13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      State Legal Restrictions and Prescription-Opioid Use among Disabled Adults

      research-article
      , Ph.D., , Ph.D., J.D., M.P.P., , A.B., , J.D., M.P.H., , M.S., , Ph.D., , M.D., M.P.H.
      The New England journal of medicine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          In response to rising rates of opioid abuse and overdose, U.S. states enacted laws to restrict the prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. The effect of these laws on opioid use is unclear.

          METHODS

          We tested associations between prescription-opioid receipt and state controlled-substances laws. Using Medicare administrative data for fee-for-service disabled beneficiaries 21 to 64 years of age who were alive throughout the calendar year (8.7 million person-years from 2006 through 2012) and an original data set of laws (e.g., prescription-drug monitoring programs), we examined the annual prevalence of beneficiaries with four or more opioid prescribers, prescriptions yielding a daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED) of more than 120 mg, and treatment for nonfatal prescription-opioid overdose. We estimated how opioid outcomes varied according to eight types of laws.

          RESULTS

          From 2006 through 2012, states added 81 controlled-substance laws. Opioid receipt and potentially hazardous prescription patterns were common. In 2012 alone, 47% of beneficiaries filled opioid prescriptions (25% in one to three calendar quarters and 22% in every calendar quarter); 8% had four or more opioid prescribers; 5% had prescriptions yielding a daily MED of more than 120 mg in any calendar quarter; and 0.3% were treated for a nonfatal prescription-opioid overdose. We observed no significant associations between opioid outcomes and specific types of laws or the number of types enacted. For example, the percentage of beneficiaries with a prescription yielding a daily MED of more than 120 mg did not decline after adoption of a prescription-drug monitoring program (0.27 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −0.05 to 0.59).

          CONCLUSIONS

          Adoption of controlled-substance laws was not associated with reductions in potentially hazardous use of opioids or overdose among disabled Medicare beneficiaries, a population particularly at risk.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Relationship between Nonmedical Prescription-Opioid Use and Heroin Use

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

            Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999-2010.

              Opioid analgesic overdose mortality continues to rise in the United States, driven by increases in prescribing for chronic pain. Because chronic pain is a major indication for medical cannabis, laws that establish access to medical cannabis may change overdose mortality related to opioid analgesics in states that have enacted them.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                0255562
                5985
                N Engl J Med
                N. Engl. J. Med.
                The New England journal of medicine
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                17 July 2016
                22 June 2016
                7 July 2016
                07 January 2017
                : 375
                : 1
                : 44-53
                Affiliations
                Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (E.M., W.P., W.Z., A.J.O., N.E.M.); the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (E.M., J.R.H.); and the UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles (J.R.H., L.M.)
                Author notes
                Address reprint requests to Dr. Meara at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, WTRB Level 5, 1 Medical Center Dr., Lebanon, NH 03756, or at ellen.r.meara@ 123456dartmouth.edu
                Article
                PMC4985562 PMC4985562 4985562 nihpa802606
                10.1056/NEJMsa1514387
                4985562
                27332619
                ce81f6e0-9e21-4215-a936-28f504845b19
                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article