Expert Views on State Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis of an Online Modified Delphi Process.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of state policies to improve engagement and retention in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi process using the online ExpertLens platform. Participants included 66 experts on OUD treatment policies. Experts commented on 14 hypothetical state policies targeting treatment engagement and quality of care. Using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework, we conducted reflexive thematic analysis to develop patterns of meaning from the dataset. RESULTS: Only policies for providing continued access to evidence-based treatment for highly at-risk populations, settings, and periods were seen as effective in meaningfully reducing population-level opioid-related overdose mortality. Experts commented that, although the general public increasingly supports policies expanding medications for OUD and evidence-based care, ongoing stigma about OUD encourages public acceptance of punitive and paternalistic policies. Experts viewed all policies as at least moderately feasible given the current infrastructure and resources, with affordability reliant on long-term cost savings from reduced opioid-related harms. Equitability depended on whether experts perceived a policy as inherently equitable in its design as well as concerns about the potential for inequitable implementation due to structural oppression and interpersonal biases in criminal-legal, healthcare, and other systems. CONCLUSIONS: Experts believe that supportive (rather than punitive) policies improve engagement and retention in OUD treatment. States could prioritize implementing supportive policies that are patient-centered and take a harm-reduction approach to enhance medications for OUD access and utilization. States could consider deimplementing punitive policies that are coercive, take an abstinence-only approach, and use punitive and restrictive measures.

Relationships Between Alcohol and Cannabis Policies in U.S. States, 1999-2019.

OBJECTIVE: A crucial question regarding the public health impacts of cannabis legalization is its impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. However, little is known about whether these changing cannabis policies are occurring in liberal or in restrictive alcohol policy environments, either of which likely affect public health outcomes. We constructed comprehensive state-level alcohol and cannabis policy indices and explored relationships between them. METHOD: We assessed relationships between the Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) and the Cannabis Policy Scale (CPS) from 1999 to 2019. The APS and CPS were based on 29 and 17 state-level policies, respectively, and each policy was weighted for its relative efficacy and degree of state-year implementation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2019, average state APS scores increased modestly (became more restrictive) by 4.11 points (2019 M = 43.23, range: 24.44-66.31) and average CPS scores decreased (became less restrictive) by 15.33 points (2019 M = 76.40, range: 29.40-95.74) on a 100-point scale. In 2019, average APS scores were similar among states that prohibited (criminalized) possession of cannabis (42.00), decriminalized possession (41.33), legalized medical cannabis (44.36), and legalized recreational cannabis (43.32). Across states, there was no correlation between the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol and cannabis policies (r = .03, p = .37) in unadjusted models, although there was some variation by time, geographic region, and political party, with a weak negative correlation in state fixed-effects models. CONCLUSIONS: Although cannabis policies liberalized rapidly from 1999 to 2019, alcohol policies stayed relatively stable and did not differ by degree of cannabis policy liberalization. In general, there were weak associations between cannabis and alcohol policies among states; however, there was some temporal, regional, and political variation.

America's Opioid Ecosystem: How Leveraging System Interactions Can Help Curb Addiction, Overdose, and Other Harms.

Opioids play an outsized role in America's drug problems, but they also play a critically important role in medicine. Thus, they deserve special attention. Illegally manufactured opioids (such as fentanyl) are involved in a majority of U.S. drug overdoses, but the problems are broader and deeper than drug fatalities. Depending on the drugs involved, there can be myriad physical and mental health consequences associated with having a substance use disorder. And it is not just those using drugs who suffer. Substance use and related behaviors can significantly affect individuals' families, friends, employers, and wider communities. Efforts to address problems related to opioids are insufficient and sometimes contradictory. Researchers provide a nuanced assessment of America's opioid ecosystem, highlighting how leveraging system interactions can reduce addiction, overdose, suffering, and other harms. At the core of the opioid ecosystem are the individuals who use opioids and their families. Researchers also include detail on ten major components of the opioid ecosystem: substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction, medical care, the criminal legal system, illegal supply and supply control, first responders, the child welfare system, income support and homeless services, employment, and education. The primary audience for this study is policymakers, but it should also be useful for foundations looking for opportunities to create change that have often been overlooked. This study can help researchers better consider the full consequences of policy changes and help members of the media identify the dynamics of interactions that deserve more attention.

