Impact of overdose on health plan disenrollment among patients prescribed long-term opioids: Retrospective cohort study.

CONTEXT: Health plan disenrollment may disrupt chronic or preventive care for patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). PURPOSE: To assess whether overdose events in patients prescribed LTOT are associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND DATASET: Data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse which includes de-identified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment records for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees. The database contains longitudinal health information on patients, representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. PATIENTS: Adults prescribed stable opioid therapy (≥10 morphine milligram equivalents/day) for a 6-month baseline period prior to an index opioid prescription from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Health plan disenrollment during follow-up. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 404,151 patients who were followed up after 800,250 baseline periods of stable opioid dosing. During a mean follow-up of 9.1 months, unadjusted disenrollment rates among primary commercial beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage enrollees were 37.2 and 13.9 per 100 person-years, respectively. Incident overdoses were associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment with a statistically significantly stronger association among primary commercial insurance beneficiaries [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 1.48 (95% CI: 1.33-1.64)] as compared to Medicare Advantage enrollees [aIRR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23)]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients prescribed long-term opioids, overdose events were strongly associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment, especially among primary commercial insurance beneficiaries. These findings raise concerns about the social consequences of overdose, including potential health insurance loss, which may limit patient access to care at a time of heightened vulnerability.

Longitudinal Care Patterns and Utilization Among Patients With New-Onset Neck Pain by Initial Provider Specialty.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization patterns for patients with new-onset neck pain by initial provider specialty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Initial provider specialty has been associated with distinct care patterns among patients with acute back pain; little is known about care patterns among patients with acute neck pain. METHODS: De-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data were derived from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal health information on over 200M enrollees and patients representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. Patients had outpatient visits for new-onset neck pain from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019, classified by initial provider specialty. Utilization was assessed during a 180-day follow-up period, including subsequent neck pain visits, diagnostic imaging, and therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: The cohort included 770,326 patients with new-onset neck pain visits. The most common initial provider specialty was chiropractor (45.2%), followed by primary care (33.4%). Initial provider specialty was strongly associated with the receipt of subsequent neck pain visits with the same provider specialty. Rates and types of diagnostic imaging and therapeutic interventions during follow-up also varied widely by initial provider specialty. While uncommon after initial visits with chiropractors (≤2%), CT, or MRI scans occurred in over 30% of patients with initial visits with emergency physicians, orthopedists, or neurologists. Similarly, 6.8% and 3.4% of patients initially seen by orthopedists received therapeutic injections and major surgery, respectively, compared with 0.4% and 0.1% of patients initially seen by a chiropractor. CONCLUSION: Within a large national cohort, chiropractors were the initial provider for a plurality of patients with new-onset neck pain. Compared with patients initially seen by physician providers, patients treated initially by chiropractors or therapists received fewer and less costly imaging services and were less likely to receive invasive therapeutic interventions during follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Association Between Opioid Tapering and Subsequent Health Care Use, Medication Adherence, and Chronic Condition Control.

Importance: Opioid tapering has been associated with negative consequences, such as increased overdoses and mental health needs. Tapering could also alter use of health care services and worsen care of comorbid conditions through disruption in primary care. Objective: To evaluate tapering of stable long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and subsequent health care service use and chronic condition care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from July 9, 2020, to December 9, 2022. Data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains deidentified retrospective administrative claims data and linked electronic health record data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees, were used. Adults aged 18 years or older prescribed stable doses of LTOT at 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day during a 12-month baseline period were included, including subcohorts with hypertension or diabetes. Exposures: Opioid tapering, with 15% or more relative reduction in mean daily dose in 6 overlapping periods during 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Emergency department visits, hospitalizations, primary care and specialist visits, antihypertensive or antiglycemic medication adherence, and blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c levels during up to 12 months' follow-up. Covariates included sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health care use, and chronic condition control. Results: Among 113 604 patients (60 764 [53.5%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.1 [11.8] years) prescribed LTOT, 41 207 had hypertension and 23 335 had diabetes; in all cohorts, approximately half were women, and half were aged 50 to 65 years. In the overall cohort, tapering was associated with more emergency department visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21) and hospitalizations (aIRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20), with similar magnitude associations in the hypertension and diabetes subcohorts. Tapering was associated with fewer primary care visits in the overall cohort (aIRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96) and hypertension subcohort (aIRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). For the hypertension or diabetes subcohorts, tapering was associated with reduced medication adherence (hypertension: aIRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.59-0.62; diabetes: aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.67-0.71) and small increases in diastolic blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c level. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients prescribed LTOT, opioid tapering was associated with more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, fewer primary care visits, and reduced antihypertensive and antidiabetic medication adherence. These outcomes may represent unintended negative consequences of opioid tapering for policy makers and clinicians to consider.

