Dataset Information

Implementation and enforcement of state opioid prescribing laws.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In response to the role overprescribing has played in the U.S. opioid crisis, in the past decade states have enacted four main types of laws to curb opioid prescribing: mandatory prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) enrollment laws requiring clinicians to register with a PDMP; mandatory PDMP query laws requiring clinicians to check a PDMP prior to prescribing opioids; pill mill laws regulating pain management clinics; and opioid prescribing cap laws limiting the dose/duration of opioid prescriptions. While 47 states now have one or more of these laws in place, little is known about implementation and enforcement strategies, facilitators, and barriers.

Methods

From November 2017 to February 2019, we interviewed 114 professionals involved in state opioid prescribing law implementation and enforcement in 20 states and identified common themes.

Results

Implementation efforts focused on awareness campaigns and targeted training of key front-line implementers. Enforcement strategies included active, complaint-based, and automated strategies. Collaboration across agencies and stakeholders, particularly health agencies and law enforcement, was identified as an important facilitator of implementation and enforcement. Two key interrelated barriers were identified: the complexity of state opioid prescribing laws in terms of which providers, patients, and prescriptions they applied to, and IT infrastructure.

Conclusion

Despite differing approaches, our findings suggest similar barriers to implementation and enforcement across state opioid prescribing laws. Strategies are needed to ease implementation and enforcement of laws that apply only to specific sub-sets of providers, patients, or prescriptions and address issues of access and data utilization of the PDMP.

SUBMITTER: Stone EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7371528 | 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: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:ImportanceOpioid-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.ObjectiveTo examine the association between prescribing patterns for opioids in Medicare Part D and the implementation of state MCLs.Design, setting, and participantsLongitudinal 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsFrom 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 relevanceMedical 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.

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.

Project description:ImportanceInsurers are increasingly limiting the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. Among patients undergoing surgery, it is unclear whether implementation of these limits is associated with changes in opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes, such as pain.ObjectiveTo assess changes in surgical opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes after implementation of an opioid prescribing limit by a large commercial insurer in Michigan.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional study with an interrupted time series analysis. Data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023. The primary data source was the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, a statewide registry containing data on opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes from adults undergoing common general surgical procedures. This registry is linked to Michigan's prescription drug monitoring program database, allowing observation of opioid dispensing. The study included 6045 adults who were covered by the commercial insurer and underwent surgery from January 1, 2017, to October 31, 2019.ExposurePolicy limiting opioid prescriptions to a 5-day supply in February 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAmong all patients, segmented regression models were used to assess for level or slope changes during February 2018 in 3 patient-reported outcomes: pain in the week after surgery (assessed on a scale of 1-4: 1 = none, 2 = minimal, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe), satisfaction with surgical experience (scale of 0-10, with 10 being the highest satisfaction), and amount of regret regarding undergoing surgery (scale of 1-5, with 1 being the highest level of regret). Among patients with a discharge opioid prescription and a dispensed opioid prescription (prescription filled within 3 days of discharge), additional outcomes included total morphine milligram equivalents in these prescriptions, a standardized measure of opioid volume.ResultsAmong the 6045 patients included in the study, mean (SD) age was 48.7 (12.6) years and 3595 (59.5%) were female. Limit implementation was not associated with changes in patient-reported satisfaction or regret and was associated with only a slight level decrease in patient-reported pain score (-0.15 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.03]). Among 4396 patients (72.7%) with a discharge and dispensed opioid prescription, limit implementation was associated with a -22.3 (95% CI, -32.8 to -11.9) and -26.1 (95% CI, -40.9 to -11.3) level decrease in monthly mean total morphine milligram equivalents of discharge and dispensed opioid prescriptions, respectively. These decreases corresponded approximately to 3 to 3.5 pills containing 5 mg of oxycodone.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional analysis of data from adults undergoing general surgical procedures found that implementation of an insurer's limit was associated with modest reductions in opioid prescribing but not with worsened patient-reported outcomes. Whether these findings generalize to other procedures warrants further study.