Jill R Horwitz1,2, Corey Davis3, Lynn McClelland4, Rebecca Fordon4, Ellen Meara2,4. 1. UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California. 2. NBER, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. The Network for Public Health Law, Los Angeles, California. 4. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a legal research protocol for identifying various measures of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) start dates, apply the protocol to create a useable PDMP database, and test whether the different legal databases that are meant to contain the same information produce divergent results when used in an illustrative empirical exercise. DATA SOURCES: Original research from state statutes, regulations, policy statements, and interviews; alternative PDMP data from the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws and Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System; claims from a 40 percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, 2006-2014. STUDY DESIGN: Collaborative research effort among a group of lawyers to develop protocol. Legal research to produce an original database of dates state PDMP laws: (a) were enacted, (b) became operational, and (c) required query before prescribing controlled substances. Descriptive analyses characterize differences in dates of enactment, operation, and must query requirements. Regression analyses estimating, for each beneficiary annually any opioid prescription received in a calendar year, among other measures. Estimates conducted on under age 65 and full Medicare population. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: PDMP legal databases were linked to annual Medicare claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: An original database differs from commonly used, publicly available data. Outcomes tested depend on the measure of PDMP date used and differ by data source. Must-query laws show the largest effects among all the laws tested. CONCLUSIONS: Data choices likely have had large consequences for study results and may explain contradictory outcomes in prior research. Researchers must understand and report protocol for dates used in PDMP research to ensure that results are internally consistent and verifiable.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a legal research protocol for identifying various measures of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) start dates, apply the protocol to create a useable PDMP database, and test whether the different legal databases that are meant to contain the same information produce divergent results when used in an illustrative empirical exercise. DATA SOURCES: Original research from state statutes, regulations, policy statements, and interviews; alternative PDMP data from the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws and Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System; claims from a 40 percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, 2006-2014. STUDY DESIGN: Collaborative research effort among a group of lawyers to develop protocol. Legal research to produce an original database of dates state PDMP laws: (a) were enacted, (b) became operational, and (c) required query before prescribing controlled substances. Descriptive analyses characterize differences in dates of enactment, operation, and must query requirements. Regression analyses estimating, for each beneficiary annually any opioid prescription received in a calendar year, among other measures. Estimates conducted on under age 65 and full Medicare population. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: PDMP legal databases were linked to annual Medicare claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: An original database differs from commonly used, publicly available data. Outcomes tested depend on the measure of PDMP date used and differ by data source. Must-query laws show the largest effects among all the laws tested. CONCLUSIONS: Data choices likely have had large consequences for study results and may explain contradictory outcomes in prior research. Researchers must understand and report protocol for dates used in PDMP research to ensure that results are internally consistent and verifiable.
Authors: Nancy E Morden; Jeffrey C Munson; Carrie H Colla; Jonathan S Skinner; Julie P W Bynum; Weiping Zhou; Ellen Meara Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David S Fink; Julia P Schleimer; Aaron Sarvet; Kiran K Grover; Chris Delcher; Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia; June H Kim; Ariadne E Rivera-Aguirre; Stephen G Henry; Silvia S Martins; Magdalena Cerdá Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Jessica M Irvine; Lisa M Millet; Todd Beran; Nicole O'Kane; Dagan A Wright; Dennis McCarty Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Flora Sheng; Erin A Taylor; Andrew W Dick; Mark Sorbero; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Julia Dickson-Gomez; Sarah Krechel; Antoinette Spector; Margaret Weeks; Jessica Ohlrich; H Danielle Green Montaque; Jianghong Li Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2022-07-21
Authors: Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine Wheeler-Martin; Emilie Bruzelius; William Ponicki; Paul Gruenewald; Christine Mauro; Stephen Crystal; Corey S Davis; Katherine Keyes; Deborah Hasin; Kara E Rudolph; Silvia S Martins Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 5.363