Understanding the rise in overdose deaths involving opioids and non-opioid prescription drugs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrate that the reformulation of OxyContin in the U.S. in 2010 induced substitution to illicit opioids, causing illicit opioid markets to grow disproportionately fast in states more exposed to the reformulation. In this paper, we examine if this shift to the illicit market also led to a rise in polysubstance overdose deaths involving non-opioid prescription drugs, including gabapentinoids and "Z-drugs" and, separately, benzodiazepines. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences framework, the relationship between exposure to reformulation and overdose death rates including specific substances was studied in each year from 1999 to 2020 while accounting for fixed differences across states, common nationwide shocks, and state-level differences in pain reliever misuse prior to reformulation. Exposure to reformulation was measured as the pre-reformulation rate of OxyContin misuse. RESULTS: Exposure to reformulation predicted growth in overdose deaths involving gabapentinoids and Z-drugs. There is less evidence that it predicted growth in overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines. However, for all substances, there is strong evidence that pre-reformulation OxyContin misuse rates predicted post-reformulation growth in overdose deaths concurrently involving synthetic opioids. DISCUSSION: The opioid crisis has changed in radical ways. This study links a major supply-side intervention to the increase in polysubstance overdose deaths involving non-opioid prescription drugs, specifically gabapentinoids and Z-drugs.

Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Opioid Prescribing and Opioid-Related Hospital Visits in Colorado: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis may be a substitute for opioids but previous studies have found conflicting results when using data from more recent years. Most studies have examined the relationship using state-level data, missing important sub-state variation in cannabis access. OBJECTIVE: To examine cannabis legalization on opioid use at the county level, using Colorado as a case study. Colorado allowed recreational cannabis stores in January 2014. Local communities could decide whether to allow dispensaries, creating variation in the level of exposure to cannabis outlets. DESIGN: Observational, quasi-experimental design exploiting county-level variation in allowance of recreational dispensaries. SUBJECTS: Colorado residents MEASURES: We use licensing information from the Colorado Department of Revenue to measure county-level exposure to cannabis outlets. We use the state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (2013-2018) to construct opioid-prescribing measures of number of 30-day fills and total morphine equivalents, both per county resident per quarter. We construct outcomes of opioid-related inpatient visits (2011-2018) and emergency department visits (2013-2018) with Colorado Hospital Association data. We use linear models in a differences-in-differences framework that accounts for the varying exposure to medical and recreational cannabis over time. There are 2048 county-quarter observations used in the analysis. RESULTS: We find mixed evidence of cannabis exposure on opioid-related outcomes at the county level. We find increasing exposure to recreational cannabis is associated with a statistically significant decrease in number of 30-day fills (coefficient: -117.6, p-value<0.01) and inpatient visits (coefficient: -0.8, p-value: 0.03), but not total MME nor ED visits. Counties with no medical exposure prior to recreational legalization experience greater reductions in the number of 30-day fills and MME than counties with prior medical exposure (p=0.02 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed findings suggest that further increases in cannabis beyond medical access may not always reduce opioid prescribing or opioid-related hospital visits at a population level.

Prices and Purchase Sources for Dried Cannabis Flower in the United States, 2019-2020.

Introduction: The price of cannabis has major implications for public health, public safety, social equity, and government revenues. This article examines prices and sources of purchased dried cannabis flower among consumers facing different state laws in the United States. Methods: Repeat cross-sectional survey data were collected from the International Cannabis Policy Study in 2019 and 2020. U.S. respondents were recruited through online commercial panels, ages 16-65, and purchased dried flower in the past year (n=9766). Weighted binary logistic regression models examined legal purchasing in states that had legalized recreational cannabis. Results: Compared with respondents in states with recreational stores, respondents living in "illegal," "medical," and "recreational" states without stores were associated with paying a higher unit price of dried flower (+20.5%, +23.6%, +27.4%, respectively; all p<0.05). The majority of respondents in states with recreational stores last purchased from stores/dispensaries (2019: 66.6%; 2020: 62.0%) and the odds of purchasing legally was greater with each additional year after stores opened (adjusted odds ratio=1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 1.60). Conclusions: Cannabis prices and purchase behaviors are strongly influenced by its legal status and presence of stores. After states legalize for recreational purposes, it takes multiple years for the legal market to become established as the number of retail stores increase and prices decrease. The findings demonstrate that consumers use sources that they are legally allowed to access, suggesting an increased number of physical retail stores and online delivery services could expand uptake of legal sources in states with recreational cannabis laws.

