Economic Evaluation: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of a Primary Care-based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Adults Receiving Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent and costly; cost-effective nonpharmacological approaches that reduce pain and improve patient functioning are needed. OBJECTIVE: Report the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with usual care, of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving functioning and pain among patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment (N=814). INTERVENTION: A cognitive behavioral therapy intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorists, nurses) with additional support from physical therapists, and pharmacists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per additional responder (≥30% improvement on standard scale assessment of Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity, and Sleep). Costs were estimated as-delivered, and replication. RESULTS: Per patient intervention replication costs were $2145 ($2574 as-delivered). Those costs were completely offset by lower medical care costs; inclusive of the intervention, total medical care over follow-up was $1841 lower for intervention patients. Intervention group patients also had greater QALY and responder gains than did controls. Supplemental analyses using pain-related medical care costs revealed ICERs of $35,000, and $53,000 per QALY (for replication, and as-delivered intervention costs, respectively); the ICER when excluding patients with outlier follow-up costs was $106,000. LIMITATIONS: Limited to 1-year follow-up; identification of pain-related utilization potentially incomplete. CONCLUSION: The intervention was the optimal choice at commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay for QALY gains; this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Development and Assessment of a Crosswalk Between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM to Identify Patients with Common Pain Conditions.

Effective management of patients with pain requires accurate information about the prevalence, outcomes, and co-occurrence of common pain conditions. However, the transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM diagnostic coding in 2015 left researchers without methods for comparing the prevalence of pain conditions before and after the transition. In this study, we developed and assessed a diagnostic framework to serve as a crosswalk between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for common pain-related health conditions. We refined existing ICD-9-CM definitions for diagnostic clusters of common pain conditions consistent with the US National Pain Strategy and developed corresponding ICD-10-CM definitions. We then assessed the stability of prevalence estimates and associated patient socio-demographic features of each diagnostic cluster during 1-year periods before and after the transition to ICD-10-CM in 3 US health care systems using electronic health records data for in-person encounters. Prevalence estimates and socio-demographic characteristics were similar before and after the transition. The Pain Condition ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalk includes a full spectrum of common pain conditions to enable prevalence estimates of multiple and chronic overlapping pain conditions. This allows the tool to serve as a foundation for a broad array of pain-related health services research utilizing electronic databases. PERSPECTIVE: This article details the development and assessment of the Pain Condition ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Crosswalk, a diagnostic framework for assessing pain condition prevalence across the ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM transition. This framework can serve as a standardized tool for research on pain conditions, including health services and epidemiologic research.

Opioid-Prescribing Continuity and Risky Opioid Prescriptions.

We aimed to better understand the association between opioid-prescribing continuity, risky prescribing patterns, and overdose risk. For this retrospective cohort study, we included patients with long-term opioid use, pulling data from Oregon's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), vital records, and hospital discharge registry. A continuity of care index (COCI) score was calculated for each patient, and we defined metrics to describe risky prescribing and overdose. As prescribing continuity increased, likelihood of filling risky opioid prescriptions and overdose hospitalization decreased. Prescribing continuity is an important factor associated with opioid harms and can be calculated using administrative pharmacy data.

Variations in prescription drug monitoring program use by prescriber specialty.

BACKGROUND: Although prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been widely implemented to potentially reduce abuse of prescription opioids, there is limited data on variations in PDMP use by prescriber specialty. Such knowledge may guide targeted interventions to improve PDMP use. METHODS: Using data from Washington state Medicaid program, we performed a retrospective cohort study of opioid prescribers and their PDMP queries between Nov 1, 2013 and Oct 31, 2014. PDMP registration was mandatory for emergency physicians, but not for other providers. The unit of analysis was the prescriber. The primary outcome was any prescriber queries of the PDMP. We used multivariate regression models to identify variations in PDMP queries by prescriber specialty, as well as to explore explanatory pathways for observed variations. RESULTS: We studied 17,390 providers who prescribed opioids, including 8718 (50%) who were not registered with PDMP, 4767 (27%) who were registered but had no recorded use of the PDMP, and 3905 (23%) PDMP users (queries/user: median 18, IQR 5-64). Compared to general medicine physicians, PDMP use was higher for emergency physicians (OR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.2-1.7), and lower for surgical specialists (OR 0.1, 95%CI: 0.08-0.1), obstetrician-gynecologists (OR 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.2) and dentists (OR 0.4, 95%CI: 0.4-0.5). Higher use by emergency physicians appeared to be mediated by higher registration rates, rather than by provider level predilection to use the PDMP. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of opioid prescribers to Medicaid beneficiaries used the PDMP. We identified variations in PDMP use by prescriber specialty. Interventions to increase PDMP queries should target both PDMP registration and PDMP use after registration, as well as specialties with current low use rates.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Interdisciplinary team-based care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment in primary care (PPACT) - Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.

Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: the case of interspinous spacer devices.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal stenosis procedures have uncertain long-term value. PURPOSE: This study sought to characterize factors affecting the long-term cost-effectiveness of such procedures using interspinous spacer devices ("spacers") relative to decompression surgery as a case study. STUDY DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database for the years 2005-2009 was used to model a group of 65-year-old patients with spinal stenosis who had no previous spine surgery and no contraindications to decompression surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained were the outcome measures. METHODS: A Markov model tracked health utility and costs over 10 years for a 65-year-old cohort under three care strategies: conservative care, spacer surgery, and decompression surgery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) reported as cost per QALY gained included direct medical costsfor surgery. Medicare claims data were used to estimate complication rates, reoperation, and related costs within 3 years. Utilities and long-term reoperation rates for decompression were derived frompublished studies. Spacer failure requiring reoperation beyond 3 years and post-spacer health utilities are uncertain and were evaluated through sensitivity analyses. In the base-case, the spacer failure rate was held constant for years 4-10 (cumulative failure: 47%). In a "worst-case" analysis, the 10-year cumulative reoperation rate was increased steeply (to 90%). Threshold analyses were performed to determine the impact of failure and post-spacer health utility on the cost-effectiveness of spacer surgery. RESULTS: The spacer strategy had an ICER of $89,500/QALY gained under base-case assumptions, and remained under $100,000 as long as the 10-year cumulative probability of reoperation did not exceed 54%. Under worst-case assumptions, the spacer ICER was $482,000/QALY and fell below $100,000 only if post-spacer utility was 0.01 greater than post-decompression utility or the cost of spacer surgery was $1,600 less than the cost of decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spacers may provide a reasonably cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Their value is expected to improve if procedure costs are lower in outpatient settings where these procedures are increasingly being performed. Decision analysis is useful for characterizing the long-term cost-effectiveness potential for minimally invasive spinal stenosis treatments and highlights the importance of complication rates and prospective health utility assessment.

High-risk prescribing and opioid overdose: prospects for prescription drug monitoring program-based proactive alerts.

To develop a simple, valid model to identify patients at high risk of opioid overdose-related hospitalization and mortality, Oregon prescription drug monitoring program, Vital Records, and Hospital Discharge data were linked to estimate 2 logistic models; a first model that included a broad range of risk factors from the literature and a second simplified model. Receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, and specificity of the models were analyzed. Variables retained in the final model were categories such as older than 35 years, number of prescribers, number of pharmacies, and prescriptions for long-acting opioids, benzodiazepines or sedatives, or carisoprodol. The ability of the model to discriminate between patients who did and did not overdose was reasonably good (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82, Nagelkerke R = 0.11). The positive predictive value of the model was low. Computationally simple models can identify high-risk patients based on prescription history alone, but improvement of the predictive value of models may require information from outside the prescription drug monitoring program. Patient or prescription features that predict opioid overdose may differ from those that predict diversion.

Effect of a high dosage opioid prior authorization policy on prescription opioid use, misuse, and overdose outcomes.

BACKGROUND: High dosage opioid use is a risk factor for opioid-related overdose commonly cited in guidelines, recommendations, and policies. In 2012, the Oregon Medicaid program developed a prior authorization policy for opioid prescriptions above 120 mg per day morphine equivalent dose (MED). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of that policy on utilization, prescribing patterns, and health outcomes. METHODS: Using administrative claims data from Oregon and a control state (Colorado) between 2011 and 2013, we used difference-in-differences analyses to examine changes in utilization, measures of high risk opioid use, and overdose after introduction of the policy. We also evaluated opioid utilization in a cohort of individuals who were high dosage opioid users before the policy. RESULTS: Following implementation of Oregon's high dosage policy, the monthly probability of an opioid fill over 120 mg MED declined significantly by 1.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI]; -2.0% to -1.4%), whereas it increased significantly by 1.0 percentage points (95% CI 0.4% to 1.7%) for opioid fills < 61 mg MED. Fills of medications used to treat neuropathic pain also increased by 1.2 percentage points (95% CI 0.7% to 1.8%). The monthly probability of multiple pharmacy use declined by 0.1 percentage points (-0.2% to -0.0) following the prior authorization, but there were no significant changes in ED encounters or hospitalizations for opioid overdose. Among individuals who were using a high dosage opioid before the policy, there was a 20.3 percentage point (95% CI -15.3% to -25.3%) decline in estimated probability of having a high dosage fill after the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon's prior authorization policy was effective at reducing high dosage opioid prescriptions. While multiple pharmacy use also declined, we found no impact on opioid overdose were observed.

Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use With Opioid Prescribing and Health Outcomes: A Comparison of Program Users and Nonusers.

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a response to the prescription opioid epidemic, but their effects on prescribing and health outcomes remain unclear, with conflicting reports. We sought to determine if prescriber use of Oregon's PDMP led to fewer high-risk opioid prescriptions or overdose events. We conducted a retrospective cohort study from October 2011 through October 2014, using statewide PDMP data, hospitalization registry, and vital records. Early PDMP registrants (n = 927) were matched with clinicians who never registered during the study period, using baseline prescribing metrics in a propensity score. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine prescribing trends after PDMP registration, using 2-month intervals. We found a statewide decline in measures of per capita opioid prescribing. However, compared with nonregistrants, PDMP registrants did not subsequently have significantly fewer patients receiving high-dose prescriptions, overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, inappropriate prescriptions, prescriptions from multiple prescribers, or overdose events. At baseline, frequent PDMP users wrote fewer high-risk opioid prescriptions than infrequent users; this persisted during follow-up with few significant group differences in trend. Thus, although opioid prescribing declined statewide after implementing the PDMP, registrants did not show greater declines than nonregistrants. PERSPECTIVE: Factors other than PDMP use may have had greater influence on prescribing trends. Refinements in the PDMP program and related policies may be necessary to increase PDMP effects.

Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Patient Outcomes by Prescriber Type in the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.

Objective: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were created to facilitate responsible use of controlled substances. In Oregon, physicians, physician's assistants (MDs/DOs/PAs), dentists, nurse practitioners (NPs), and naturopathic physicians (NDs) may prescribe opioids, but differences in prescribing practices, patient mix, and patient outcomes among prescriber types have not been characterized. Methods: De-identified Oregon PDMP data from October 2011 through October 2014 were linked with vital records and a statewide hospital discharge registry. The disciplines of registered prescribers were identified by board affiliations. Prescription profiles associated with opioid overdose risk were tabulated for patients with at least one registered prescriber. Opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Results: There were 5,935 prescribers registered during the study period. Patients of NPs or NDs received more high-risk opioid prescriptions than patients of MDs/DOs/PAs. For example, they received greater proportions of high-dose prescriptions (NP 12.9%, ND 15%, MD/DO/PA 11.1%), and had greater opioid-related hospitalization (NP 1.7%, ND 3.1%, MD/DO/PA 1.2%; P < 0.005 for all). However, patients of NPs or NDs were also more likely to have four or more prescribers (NP 45.3%, ND 58.5%, MD/DO/PA 27.1%), and most of their patients' high-risk opioid prescriptions came from prescribers in other disciplines. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests significant differences in opioid prescription profiles and opioid-related hospitalization and mortality among patients receiving opioid prescriptions from nurse practitioners, naturopathic physicians, or medical clinicians in Oregon. However, these differences appear largely due to differences in patient mix between provider types rather than discipline-specific prescribing practices.

Does Prescription Opioid Shopping Increase Overdose Rates in Medicaid Beneficiaries?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The link between prescription opioid shopping and overdose events is poorly understood. We test the hypothesis that a history of prescription opioid shopping is associated with increased risk of overdose events. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a linked claims and controlled substance dispense database. We studied adult Medicaid beneficiaries in 2014 with prescription opioid use in the 6 months before an ambulatory care or emergency department visit with a pain-related diagnosis. The primary outcome was a nonfatal overdose event within 6 months of the cohort entry date. The exposure of interest (opioid shopping) was defined as having opioid prescriptions by different prescribers with greater than or equal to 1-day overlap and filled at 3 or more pharmacies in the 6 months before cohort entry. We used a propensity score to match shoppers with nonshoppers in a 1:1 ratio. We calculated the absolute difference in outcome rates between shoppers and nonshoppers. RESULTS: We studied 66,328 patients, including 2,571 opioid shoppers (3.9%). There were 290 patients (0.4%) in the overall cohort who experienced a nonfatal overdose. In unadjusted analyses, shoppers had higher event rates than nonshoppers (rate difference of 4.4 events per 1,000; 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 7.9). After propensity score matching, there were no outcome differences between shoppers and nonshoppers (rate difference of 0.4 events per 1,000; 95% confidence interval -4.7 to 5.5). These findings were robust to various definitions of opioid shoppers and look-back periods. CONCLUSION: Prescription opioid shopping is not independently associated with increased risk of overdose events.

