Molly Moore Jeffery1, W Michael Hooten2, Erik P Hess3, Ellen R Meara4, Joseph S Ross5, Henry J Henk6, Bjug Borgundvaag7, Nilay D Shah8, M Fernanda Bellolio3. 1. Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Division of Health Care Policy Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: jeffery.molly@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 6. OptumLabs, Optum, Eden Prairie, MN. 7. Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute, Division of Emergency Services, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Division of Health Care Policy Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explore the emergency department (ED) contribution to prescription opioid use for opioid-naive patients by comparing the guideline concordance of ED prescriptions with those attributed to other settings and the risk of patients' continuing long-term opioid use. METHODS: We used analysis of administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse 2009 to 2015) of opioid-naive privately insured and Medicare Advantage (aged and disabled) beneficiaries to compare characteristics of opioid prescriptions attributed to the ED with those attributed to other settings. Concordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and rate of progression to long-term opioid use are reported. RESULTS: We identified 5.2 million opioid prescription fills that met inclusion criteria. Opioid prescriptions from the ED were more likely to adhere to CDC guidelines for dose, days' supply, and formulation than those attributed to non-ED settings. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries were the most likely to progress to long-term use, with 13.4% of their fills resulting in long-term use compared with 6.2% of aged Medicare and 1.8% of commercial beneficiaries' fills. Compared with patients in non-ED settings, commercial beneficiaries receiving opioid prescriptions in the ED were 46% less likely, aged Medicare patients 56% less likely, and disabled Medicare patients 58% less likely to progress to long-term opioid use. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-ED settings, opioid prescriptions provided to opioid-naive patients in the ED were more likely to align with CDC recommendations. They were shorter, written for lower daily doses, and less likely to be for long-acting formulations. Prescriptions from the ED are associated with a lower risk of progression to long-term use.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explore the emergency department (ED) contribution to prescription opioid use for opioid-naive patients by comparing the guideline concordance of ED prescriptions with those attributed to other settings and the risk of patients' continuing long-term opioid use. METHODS: We used analysis of administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse 2009 to 2015) of opioid-naive privately insured and Medicare Advantage (aged and disabled) beneficiaries to compare characteristics of opioid prescriptions attributed to the ED with those attributed to other settings. Concordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and rate of progression to long-term opioid use are reported. RESULTS: We identified 5.2 million opioid prescription fills that met inclusion criteria. Opioid prescriptions from the ED were more likely to adhere to CDC guidelines for dose, days' supply, and formulation than those attributed to non-ED settings. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries were the most likely to progress to long-term use, with 13.4% of their fills resulting in long-term use compared with 6.2% of aged Medicare and 1.8% of commercial beneficiaries' fills. Compared with patients in non-ED settings, commercial beneficiaries receiving opioid prescriptions in the ED were 46% less likely, aged Medicare patients 56% less likely, and disabled Medicare patients 58% less likely to progress to long-term opioid use. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-ED settings, opioid prescriptions provided to opioid-naive patients in the ED were more likely to align with CDC recommendations. They were shorter, written for lower daily doses, and less likely to be for long-acting formulations. Prescriptions from the ED are associated with a lower risk of progression to long-term use.
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Sara E Hallvik; Christi Hildebran; Miguel Marino; Eve Dexter; Jessica M Irvine; Nicole O'Kane; Joshua Van Otterloo; Dagan A Wright; Gillian Leichtling; Lisa M Millet Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew Miller; Catherine W Barber; Sarah Leatherman; Jennifer Fonda; John A Hermos; Kelly Cho; David R Gagnon Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: W Michael Hooten; Jennifer L St Sauver; Michaela E McGree; Debra J Jacobson; David O Warner Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Michael Von Korff; Michael Von Korff; Kathleen Saunders; Gary Thomas Ray; Denise Boudreau; Cynthia Campbell; Joseph Merrill; Mark D Sullivan; Carolyn M Rutter; Michael J Silverberg; Caleb Banta-Green; Constance Weisner Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Paul J Wallace; Nilay D Shah; Taylor Dennen; Paul A Bleicher; Paul D Bleicher; William H Crown Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Zachary F Meisel; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Christina J Charlesworth; Hyunjee Kim; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Elizabeth A Samuels; Gail D'Onofrio; Kristen Huntley; Scott Levin; Jeremiah D Schuur; Gavin Bart; Kathryn Hawk; Betty Tai; Cynthia I Campbell; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: M Kit Delgado; Yanlan Huang; Zachary Meisel; Sean Hennessy; Michael Yokell; Daniel Polsky; Jeanmarie Perrone Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Tej D Azad; Yi Zhang; Martin N Stienen; Daniel Vail; Jason P Bentley; Allen L Ho; Paras Fatemi; Daniel Herrick; Lily H Kim; Austin Feng; Kunal Varshneya; Michael Jin; Anand Veeravagu; Jayanta Bhattacharya; Manisha Desai; Anna Lembke; John K Ratliff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jacob N Hunnicutt; Jonggyu Baek; Matthew Alcusky; Anne L Hume; Shao-Hsien Liu; Christine M Ulbricht; Jennifer Tjia; Kate L Lapane Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Scott G Weiner; Shih-Chuan Chou; Cindy Y Chang; Chad Garner; Sanae El Ibrahimi; Sara Hallvik; Michelle Hendricks; Olesya Baker Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 3.750