The Cannabis Policy Scale: A New Research and Surveillance Tool for U.S. States.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid shifts toward cannabis liberalization in the United States have created immense policy variability that is challenging to measure. We developed composite measures to characterize the restrictiveness of U.S. state cannabis policy environments. METHOD: Nine panelists, consisting of four research team members and five expert policy consultants, nominated distinct cannabis policies pertaining to cannabis prohibition, medicalization, and legalization for recreational use. For each of the 17 nominated policies, panelists developed implementation ratings and rated each policy's relative efficacy for reducing excessive cannabis use by adults, youth use, and impaired driving. Cannabis Policy Scale scores were then calculated for each state-year for all 50 states from 1999 to 2019 by weighting policies by their efficacy and implementation ratings, and then summing over policies. RESULTS: Median Cannabis Policy Scale scores remained stable until 2008, when they started declining (representing policy liberalization), with steeper declines after 2012. In 2019, state Cannabis Policy Scale scores targeting excessive use among the general population ranged from 29.6 to 66.7 for recreational cannabis legalization states, and from 72.4 to 93.4 for medical cannabis legalization states. Cannabis Policy Scale scores using youth-specific and driving-specific efficacy ratings showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: The Cannabis Policy Scale reflects trends toward liberalization of cannabis policy in many U.S. states. Even within crude policy phenotypes (e.g., medical cannabis programs), Cannabis Policy Scale scores varied considerably between states and over time. The Cannabis Policy Scale is a new measure that can add nuance to cannabis policy research and help assess cannabis policy-outcome relationships.

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes. Objective: To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies. Evidence Review: This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Findings: Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Trends in Out-of-Pocket Costs for Naloxone by Drug Brand and Payer in the US, 2010-2018.

Importance: Improving access to naloxone is a critical component of the nation's strategy to curb fatal overdoses in the opioid crisis. Standing or protocol orders, prescriptive authority laws, and immunity provisions have been passed by states to expand access, but less attention has been given to potential financial barriers to naloxone access. Objective: To assess trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for naloxone and examine variation in OOP costs by drug brand and payer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study analyzed US naloxone claims data from Symphony Health and associated OOP costs for individuals filling naloxone prescriptions by drug brand and payer between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2021, to April 12, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main measures were trends in annual number of naloxone claims (overall, by payer, and by drug brand) and mean annual OOP costs per claim (overall, by payer, and by drug brand). Results: Of 719 612 naloxone claims (172 894 generic naloxone, 501 568 Narcan, and 45 150 Evzio) for 2010 through 2018, the number of naloxone claims among insured patients began rapidly increasing after 2014; at the same time, the mean OOP cost of naloxone increased dramatically among the uninsured population. Comparing 2014 with 2018, the mean OOP cost of naloxone decreased by 26% among those with insurance but increased by 506% among uninsured patients. For the uninsured population, the impediment of cost was even larger for certain brands of the drug. In 2016, the mean OOP cost for Evzio among uninsured patients rose to $2136.37 (a 2429% increase relative to 2015) compared with the mean cost of generic naloxone, $72.88, and the cost of Narcan in its first year, $87.95. Throughout the period, the mean OOP costs paid by uninsured patients were higher for Evzio at $1089.17 (95% CI, $884.17-$1294.17) compared with $73.62 (95% CI, $69.24-$78.00) for Narcan and $67.99 (95% CI, $61.42-$74.56) for generic naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study, the findings indicated that the OOP cost of naloxone had been an increasingly substantial barrier to naloxone access for uninsured patients, potentially limiting use among this population, which constituted approximately 20% of adults with opioid use disorder.

Most recent, modal, or median heroin purchase: Does it matter when estimating market size?

BACKGROUND: Assessing the size of illicit drug markets is an important activity of many government agencies; however, the expenditure-based method for estimating market size relies on the relatively untested assumption that the cash value of the most recent purchase is representative of the average purchase amount. Using panel data, we test the representativeness of the most recent, modal and median purchase compared to the average purchase amount. METHODS: Data were drawn from a prior study that collected daily transaction-level purchase data from a sample of 120 people who were using heroin regularly. The same study participants completed two distinct two-week waves of data collection, separated by six months. T-tests and bootstrapping were used to detect differences within each wave between the average cash value of participant heroin purchases and the cash value of their most recent, modal and median heroin purchases. RESULTS: In both waves, we found (a) no evidence that the expected value of the most recent purchase differs from the expected value of the average purchase, and (b) the expected values of the modal and median purchases are smaller than the expected value of the average purchase. These results imply that estimates of total market size based on the modal or median purchase will suffer from a significant downward bias, but that estimates based on the most recent purchase will be unbiased. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence in support of using the most recent (but not the modal or the median) purchase to estimate market size for heroin.

