Dataset Information

Changes in Opioid Prescribing Patterns Among Generalists and Oncologists for Medicare Part D Beneficiaries From 2013 to 2017.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In response to the opioid epidemic, policies aiming to reduce opioid prescribing, misuse, and abuse may have the unintended consequence of restricting access to necessary opioid therapy for cancer-related pain. It is unknown how opioid prescribing patterns have changed among generalists and oncologists during this era.

Objective

To examine trends in opioid prescription rates for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2013 to 2017 among oncologists and generalists.

Design, setting, and participants

This repeated cross-sectional study of generalist physicians (internal medicine, family medicine, geriatric medicine, general practice) and oncology specialists (medical oncology, hematology-oncology, and radiation oncology) analyzed the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D prescriber files from 2013 to 2017.

Exposures

Generalist vs oncology specialty.

Main outcomes and measures

Outcomes included physician-level rates of both opioid and long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Poisson regression was used to estimate annual predicted outcome rates and incidence rate ratios, adjusting for prescriber characteristics and state fixed effects.

Results

We analyzed the prescribing patterns of 251 820 generalists and 14 210 oncologists. From 2013 to 2017, the annual adjusted predicted mean rate of opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries decreased from 68.2 to 49.7 among generalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.73) and from 77.8 to 58.8 among oncologists (aIRR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.77). The rate of long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries also decreased from 8.0 to 5.4 for generalists (aIRR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68) and from 18.6 to 13.3 for oncologists (aIRR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74).

Conclusions and relevance

We found large declines in opioid prescription rates for Medicare beneficiaries by generalists and oncologists from 2013 to 2017. Opioid policy and advocacy appear to have been effective in reducing the extent of opioid prescribing in the Medicare population. Similar declines between generalists and oncologists raise concern that access to cancer pain management may have been inadvertently restricted. How much of the decrease in prescribing by oncologists is appropriate vs inappropriate deserves further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7260690 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Although there are many pharmacologic alternatives to opioids, it is unclear whether the structure of Medicare Part D formularies discourages use of the alternatives. Objectives:To quantify the coverage of opioid alternatives and prevalence of prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and tier placement for these drugs, and test whether these formulary exclusions and restrictions are associated with increased opioid prescribing to older adults at the county level. Design, Setting, and Participants:County fixed-effect models were estimated using a panel of counties across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia over calendar years 2015 and 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1 to September 23, 2019. The sample included 2721 counties in 2015 and 2671 counties in 2016 with sufficient data on Medicare Part D formulary design and opioid prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures:County-level opioid prescribing rate (number of opioid claims divided by the number of overall claims) and counts of excluded opioid alternatives and opioid alternatives with prior authorization, step therapy, quantity limits, and high-tier placements. Results:A total of 30 nonopioid analgesics were examined across 28 997 Medicare plans in 2015 and 30 390 plans in 2016. Medicare plans did not cover a mean of 7% of these drugs (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-23%). Among covered nonopioids, prior authorization and step therapy were uncommon, with fewer than 5% affected by prior authorization and 0% by step therapy. However, 13% of covered nonopioids had quantity limits (interquartile range, 10%; lower to upper limit, 0%-31%) and 22% were in high-cost tiers (interquartile range, 38%; lower to upper limit, 0%-50%). Increases in the number of nonopioids excluded on Medicare plans in a county were associated with increased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 2.2%-3.7%; P = .004). Conversely, increases in the number of opioids not covered on Medicare plans in a county was found to be associated with decreased opioid prescribing (effect size relative to mean, 0.8%-1.5%; P = .02). None of the utilization management strategies (prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits) examined or high-cost tier placements of nonopioids were associated with increased opioid prescribing. Conclusions and Relevance:Lack of Medicare coverage for pharmacologic alternatives to opioids may be associated with increased opioid prescribing.

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.