Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Opioid-related overdose deaths are a major public health challenge. Forty-nine states have implemented Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) that collect information about individuals' prescription medications. Little is known about state governments' implementation of PDMPs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with PDMP staff, law enforcement officials, and administrative agency employees to learn about their attitudes and experiences with PDMPs. METHODS:From May 2015 to June 2016, we conducted 37 semi-structured interviews with state actors in four states. Questions focused on interviewees' perceptions about PDMP goals, home agency characteristics, and future PDMP initiatives. States were selected purposively. Interviewees were identified through purposive and snowball sampling. RESULTS:Interviewees identified key PDMP goals as: improve patient treatment decisions; influence prescribing practices; assist in the identification of "doctor shoppers"; and serve as a tool for law enforcement. Interviewees identified the following characteristics as key for a PDMP's home agency: regulatory and enforcement authority; intra- and inter-agency collaboration; and commitment to data quality and protection. Interviewees identified three promising areas for future PDMP efforts: data sharing and analysis; integration of PDMP data with electronic medical records; and training for current and potential PDMP users. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings reveal areas that states may want to prioritize, including improving prescribers' knowledge and use of the PDMP as well as fostering inter-agency collaborations that include PDMP staff. By capitalizing on these opportunities, state governments may improve the effectiveness of their PDMPs, potentially making them more useful tools to curb the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use disorders.

More than a decade in the making, America's opioid crisis has morphed from being driven by prescription drugs to one fuelled by heroin and, increasingly, fentanyl. Drawing on historical lessons of the era of National Alcohol Prohibition highlights the unintended, but predictable impact of supply-side interventions on the dynamics of illicit drug markets. Under the Iron Law of Prohibition, efforts to interrupt and suppress the illicit drug supply produce economic and logistical pressures favouring ever-more compact substitutes. This iatrogenic progression towards increasingly potent illicit drugs can be curtailed only through evidence-based harm reduction and demand reduction policies that acknowledge the structural determinants of health.

BACKGROUND:A relatively large number of "pill mills," in which physicians prescribed and sometimes dispensed controlled substances without medical justification, operated in Florida beginning in the mid-2000s. Investigations into these operations have resulted in the arrest and conviction of dozens of physicians for activities related to illegal trafficking in controlled substances. METHODS:Using information from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, the Florida Department of Health, and court records, we constructed a database of Florida-licensed medical doctors who had been indicted or convicted of crimes related to illegal prescribing of controlled substances in Florida during 2010-2015. We then determined whether and when physicians in this data set were temporarily or permanently barred from practicing medicine in the state. RESULTS:We identified 43 physicians who faced criminal action for prescribing-related crimes during the study period. Twenty-eight of these physicians had been convicted or pled guilty as of September 30, 2016, of which 25 (89%) had been permanently barred from practicing medicine in the state. Only 1 of the 25 physicians permanently lost their license before they had been convicted or pled guilty. On average, physicians did not lose their license to practice for more than 9 months (291 days) after being convicted and 587 days after being indicted of a crime directly related to illegal prescribing of controlled substances. Seventeen physicians (68%) maintained their licenses for at least 1 year after being indicted. CONCLUSIONS:This review suggests that the adoption of a more proactive and streamlined process may reduce the time from when physicians are indicted or convicted of illegally prescribing or dispensing controlled substances to board investigation and potential sanction, potentially reducing opioid-related adverse events in the state.