Changes in Emergency Department Visits for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome Following Recreational Cannabis Legalization and Subsequent Commercialization in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Prior research suggests that the legalization of recreational cannabis is associated with increases in cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS), but it is unclear how cannabis commercialization (ie, greater retail store access as well as increased variety and potency of cannabis products) may be associated with these changes. Objectives: To examine changes in the number and characteristics of CHS emergency department (ED) visits from before to after legalization of cannabis in Ontario, Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used interrupted time-series analyses to examine immediate and gradual changes in ED visits for CHS in Ontario, Canada, during 3 time periods: prelegalization (January 2014-September 2018), legalization with product and retail store restrictions (October 2018-February 2020), and commercialization with new products and expanded stores, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-June 2021). Data were obtained from routinely collected and linked health administrative databases. All individuals aged at least 15 years and who were eligible for Ontario's Universal Health Coverage were included. Data were analyzed between March and July 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly counts of ED visits for CHS per capita. Results: There were 12 866 ED visits for CHS from 8140 individuals during the study. Overall, the mean (SD) age was 27.4 (10.5) years, with 2834 individuals (34.8%) aged 19 to 24 years, 4163 (51.5%) females, and 1353 individuals (16.6%) with a mental health ED visit or hospitalization in the 2 years before their first CHS ED visit. Nearly 10% of visits (1135 visits [8.8%]) led to hospital admissions. Monthly rates of CHS ED visits increased 13-fold during the 7.5-year study period, from 0.26 visits per 100 000 population in January 2014 to 3.43 visits per 100 000 population in June 2021. Legalization was not associated with an immediate or gradual change in rates of ED visits for CHS; however, commercialization during the COVID-19 pandemic period was associated with an immediate increase in rates of CHS ED visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.31-1.70). During commercialization, rates of CHS ED visits increased more in women (IRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16-1.92) and individuals older than the legal age of cannabis purchase (eg, age 19-24 years: IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.19-2.16) than men (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.37) and individuals younger than the legal age of purchase (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.42-1.45). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found large increases in CHS ED visits during the period of time when the market commercialized and the COVID-19 pandemic occurred. Greater awareness of CHS symptoms by ED staff in regions where legal commercialized cannabis markets exist is indicated.

Spatial and temporal trends in the diagnosis of opioid-related problems in commercially-insured adolescents and young adults.

Little is known about the extent to which the prevalence of opioid-related problems (ORPs) varies among U.S. adolescents and young adults across geographic regions and over time, information that can help to guide policies that aim to curb the opioid epidemic. A retrospective, cross-sectional design was used to analyze longitudinal claims data from privately insured individuals aged 12-64 years who had an outpatient or inpatient diagnosis of an ORP in the years 2005-2018. The prevalence of opioid-related problem diagnoses (per 10,000) varied considerably across census divisions, both over time and between age groups. Knowledge of the origin of and variation in diagnosed opioid-related problems in terms of age group and census division is important so that interventions and policies can be more targeted and effective.

Trends in the use of cannabis products in Canada and the USA, 2018 - 2020: Findings from the International Cannabis Policy Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is little information on consumption patterns across the diverse range of cannabis product types. This paper examines trends in consumption patterns in Canada and the United States (US) between 2018-2020. DESIGN: Repeat cross-sectional surveys were conducted as part of the International Cannabis Policy Study online survey in 2018 (n=27,024), 2019 (n=45,426), and 2020 (n=45,180). SETTING: Respondents were recruited from commercial panels in Canada and US states that had and had not legalized non-medical cannabis (US 'legal' and 'illegal' states, respectively). PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were male and female participants aged 16-65 years. MEASUREMENTS: Data on frequency and consumption amounts were collected for nine types of cannabis products, including dried flower and processed products (e.g., oils and concentrates). Consumers were also asked about mixing cannabis with tobacco. Socio-demographic information was collected. FINDINGS: Dried flower was the most commonly used product, although use in the past 12 months declined between 2018 and 2020 in Canada (81% to 73%), US legal (78% to 72%) and illegal states (81% to 76%; p<0.05 for all). Prevalence of past 12-month use increased for virtually all other product forms, although prevalence of daily use remained stable across years. In 2020, edibles and vape oils were the most commonly used products after flower. Use of non-flower products was highest in US legal states, although similar trends were observed in all jurisdictions. Males were more likely to report using processed products, and vape oils were the most commonly processed product among 16-20-year-olds. Daily use of cannabis flower increased in US legal and illegal states, and average joint size increased across all jurisdictions over time. CONCLUSIONS: Dried flower remains the dominant product in Canada and the US; however, use of processed cannabis products has increased, with the largest increases observed in legal cannabis markets.

