Patience Moyo1, Linda Simoni-Wastila1, Beth Ann Griffin2, Eberechukwu Onukwugha1, Donna Harrington3, G Caleb Alexander4,5,6, Francis Palumbo1. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. RAND Center for Causal Inference, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 3. University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are a principal strategy used in the United States to address prescription drug abuse. We (1) compared opioid use pre- and post-PDMP implementation and (2) estimated differences of PDMP impact by reason for Medicare eligibility and plan type. DESIGN: Analysis of opioid prescription claims in US states that implemented PDMPs relative to non-PDMP states during 2007-12. SETTING: Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont, Georgia, Wisconsin, Maryland, New Hampshire and Arkansas, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 310 105 disabled and older adult Medicare enrolees. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were monthly total opioid volume, mean daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose per prescription and number of opioid prescriptions dispensed. The key predictors were PDMP status and time. Tests for moderation examined PDMP impact by Medicare eligibility (disability versus age) and drug plan [privately provided Medicare Advantage (MAPD) versus fee-for-service (PDP)]. FINDINGS: Overall, PDMP implementation was associated with reduced opioid volume [-2.36 kg/month, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.44, -1.28] and no changes in mean MMEs or opioid prescriptions 12 months after implementation compared with non-PDMP states. We found evidence of strong moderation effects. In PDMP states, estimated monthly opioid volumes decreased 1.67 kg (95% CI = -2.38, -0.96) and 0.75 kg (95% CI = -1.32, -0.18) among disabled and older adults, respectively, and 1.2 kg, regardless of plan type. MME reductions were 3.73 mg/prescription (95% CI = -6.22, -1.24) in disabled and 3.02 mg/prescription (95% CI = -3.86, -2.18) in MAPD beneficiaries, but there were no changes in older adults and PDP beneficiaries. Dispensed prescriptions increased 259/month (95% CI = 39, 479) among the disabled and decreased 610/month (95% CI = -953, -257) among MAPD beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are associated with reductions in opioid use, measured by volume, among disabled and older adult Medicare beneficiaries in the United States compared with states that do not have PDMPs. PDMP impact on daily doses and daily prescriptions varied by reason for eligibility and plan type. These findings cannot be generalized beyond the 10 US states studied.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are a principal strategy used in the United States to address prescription drug abuse. We (1) compared opioid use pre- and post-PDMP implementation and (2) estimated differences of PDMP impact by reason for Medicare eligibility and plan type. DESIGN: Analysis of opioid prescription claims in US states that implemented PDMPs relative to non-PDMP states during 2007-12. SETTING: Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont, Georgia, Wisconsin, Maryland, New Hampshire and Arkansas, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 310 105 disabled and older adult Medicare enrolees. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were monthly total opioid volume, mean daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose per prescription and number of opioid prescriptions dispensed. The key predictors were PDMP status and time. Tests for moderation examined PDMP impact by Medicare eligibility (disability versus age) and drug plan [privately provided Medicare Advantage (MAPD) versus fee-for-service (PDP)]. FINDINGS: Overall, PDMP implementation was associated with reduced opioid volume [-2.36 kg/month, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.44, -1.28] and no changes in mean MMEs or opioid prescriptions 12 months after implementation compared with non-PDMP states. We found evidence of strong moderation effects. In PDMP states, estimated monthly opioid volumes decreased 1.67 kg (95% CI = -2.38, -0.96) and 0.75 kg (95% CI = -1.32, -0.18) among disabled and older adults, respectively, and 1.2 kg, regardless of plan type. MME reductions were 3.73 mg/prescription (95% CI = -6.22, -1.24) in disabled and 3.02 mg/prescription (95% CI = -3.86, -2.18) in MAPD beneficiaries, but there were no changes in older adults and PDP beneficiaries. Dispensed prescriptions increased 259/month (95% CI = 39, 479) among the disabled and decreased 610/month (95% CI = -953, -257) among MAPD beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are associated with reductions in opioid use, measured by volume, among disabled and older adult Medicare beneficiaries in the United States compared with states that do not have PDMPs. PDMP impact on daily doses and daily prescriptions varied by reason for eligibility and plan type. These findings cannot be generalized beyond the 10 US states studied.
Authors: David Goodman-Meza; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Carlos Magis-Rodríguez; Raphael J Landovitz; Steve Shoptaw; Dan Werb Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Enihomo Obadan-Udoh; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Christina J Charlesworth; Ulrike Muench; Matthew Jura; Hyunjee Kim; Eli Schwarz; Elizabeth Mertz; Benjamin C Sun Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Victor Puac-Polanco; Stanford Chihuri; David S Fink; Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine M Keyes; Guohua Li Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Hsien-Yen Chang; Noa Krawczyk; Kristin E Schneider; Lindsey Ferris; Matthew Eisenberg; Tom M Richards; B Casey Lyons; Kate Jackson; Jonathan P Weiner; Brendan Saloner Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: John Strang; Nora D Volkow; Louisa Degenhardt; Matthew Hickman; Kimberly Johnson; George F Koob; Brandon D L Marshall; Mark Tyndall; Sharon L Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Benjamin C Sun; Christina J Charlesworth; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Jenny I Young; Hyunjee Kim; Daniel M Hartung; Richard A Deyo; K John McConnell Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 5.721