Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), defined as state-level databases used in the USA that collect prescribing information when controlled substances are dispensed, have varied substantially between states and over time. Little is known about the combinations of PDMP features that, collectively, may produce the greatest impact on prescribing and overdose. We aimed to (1) identify the types of PDMP models that have developed from 1999 to 2016, (2) estimate whether states have transitioned across PDMP models over time, and (3) examine whether states have adopted different types of PDMP models in response to the burden of opioid overdose. METHODS:A latent transition analysis of PDMP models based on an adaptation of nine PDMP characteristics classified by prescription opioid policy experts as potentially important determinants of prescribing practices and prescription opioid overdose events. RESULTS:We divided the time period into three intervals (1999-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016), and found three distinct PDMP classes in each interval. The classes in the first and second interval can be characterized as "No/Weak", "Proactive", and "Reactive" types of PDMPs, and in the third interval as "Weak", "Cooperative", and "Proactive". The meaning of these classes changed over time: until 2009, states in the "No/Weak" class had no active PDMP, whereas states in the "Proactive" class were more likely to proactively provide unsolicited information to PDMP users, provide open access to law enforcement, and require more frequent data reporting than states in the "Reactive" class. In 2010-2016, the "Weak" class resembled the "Reactive" class in previous intervals. States in the "Cooperative" class in 2010-2016 were less likely than states in the "Proactive" class proactively to provide unsolicited reports, or to provide open access to law enforcement; however, they were more likely than those in the "Proactive" class to share PDMP data with other states, and to report more federal drug schedules. CONCLUSIONS:Since 1999, US states have tended to transition to more robust classes of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). Opioid overdose deaths in prior years predicted the state's PDMP class but did not predict transitions between PDMP classes over time.

BACKGROUND:Opioid overdose is a continuing public health crisis. In response to an increasing recognition of the negative outcomes sometimes associated with the use of opioid analgesics, states have taken a number of steps attempting to reduce inappropriate prescribing of these medications. These include the imposition of strict legal limitations on the amount or duration that opioid analgesics may be prescribed or dispensed to patients with acute pain. METHODS:We conducted a systematic, multi-source legal review of state laws that impose mandatory limits on the ability of medical professionals to prescribe or dispense opioids for the treatment of acute pain. We also systematically searched for and examined publicly available documents on state legislative and regulatory bodies' websites. All relevant laws were downloaded and systematically coded. RESULTS:By the end of 2017, twenty-six states had passed laws that impose mandatory limits on the prescribing or dispensing of opioids for acute pain. The oldest of these laws became effective as early as 1989, but most are much newer: approximately 65% (17/26) were passed in 2017. There is wide variation in the characteristics of these laws. CONCLUSION:Just over half of all states have enacted laws that restrict the prescribing or dispensing of opioids for acute pain. To date, there is no data on whether and to what extent these laws mediate opioid-related morbidity and mortality, as well as whether they are associated with negative unintended outcomes. Research into these questions is urgently needed.

BACKGROUND:Opioid-related injuries and deaths continue to present challenges for public health practitioners. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are a prevalent policy option intended to address problematic opioid pain reliever (OPR) prescribing, but previous research has not thoroughly characterized their unintended consequences. OBJECTIVES:To examine state actors' perceptions of the unintended consequences of PDMPs. METHODS:We conducted 37 interviews with PDMP staff, law enforcement officials, and administrative agency employees in Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Ohio from May 2015 to June 2016. RESULTS:We identified six themes from the interviews. Perceived negative unintended consequences included: access barriers for those with medical needs, heroin use as OPR substitute and related deaths, and need for adequate PDMP security infrastructure and management. Perceived positive unintended consequences were: community formation and problem awareness, proactive population-level OPR monitoring, and increased knowledge about population-level drug diversion. Conclusions/Importance: State actors perceive a range of both negative and positive unintended consequences of PDMPs. Our findings suggest that there may be unintended risks of PDMPs that states should address, but also opportunities to maximize certain benefits.

INTRODUCTION:Since the 1990's, governmental and non-governmental organizations have adopted several measures to increase access to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone. These include the implementation of laws that increase layperson naloxone access and overdose-specific Good Samaritan laws that protect those reporting overdoses from criminal sanction. The association of these legal changes with overdose mortality and non-medical opioid use is unknown. We assess the relationship of (1) naloxone access laws and (2) overdose Good Samaritan laws with opioid-overdose mortality and non-medical opioid use in the United States. METHODS:We used 2000-2014 National Vital Statistics System data, 2002-2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, and primary datasets of the location and timing of naloxone access laws and overdose Good Samaritan laws. RESULTS:By 2014, 30 states had a naloxone access and/or Good Samaritan law. States with naloxone access laws or Good Samaritan laws had a 14% (p = 0.033) and 15% (p = 0.050) lower incidence of opioid-overdose mortality, respectively. Both law types exhibit differential association with opioid-overdose mortality by race and age. No significant relationships were observed between any of the examined laws and non-medical opioid use. CONCLUSIONS:Laws designed to increase layperson engagement in opioid-overdose reversal were associated with reduced opioid-overdose mortality. We found no evidence that these measures were associated with increased non-medical opioid use.

BACKGROUND:Naloxone is a prescription medication that can quickly and effectively reverse opioid overdose. Medicaid is a major payer of substance use disorder services, and Medicaid beneficiaries experience especially high rates of opioid overdose. As opioid overdose rates have risen sharply, every state has modified its laws to make naloxone easier to access. The aim of this paper is to determine whether implementation of different provisions of naloxone access laws led to increased naloxone dispensing financed by Medicaid. METHODS:We reviewed naloxone legislation passed by every state between 2007 and 2016. We used the Medicaid State Drug Utilization dataset to examine the effect of different types of state naloxone access law provisions, separately and as a whole, on the number of outpatient naloxone prescriptions reimbursed by Medicaid from 2007 to 2016. We included state-level covariates in our models that may be correlated with naloxone utilization in Medicaid and passage of naloxone access laws. RESULTS:We found that the presence of any naloxone law was significantly associated with increases in outpatient naloxone reimbursed through Medicaid. Laws containing standing order provisions were most consistently associated with increases in naloxone dispensing across models. Standing order provisions led on average to an increase of approximately 33 naloxone prescriptions per state-quarter, which is equivalent to 74% of the average number of naloxone prescriptions per state-quarter. CONCLUSIONS:Naloxone access laws, particularly those with standing order provisions, appear to be an effective policy approach to increasing naloxone access among Medicaid beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND:In response to the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic, many states have enacted laws increasing naloxone access by lay people, such as friends and family members of people who use drugs (PWUD), as well as PWUD themselves. METHOD:We utilized Symphony Health Solutions' PHAST Prescription data from 2007 to 2016 to investigate whether naloxone access laws were associated with an increase in naloxone dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. RESULT:Using a negative binomial regression, we found that naloxone access laws were associated with an average increase of 78 prescriptions dispensed per state per quarter. This represents an average 79% increase in naloxone dispensed from U.S. retail pharmacies, compared with states where there were no such laws. CONCLUSION:Our study suggests that naloxone access laws can increase the availability and accessibility of naloxone.