Sara E Heins1, Katherine P Frey2, G Caleb Alexander2,3, Renan C Castillo2. 1. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe current state-level policies in the United States, January 1, 2007-June 1, 2017, limiting high morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) prescribing. METHODS: State-level MEDD threshold policies were reviewed using LexisNexis and Westlaw Next for legislative acts and using Google for nonlegislative state-level policies. The websites of each state's Medicaid agency, health department, prescription drug monitoring program, workers' compensation board, medical board, and pharmacy board were reviewed to identify additional policies. The final policy list was checked against existing policy compilations and academic literature and through contact with state health agency representatives. Policies were independently double-coded on the categories: state, agency/organization, policy type, effective date, threshold level, and policy exceptions. RESULTS: Currently, 22 states have at least one type of MEDD policy, most commonly guidelines (14 states), followed by prior authorizations (four states), rules/regulations (four states), legislative acts (three states), claim denials (two states), and alert systems/automatic patient reports (two states). Thresholds range widely (30-300 mg MEDD), with higher thresholds generally corresponding to more restrictive policies (e.g., claim denial) and lower thresholds corresponding to less restrictive policies (e.g., guidelines). The majority of policies exclude some groups of opioid users, most commonly patients with terminal illnesses or acute pain. CONCLUSIONS: MEDD policies have gained popularity in recent years, but considerable variation in threshold levels and policy structure point to a lack of consensus. This work provides a foundation for future evaluation of MEDD policies and may inform states considering adopting such policies.
OBJECTIVE: To describe current state-level policies in the United States, January 1, 2007-June 1, 2017, limiting high morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) prescribing. METHODS: State-level MEDD threshold policies were reviewed using LexisNexis and Westlaw Next for legislative acts and using Google for nonlegislative state-level policies. The websites of each state's Medicaid agency, health department, prescription drug monitoring program, workers' compensation board, medical board, and pharmacy board were reviewed to identify additional policies. The final policy list was checked against existing policy compilations and academic literature and through contact with state health agency representatives. Policies were independently double-coded on the categories: state, agency/organization, policy type, effective date, threshold level, and policy exceptions. RESULTS: Currently, 22 states have at least one type of MEDD policy, most commonly guidelines (14 states), followed by prior authorizations (four states), rules/regulations (four states), legislative acts (three states), claim denials (two states), and alert systems/automatic patient reports (two states). Thresholds range widely (30-300 mg MEDD), with higher thresholds generally corresponding to more restrictive policies (e.g., claim denial) and lower thresholds corresponding to less restrictive policies (e.g., guidelines). The majority of policies exclude some groups of opioid users, most commonly patients with terminal illnesses or acute pain. CONCLUSIONS: MEDD policies have gained popularity in recent years, but considerable variation in threshold levels and policy structure point to a lack of consensus. This work provides a foundation for future evaluation of MEDD policies and may inform states considering adopting such policies.
Authors: Jeanne M Sears; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Beryl A Schulman; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Gary M Franklin Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Edwin N Aroke; Susan P McMullan; Katie O Woodfin; Ryan Richey; Jordan Doss; Bryan A Wilbanks Journal: J Perianesth Nurs Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 1.084
Authors: Lia D Delaney; Vidhya Gunaseelan; Heidi Rieck; James Michael Dupree; Brian R Hallstrom; Jennifer F Waljee Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Sara E Heins; Christine Buttorff; Courtney Armstrong; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sarah J Ball; Kit Simpson; Jingwen Zhang; Justin Marsden; Khosrow Heidari; William P Moran; Patrick D Mauldin; Jenna L McCauley Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2021 Jul-Aug 01
Authors: Ivelisse L Valdes; Marie-Christin Possinger; Juan M Hincapie-Castillo; Amie J Goodin; Marvin A Dewar; Jill M Sumfest; Scott M Vouri Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 6.473