Using prescription monitoring program data to characterize out-of-pocket payments for opioid prescriptions in a state Medicaid program.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket payment for prescription opioids is believed to be an indicator of abuse or diversion, but few studies describe its epidemiology. Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) collect controlled substance prescription fill data regardless of payment source and thus can be used to study this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency and characteristics of prescription fills for opioids that are likely paid out-of-pocket by individuals in the Oregon Medicaid program. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using Oregon Medicaid administrative claims and PDMP data (2012 to 2013). SUBJECTS: Continuously enrolled nondually eligible Medicaid beneficiaries who could be linked to the PDMP with two opioid fills covered by Oregon Medicaid. MEASURES: Patient characteristics and fill characteristics for opioid fills that lacked a Medicaid pharmacy claim. Fill characteristics included opioid name, type, and association with indicators of high-risk opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 33 592 Medicaid beneficiaries filled a total of 555 103 opioid prescriptions. Of these opioid fills, 74 953 (13.5%) could not be matched to a Medicaid claim. Hydromorphone (30%), fentanyl (18%), and methadone (15%) were the most likely to lack a matching claim. The 3 largest predictors for missing claims were opioid fills that overlapped with other opioids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-1.4), long-acting opioids (aOR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.47-1.57), and fills at multiple pharmacies (aOR 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid fills that were likely paid out-of-pocket were common and associated with several known indicators of high-risk opioid use.

Impact of Hospital "Best Practice" Mandates on Prescription Opioid Dispensing After an Emergency Department Visit.

OBJECTIVE: Washington State mandated seven hospital "best practices" in July 2012, several of which may affect emergency department (ED) opioid prescribing and provide a policy template for addressing the opioid prescription epidemic. We tested the hypothesis that the mandates would reduce opioid dispensing after an ED visit. We further assessed for a selective effect in patients with prior risky or chronic opioid use. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational analysis of ED visits by Medicaid fee-for-service beneficiaries in Washington State, between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2013. We used an interrupted time-series design to control for temporal trends and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was any opioid dispensing within 3 days after an ED visit. The secondary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) dispensed within 3 days. RESULTS: We analyzed 266,614 ED visits. Mandates were associated with a small reduction in opioid dispensing after an ED visit (-1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8% to -0.15%). The mandates were associated with decreased opioid dispensing in 42,496 ED visits by patients with prior risky opioid use behavior (-4.7%, 95% CI = -7.1% to -2.3%) and in 20,238 visits by patients with chronic opioid use (-3.6%, 95% CI = -5.6% to -1.7%). Mandates were not associated with reductions in MMEs per dispense in the overall cohort or in either subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Washington State best practice mandates were associated with small but nonselective reductions in opioid prescribing rates. States should focus on alternative policies to further reduce opioid dispensing in subgroups of high-risk and chronic users.

Comparison of Opioid Prescribing Patterns in the United States and Japan: Primary Care Physicians' Attitudes and Perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Far fewer opioids are prescribed in Japan than in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an online physician survey assessing attitudes and perceptions that might influence prescribing. A Japanese version was distributed to members of the Japan Primary Care Association and an English version to members of the American Academy of Family Physicians practicing in Oregon. RESULTS: We received 461 Japanese responses and 198 from the United States, though overall response rates were low (Japan: 10.1%, United States: 18.5%). Japanese respondents reported far less opioid prescribing than US respondents, especially for acute pain (acute pain: 49.4% vs 97.0%; chronic pain: 63.7% vs 90.9%; P < .001 for both). Almost half of respondents from both countries indicated that patient expectations and satisfaction were important factors that influence prescribing. US respondents were significantly more likely to identify medical indication and legal expectation as reasons to prescribe opioids for acute pain. Most US respondents (95.4%) thought opioids were used too often, versus 6.6% of Japanese respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Lower opioid use was reported in Japan, especially for acute pain, which may help minimize long-term use. Patient expectations and satisfaction seem to influence opioid prescribing in both countries. The United States could learn from Japanese regulatory and cultural perspectives.