prescription opioid use prevalence after medical marijuana law enactment (4.32% to 4.86%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). Prescription opioid use disorder prevalence among prescription opioid users decreased slightly after law enactment, but the change was not statistically significant (15.41% to 14.76%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11). Outcomes were similar when stratified by age and race/ethnicity.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found little evidence of an association between medical marijuana law enactment and nonmedical prescription opioid use or prescription opioid use disorder among prescription opioid users. Further research should disentangle the potential mechanisms through which medical marijuana laws may reduce opioid-related harm.

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.ObjectiveTo 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.DesignThirteen 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.SettingUnited States, 2008 to 2019.Patients7 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.MeasurementsProportion 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.ResultsLaws 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.LimitationsResults 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.ConclusionThis study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Drug Abuse.

Project description:In response to widespread opioid misuse, ten U.S. states have implemented regulations for facilities that primarily manage and treat chronic pain, called "pain clinics." Whether a clinic falls into a state's pain clinic definition determines the extent to which it is subject to oversight. It is unclear whether state pain clinic definitions model those found in the medical literature, and potential differences lead to discrepancies between scientific and professionally guided advice found in the medical literature and actual pain clinic practice. Identifying discrepancies could assist states to design laws that are more compatible with best practices suggested in the medical literature.We conducted an integrative systematic review to create a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions using academic medical literature. We then identified existing U.S. state pain clinic statutes and regulations and compared the developed taxonomy using a content analysis approach to understand the extent to which medical literature definitions are reflected in state policy.In the medical literature, we identified eight categories of pain clinic definitions: 1) patient case mix; 2) single-modality treatment; 3) multidisciplinary treatment; 4) interdisciplinary treatment; 5) provider supervision; 6) provider composition; 7) marketing; and 8) outcome. We identified ten states with pain clinic laws. State laws primarily include the following definitional categories: patient case mix; single-modality treatment, and marketing. Some definitional categories commonly found in the medical literature, such as multidisciplinary treatment and interdisciplinary treatment, rarely appear in state law definitions.This is the first study to our knowledge to develop a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions and to identify differences between pain clinic definitions in U.S. state law and medical literature. Future work should explore the impact of different legal pain clinic definitions on provider decision-making and state-level health outcomes.

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:BackgroundEmergency departments increasingly use nonopioid analgesics to manage acute pain and minimize opioid-related harms. Urgent care centers are expanding to lower costs and provide efficient access to healthcare. General internists increasingly work in these acute care settings. Much is known about opioid prescribing in the primary care, inpatient, and emergency department setting. Little is known about opioid prescribing in the urgent care setting and associated outcomes.ObjectivesTo assess the association between in-clinic opioid administration and opioid receipt at clinic discharge and on progression to chronic opioid use among urgent care patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsPatients, 20 years or older and not on opioid medications, who presented for care to an urgent care clinic within a safety-net healthcare system from June 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019.Main measuresWe examined the association between the in-clinic administration of oral or intravenous opioids and opioid receipt at clinic discharge. We also examined the association between in-clinic opioid administration and progression to chronic opioid use after six months.Key resultsThe study sample included 34,978 patients, of which 13.8% (n = 4842) received in-clinic opioids and 86.2% (n = 30,136) did not receive in-clinic opioids. After adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, and pain diagnosis, patients who received in-clinic opioids were more likely to receive opioids at discharge compared to patients who did not receive in-clinic opioids (aOR = 12.30, 95% CI 11.44-13.23). Among a selected cohort of patients, in-clinic opioid administration was associated with progression to chronic opioid use (aOR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.66-2.71).ConclusionsIn-clinic opioid administration was strongly associated with opioid receipt at discharge and progression to chronic opioid use. Increased use of nonopioid analgesics in urgent care could likely reduce this association and limit opioids available for diversion, overdose, and death.

Dataset Information

The association between pain clinic laws and prescription opioid exposures: New evidence from multi-state comparisons.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Publications

The association between pain clinic laws and prescription opioid exposures: New evidence from multi-state comparisons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets