Brian D Sites1, Jordon Harrison2, Michael D Herrick3, Melissa M Masaracchia3, Michael L Beach3,4, Matthew A Davis5,6,7. 1. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire brian.d.sites@hitchcock.org. 2. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 4. Community Health Research Program, Hood Center for Children and Families, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 5. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the current payment paradigm, reimbursement is partially based on patient satisfaction scores. We sought to understand the relationship between prescription opioid use and satisfaction with care among adults who have musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using nationally representative data from the 2008-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We assessed whether prescription opioid use is associated with satisfaction with care among US adults who had musculoskeletal conditions. Specifically, using 5 key domains of satisfaction with care, we examined the association between opioid use (overall and according to the number of prescriptions received) and high satisfaction, defined as being in the top quartile of overall satisfaction ratings. RESULTS: Among 19,566 adults with musculoskeletal conditions, we identified 2,564 (13.1%) who were opioid users, defined as receiving 1 or more prescriptions in 2 six-month time periods. In analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, compared with nonusers, opioid users were more likely to report high satisfaction with care (odds ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.18-1.49). According to the level of use, a stronger association was noted with moderate opioid use (odds ratio = 1.55) and heavy opioid use (odds ratio = 1.43) (P <.001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with musculoskeletal conditions, those using prescription opioids are more likely to be highly satisfied with their care. Considering that emerging reimbursement models include patient satisfaction, future work is warranted to better understand this relationship.
PURPOSE: In the current payment paradigm, reimbursement is partially based on patient satisfaction scores. We sought to understand the relationship between prescription opioid use and satisfaction with care among adults who have musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using nationally representative data from the 2008-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We assessed whether prescription opioid use is associated with satisfaction with care among US adults who had musculoskeletal conditions. Specifically, using 5 key domains of satisfaction with care, we examined the association between opioid use (overall and according to the number of prescriptions received) and high satisfaction, defined as being in the top quartile of overall satisfaction ratings. RESULTS: Among 19,566 adults with musculoskeletal conditions, we identified 2,564 (13.1%) who were opioid users, defined as receiving 1 or more prescriptions in 2 six-month time periods. In analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, compared with nonusers, opioid users were more likely to report high satisfaction with care (odds ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.18-1.49). According to the level of use, a stronger association was noted with moderate opioid use (odds ratio = 1.55) and heavy opioid use (odds ratio = 1.43) (P <.001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with musculoskeletal conditions, those using prescription opioids are more likely to be highly satisfied with their care. Considering that emerging reimbursement models include patient satisfaction, future work is warranted to better understand this relationship.
Authors: Matthew Daubresse; Hsien-Yen Chang; Yuping Yu; Shilpa Viswanathan; Nilay D Shah; Randall S Stafford; Stefan P Kruszewski; G Caleb Alexander Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark J Edlund; Bradley C Martin; Andrea Devries; Ming-Yu Fan; Jennifer Brennan Braden; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Victor Okunrintemi; Javier Valero-Elizondo; Erin D Michos; Joseph A Salami; Oluseye Ogunmoroti; Chukwuemeka Osondu; Martin Tibuakuu; Eve-Marie Benson; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jordan A Gliedt; Rebekah J Walker; Kaiwei Lu; Aprill Z Dawson; Leonard E Egede Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Jeffrey B Stambough; Ryan Hui; Eric R Siegel; Paul K Edwards; C Lowry Barnes; Simon C Mears Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Ryan Howard; Craig S Brown; Yen-Ling Lai; Vidhya Gunaseelan; Kao-Ping Chua; Chad Brummett; Michael Englesbe; Jennifer Waljee; Mark C Bicket Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 12.969