Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain. DESIGN: Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law. SETTING: United States, 2010 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month. RESULTS: In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented. LIMITATIONS: This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Protocol: mixed-methods study of how implementation of US state medical cannabis laws affects treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and adverse opioid outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-three US states and Washington, D.C., have enacted medical cannabis laws allowing patients with chronic non-cancer pain to use cannabis, when recommended by a physician, to manage their condition. However, clinical guidelines do not recommend cannabis for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain due to limited and mixed evidence of effectiveness. How state medical cannabis laws affect delivery of evidence-based treatment for chronic non-cancer pain is unclear. These laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of clinical guideline-discordant opioid prescribing, reducing risk of opioid use disorder and overdose. Conversely, state medical cannabis laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of guideline-concordant treatments such as topical analgesics or physical therapy. This protocol describes a mixed-methods study examining the implementation and effects of state medical cannabis laws on treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. A key contribution of the study is the examination of how variation in state medical cannabis laws' policy implementation rules affects receipt of chronic non-cancer pain treatments. METHODS: The study uses a concurrent-embedded design. The primary quantitative component of the study employs a difference-in-differences design using a policy trial emulation approach. Quantitative analyses will evaluate state medical cannabis laws' effects on treatment for chronic non-cancer pain as well as on receipt of treatment for opioid use disorder, opioid overdose, cannabis use disorder, and cannabis poisoning among people with chronic non-cancer pain. Secondary qualitative and survey methods will be used to characterize implementation of state medical cannabis laws through interviews with state leaders and representative surveys of physicians who treat, and patients who experience, chronic non-cancer pain in states with medical cannabis laws. DISCUSSION: This study will examine the effects of medical cannabis laws on patients' receipt of guideline-concordant non-opioid, non-cannabis treatments for chronic non-cancer pain and generate new evidence on the effects of state medical cannabis laws on adverse opioid outcomes. Results will inform the dynamic policy environment in which numerous states consider, enact, and/or amend medical cannabis laws each year.

Integrated care models and behavioral health care utilization: Quasi-experimental evidence from Medicaid health homes.

Integration of behavioral and general medical care can improve outcomes for individuals with behavioral health conditions-serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorder (SUD). However, behavioral health care has historically been segregated from general medical care in many countries. We provide the first population-level evidence on the effects of Medicaid health homes (HH) on behavioral health care service use. Medicaid, a public insurance program in the United States, HHs were created under the 2010 Affordable Care Act to coordinate behavioral and general medical care for enrollees with behavioral health conditions. As of 2016, 16 states had adopted an HH for enrollees with SMI and/or SUD. We use data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health over the period 2010 to 2016 coupled with a two-way fixed-effects model to estimate HH effects on behavioral health care utilization. We find that HH adoption increases service use among enrollees, although mental health care treatment findings are sensitive to specification. Further, enrollee self-reported health improves post-HH.

The effects of the Maryland Medicaid Health Home Waiver on Emergency Department and inpatient utilization among individuals with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: The Maryland Medicaid health home program, established through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid health home waiver, integrates primary care services into specialty mental health programs for adults with serious mental illness (SMI). We evaluated the effect of this program on all-cause, physical, and behavioral health emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization. METHOD: Using marginal structural modeling to control for time-invariant and time-varying confounding, we analyzed Medicaid administrative claims data for 12,232 enrollees with SMI from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016; 3319 individuals were enrolled in a BHH and 8913 were never enrolled. RESULTS: Health home enrollment was associated with reduced probability of all-cause (PP: 0.23 BHH enrollment vs. 0.26 non-enrollment, p < 0.01) and physical health ED visits (PP: 0.21 BHH enrollment vs. 0.24 non-enrollment, p < 0.01) and no effect on inpatient admissions per person-three-month period. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the Maryland Medicaid health home waiver's focus on supporting physical health care coordination by specialty mental health programs may be preventing ED visits among adults with SMI, although effect sizes are small.

An innovative model to coordinate healthcare and social services for people with serious mental illness: A mixed-methods case study of Maryland's Medicaid health home program.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a case study examining implementation of Maryland's Medicaid health home program, a unique model for integration of behavioral, somatic, and social services for people with serious mental illness (SMI) in the psychiatric rehabilitation program setting. METHOD: We conducted interviews and surveys with health home leaders (N=72) and front-line staff (N=627) representing 46 of the 48 total health home programs active during the November 2015-December 2016 study period. We measured the structural and service characteristics of the 46 health home programs and leaders' and staff members' perceptions of program implementation. RESULTS: Health home program structure varied across sites: for example, 15% of programs had co-located primary care providers and 76% had onsite supported employment providers. Most leaders and staff viewed the health home program as having strong organizational fit with psychiatric rehabilitation programs' organizational structures and missions, but noted implementation challenges around health IT, population health management, and coordination with external providers. CONCLUSION: Maryland's psychiatric rehabilitation-based health home is a promising model for integration of behavioral, somatic, and social services for people with SMI but may be strengthened by additional policy and implementation supports, including incentives for external providers to engage in care coordination with health home providers.