Rating the comparative efficacy of state-level cannabis policies on recreational cannabis markets in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis policy is developing faster than empirical evidence about policy effects. With a panel of experts in substance use policy development and research, we identified key cannabis policies and their provisions enacted by U.S. states; rated their theoretical efficacy in a restrictive form for reducing problematic use and impaired driving in the context of a recreational cannabis market as judged by experts; and rated the strength of evidence for each policy. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi approach, 9 panelists rated the comparative efficacy of 18 state cannabis policies for reducing youth use of cannabis, excessive cannabis use among the general population, and cannabis-impaired driving. Each outcome was rated separately using a Likert scale, and panelists also rated the strength of evidence supporting each efficacy rating. Investigators provided descriptions of each policy so that the nine panelists had similar conceptions of each policy. RESULTS: State monopoly (state owns all production, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operations) was rated as the most effective policy for all three outcome areas. Restrictions on retail physical availability, taxes, retail price restrictions, and retail operations restrictions were also highly rated for all three outcomes. Policies regulating cannabis businesses and products were judged more effective than policies targeting consumer use and behavior. Panelists reported there was little or no direct evidence from the cannabis policy literature for most of the included policies. CONCLUSION: These ratings can facilitate research as well as policy-making decisions. A relatively small number of policies were judged to be highly effective across all three domains, indicating that for the most part adult excessive use, youth use, and impaired driving can all be reduced with the same set of policies; these policies tended to target the behaviors of businesses rather than consumers. The low levels of direct evidence available to inform policy ratings, as reported by the policy panelists, makes clear the need for ongoing and sustained cannabis policy research.

Comparison of Medical Cannabis Use Reported on a Confidential Survey vs Documented in the Electronic Health Record Among Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). Objective: To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Exposures: Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. Results: Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5% (95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

Relationships of Cannabis Policy Liberalization With Alcohol Use and Co-Use With Cannabis: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: The liberalization of cannabis policies has the potential to affect the use of other substances and the harms from using them, particularly alcohol. Although a previous review of this literature found conflicting results regarding the relationship between cannabis policy and alcohol-related outcomes, cannabis policies have continued to evolve rapidly in the years since that review. SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a narrative review of studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, that assessed the effects of cannabis policies on the use of alcohol in the United States or Canada. SEARCH RESULTS: The initial search identified 3,446 unique monographs. Of these, 23 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review, and five captured simultaneous or concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Associations between cannabis policy liberalization and alcohol use, alcohol-related outcomes, and the co-use of alcohol and cannabis were inconclusive, with studies finding positive associations, no associations, and negative associations. Although several studies found that cannabis policy liberalization was associated with decreases in alcohol use measures, these same studies showed no impact of the cannabis policy on cannabis use itself. The lack of a consistent association was robust to subject age, outcome measure (e.g., use, medical utilization, driving), and type of cannabis policy; however, this may be due to the small number of studies for each type of outcome. This paper discusses several notable limitations of the evidence base and offers suggestions for improving consistency and comparability of research going forward, including a stronger classification of cannabis policy, inclusion of measures of the alcohol policy environment, verification of the impact of cannabis policy on cannabis use, and consideration of mediation effects.

Impact of cannabis legalization on healthcare utilization for psychosis and schizophrenia in Colorado.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits involving psychosis and schizophrenia have increased at a rate exceeding population growth in the United States over the past decade. Research shows a strong dose-response relationship between chronic use of high-potency cannabis and odds of developing symptoms of psychosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of cannabis legalization on psychosis and schizophrenia-related ED visits in Colorado. METHODS: Using administrative data from Colorado Hospital Association (CHA) on county-level quarterly ED visits between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, we applied a difference-in-difference analysis to examine how new exposure to recreational cannabis dispensaries after 2014 differentially influenced the rate of ED visits for psychosis and schizophrenia, comparing counties with no prior medical cannabis dispensary exposure to counties with low or high medical dispensary exposure. RESULTS: As recreational dispensaries per 10,000 residents increased, there was no significant association with the rate of schizophrenia ED visits per capita (incidence rate ratio or IRR: 0.95, 95% CI [0.69, 1.30]) while the rate of psychosis visits increased 24% (IRR: 1.24, 95% CI [1.02, 1.49]). Counties with no previous medical dispensaries experienced larger increases in schizophrenia ED visits than counties already exposed to a low level of medical dispensaries, but this effect was not significant. Counties with low baseline medical exposure had lower increases in rates of psychosis visits than counties with high baseline medical exposure (IRR 0.83, 95% CI [0.69, 0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: There was a positive association between the number of cannabis dispensaries and rates of psychosis ED visits across all counties in Colorado. Although it is unclear whether it is access to products, or the types of products that may be driving this association, our findings suggest there is a potential impact on the mental health of the local population that is observed after cannabis legalization.