Typology of laws restricting access to methadone treatment in the United States: A latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership. METHODS: A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated. RESULTS: States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22). CONCLUSIONS: States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.

Physician Responses to Enhanced Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Profiles.

OBJECTIVE: Many states have begun implementing enhancements to PDMP patient profiles such as summaries or graphics to highlight issues of concern and enhance comprehension. The purpose of this study was to examine how physicians respond to sample enhanced PDMP profiles based on patient vignettes. DESIGN: Brief semistructured interviews with physicians. SETTING: Three national medical conferences for targeted specialties. SUBJECTS: Ninety-three physicians practicing in primary care, emergency medicine, or pain management. METHODS: We presented participants with one of three patient vignettes with corresponding standard and enhanced PDMP profiles and conducted brief interviews. RESULTS: Findings indicated that enhanced profiles could increase ease of comprehension, reduce time burden, and aid in communicating with patients about opioid risks. Physicians also expressed concern about liability for prescribing when the enhanced profile indicates risk and cautioned against any implication that risk warnings should override clinical judgment based on the patient's complete medical history or presenting condition. Physicians emphasized the need for transparency of measures and evidence of validation of risk scores. We found little indication that enhanced profiles would change opioid prescribing decisions, though decisions varied by physician. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of involving prescribers in developing and testing PDMP profile enhancements, as well as providing guidance in the interpretation and clinical use of enhanced profiles. Reduced time burden is an important benefit to consider as the number of states mandating PDMP use increases.

Research to support optimization of prescription drug monitoring programs.

PURPOSE: Research is needed to evaluate the impact of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). This paper describes research priorities for PDMPs that were initially discussed at a 2015 meeting of PDMP administrators, researchers, public health officials, and other stakeholders. METHODS: Meeting participants defined the current landscape of PDMP research and identified research gaps. Research priorities were grouped by theme. RESULTS: Prescription drug monitoring program research priorities were identified for 3 key areas: individual patient health outcomes, prescriber use and decision making, and population-level outcomes. Research areas for individual patient outcomes include examining drug-use thresholds that best predict risk for overdose or substance use disorder and unintended consequences of PDMP use. Proposed research on prescriber PDMP use include evaluating how enhancements to the content and format of PDMP reports informs clinical decision making and optimal clinician actions in response to a concerning PDMP report. Finally, research topics related to population-level outcomes include measuring the impact of PDMP policies on the incidence of substance misuse and harms and assessing the return on investment for these databases. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical, public health, and economic impacts of PDMPs must be evaluated, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In addition to assessing patient outcomes, qualitative research should examine how clinicians use and interpret PDMP information. Research should also examine the impact of PDMP features and policies on prescriber utilization. Comparative analyses across states with differing PDMP policies should be conducted to inform best practices.