Nursing home oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight has been a central strategy to assure nursing home quality of care for decades. In response to COVID-19, traditional elements of oversight that relate to resident care have been curtailed in favor of implementing limited infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations. We seek to describe the state of nursing home oversight during the pandemic to facilitate a discussion of whether and how these activities should be altered going forward. DESIGN AND SETTING: In a retrospective study, we describe national oversight activities in January-June 2020 and compare these activities to the same time period from 2019. We also examine state-level oversight activities during the peak months of the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: United States nursing homes. DATA: Publicly available Quality, Certification, and Oversight Reports (QCOR) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MEASUREMENTS: Number of standard, complaint, and onsite infection surveys, number of deficiencies from standard and complaint surveys, number of citations by deficiency tag, and number and amount of civil monetary penalties. RESULTS: The number of standard and complaint surveys declined considerably in the second quarter of 2020 relative to the same time frame in 2019. Deficiency citations generally decreased to near zero by April 2020 with the exception of infection prevention and control deficiencies and citations for failure to report COVID-19 data to the national health safety network. Related enforcement actions were down considerably in 2020, relative to 2019. CONCLUSION: In the months since COVID-19 first impacted nursing homes, regulatory oversight efforts have fallen off considerably. While CMS implemented universal infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations, other routine aspects of oversight dropped in light of justifiable limits on nursing home entry. Going forward, we must develop policies that allow regulators to balance the demands of the pandemic while fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

Association of Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances With Opioid Prescribing Rates.

Importance: The majority of US states have passed mandates requiring the use of electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS) as a tool to reduce rates of opioid prescribing. It is not known whether increasing use of EPCS will have the intended effect. Objective: To assess the association between use of EPCS and trends in opioid prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of all patients and prescribers in the 50 US states and the District of Columbia from 2010 to 2018, changes in state-level use of EPCS and concurrent changes in opioid prescribing in each state are described. Then the association between changes in the use of EPCS and opioid prescribing are estimated using state and year fixed-effects models that include covariates for policy change and state demographic change. Data Analysis was performed on May 5, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of controlled substances in each state prescribed using EPCS based on opioid prescriptions per 100 persons and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of opioids. Results: In 2018, the population-weighted percent of opioids prescribed using EPCS was 27%, up from 0% as of 2013. National rates of opioid prescriptions decreased from 78 prescriptions per 100 persons in 2013 to 53 in 2018. Over the same period, there was a decrease from 64 071 MME per 100 persons in 2013 to 40 906 MME per 100 persons in 2018, representing 36% of the 2013 level. By 2018, EPCS increased to 69.4% in states with mandates for its use and 23.6% in states without mandates. In multivariable models, a 10 percentage-point increase in the use of EPCS was associated with an additional 2 prescriptions per 100 persons (95% CI, 1.3-2.8) and a 0.8% (95% CI, 0.06%-1.5%) increase in MME per 100 persons. Conclusions and Relevance: These data suggest that an increased use of EPCS was not associated with decreased opioid prescribing or a decrease in the amount prescribed and may have been associated with a small increase in opioid prescribing. Opioid prescribing is associated with a variety of social and public health factors, and thus, despite the appeal, EPCS adoption alone may be insufficient to reduce opioid prescribing. Policy makers should consider levers to ensure that EPCS is integrated with outside data and that information is actively used to inform prescribing decisions.