BACKGROUND:Overdose from opioids is a serious public health and clinical concern. Veterans are at increased risk for opioid overdose compared with the civilian population, suggesting the need for enhanced efforts to address overdose prevention in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care settings, such as primary care clinics. METHODS:Prescribing providers (N = 45) completed surveys on baseline knowledge and concerns about the VA Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) initiative prior to attending an OEND educational training. RESULTS:Survey items were grouped into 4 OEND-related categories, reflecting (1) lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort; (2) concerns about iatrogenic effects; (3) concerns about impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing; and (4) concerns about risks of naloxone prescribing. Although certain OEND-related categories were associated with each other, concerns related to iatrogenic effects of OEND (e.g., patients will use more opioids and/or be less likely to see treatment) and lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort with OEND were endorsed more than concerns related to giving impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing. The majority of providers endorsed the belief that those prescribing opioids to patients should be responsible for providing overdose education to those patients. System-wide naloxone prescription rates and sources increased over 320% following initiation of OEND expansion efforts, although these increases cannot be viewed as a direct result of the in-service trainings. CONCLUSIONS:Findings demonstrate that some providers believe they lack knowledge of opioid overdose prevention techniques and hold concerns about OEND implementation. More training of medical providers outside substance use treatment settings is needed, with particular attention to concerns about harmful consequences resulting from the receipt of naloxone.

Despite shifts in rhetoric and some positive movement, Americans with the disease of addiction are still often stigmatized, criminalized, and denied access to evidencebased care. Dramatically reducing the number of lives unnecessarily lost to overdose requires an evidence-based, equity-focused, well-funded, and coordinated response. We present in this brief article evidence-based and promising practices for improving and refocusing the response to this simmering public health crisis. Topics covered include improving clinical decision-making, improving access to non-judgmental evidence-based treatment, investing in comprehensive public health approaches to problematic drug use, and changing the way law enforcement actors interact with people who use drugs.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The opioid overdose epidemic continues to claim the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. Increased access to the opioid antagonist naloxone can reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. In this commentary, we describe several recent legal innovations designed to encourage pharmacists to ensure that naloxone is available when and where it is needed, and dispel some common misconceptions regarding potential legal risks associated with pharmacy naloxone dispensing. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Data are drawn from state laws and regulations, as catalogued by the Westlaw database. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:States have rapidly modified law and policy to increase layperson access to naloxone. As of August 2016, 44 states permit naloxone to be prescribed for administration to a person with whom the prescriber does not have a prescriber-patient relationship. Forty-two states permit naloxone to be dispensed via a non-patient-specific mechanism such as a standing or protocol order, and 5 states permit some pharmacists to prescribe naloxone on their own authority. The liability risk associated with naloxone dispensing is no higher than any other medication, and may be lower than some. However, to encourage the prescription and dispensing of naloxone, 36 states provide additional protection from civil liability for pharmacy naloxone dispensing, and 32 states provide protection from potential criminal action. Naloxone access laws in 31 states explicitly provide that dispensing naloxone as permitted by law cannot be grounds for disciplinary action by the state board of pharmacy or similar entity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacists are key members of the health care team and are uniquely situated to reduce potential opioid overdose risk. Pharmacists should be aware of and utilize innovative state laws designed to increase access to naloxone.

The opioid overdose epidemic claims the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. Opioid overdose is reversible by the administration of naloxone, a pure antagonist now available in formulations specifically designed and labeled for layperson use. Despite broad support for layperson access to naloxone from professional organizations, health officials, and clinical experts, qualitative studies suggest that some providers have concerns about legal risks associated with naloxone prescribing, particularly co-prescribing naloxone to pain patients. Such concerns are unfounded. The legal risk associated with prescribing naloxone is no higher than that associated with any other medication and is lower than many. Additionally, laws in a majority of states provide explicit legal protections for providers who prescribe or dispense naloxone, in many cases extending this protection to prescriptions issued to friends, family members, and others. In this large and increasing number of states, the liability risk of prescribing or dispensing naloxone in good faith to a patient at risk of overdose (or, in states where such prescribing is permitted, to an associate of such a patient) is either extremely low or absent entirely. Where a prescriber determines, in his or her clinical judgment, that a patient is at risk of overdose, co-prescribing naloxone is a reasonable and prudent clinical and legal decision. No clinician should fail or refuse to issue such a prescription based on liability concerns.