Development and Testing of a Communication Intervention to Improve Chronic Pain Management in Primary Care: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Effective communication skills are essential for optimally managing chronic pain and opioids. This exploratory, sequential mixed methods study tested the effect of a novel framework designed to improve pain-related communication and outcomes. METHODS: Study 1 developed a novel 5-step framework for helping primary care clinicians discuss chronic pain and opioids with patients. Study 2 pilot tested an intervention for teaching this framework using standardized patient instructors-actors trained to portray patients and provide immediate clinician feedback-deployed during regular clinic hours. Primary care physicians were randomized to receive either the intervention or pain management recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Primary outcomes were pain-related interference at 2 months and clinician use of targeted communication skills (coded from transcripts of audio-recorded visits); secondary outcomes were pain intensity at 2 months, clinician self-efficacy for communicating about chronic pain, patient experience, and clinician-reported visit difficulty. RESULTS: We enrolled 47 primary care physicians from 2 academic teaching clinics and recorded visits with 48 patients taking opioids for chronic pain who had an appointment scheduled with an enrolled physician. The intervention was not associated with significant changes in primary or secondary outcomes other than clinician self-efficacy, which was significantly greater in the intervention group. DISCUSSION: This study developed a novel framework and intervention for teaching clinician pain-related communications skills. Although the intervention showed promise, more intensive or multicomponent interventions may be needed to have a significant impact on clinicians' pain-related communication and pain outcomes.

Long-term Risk of Overdose or Mental Health Crisis After Opioid Dose Tapering.

Importance: Patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy are increasingly undergoing dose tapering. Recent studies suggest that tapering is associated with short-term risks of substance misuse, overdose, and mental health crisis, although lower opioid dose could reduce risks of adverse events over the longer term. Objective: To assess the longer-term risks of overdose or mental health crisis associated with opioid dose tapering. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cohort study using an exposure-crossover analysis. Data were obtained from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which includes deidentified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment records for commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, representing a diverse mixture of ages, races, ethnicities, and geographical regions across the US. Participants were US adults who underwent opioid dose tapering from 2008 to 2017 after a 12-month baseline period of stable daily dosing of 50 morphine milligram equivalents or higher and who had at least 1 month of long-term follow-up during a postinduction period beginning 12 months after taper initiation. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to April 2022. Exposures: Opioid tapering, defined as 15% or more relative reduction in mean daily dose during any of 6 overlapping 60-day windows within a 7-month follow-up period after the stable baseline period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Emergency or hospital encounters for drug overdose or withdrawal and mental health crisis (depression, anxiety, or suicide attempt). Outcome counts were assessed in pretaper and postinduction periods (from 12 to 24 months after taper initiation). Results: The study included 21 515 tapering events among 19 377 patients with a mean (SD) of 9.1 (2.7) months of postinduction follow-up per event (median [IQR], 10 [8-11] months). Patients had a mean (SD) age of 56.9 (11.2) years, 11 581 (53.8%) were female, and 8217 (38.2%) had commercial insurance (vs Medicare Advantage). In conditional negative binomial regression analyses, adjusted incidence rate ratios for the postinduction period compared with the pretaper period were 1.57 (95% CI, 1.42-1.74) for overdose or withdrawal and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.35-1.71) for mental health crisis. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose, withdrawal, and mental health crisis extending up to 2 years after taper initiation.

Alcohol Screening During US Primary Care Visits, 2014-2016.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a significant health issue for the US population. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults 18 years or older for unhealthy alcohol use during primary care visits. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alcohol screening among ambulatory visits made by US adult primary care patients and identify characteristics predictive of alcohol screening. DESIGN: A series of cross-sectional analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data collected from 2014 to 2016 was used to examine US primary care providers' use of alcohol screening questionnaires and delivery of counseling on alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 19,213 visits made by patients aged 18 years or older to a US primary care physician trained in family medicine or internal medicine. MAIN MEASURES: Administration of a validated alcohol screening questionnaire and counseling/education on alcohol use. Variation in alcohol screening by patient demographic characteristics, reason for office visit, length of office visit, chronic medical conditions, evaluation by assigned primary care physician, new patient to practice, and region. KEY RESULTS: Alcohol screening with a validated questionnaire occurred during 2.6% (95% Cl: 0.9%, 4.3%) of visits. Alcohol counseling, provided either by the physician or by referral, was documented in 0.8% (95% Cl: 0.3%, 1.3%) of visits. Screening was significantly more likely if patients were seen by their assigned primary care physician (adjOR 4.38 (95% Cl: 1.41, 13.61)), a new patient to the practice (adjOR 4.18 (95% Cl: 2.30, 7.79)), or had several chronic medical conditions (adjOR 3.40 (95% Cl: 1.48, 7.78)). Patients' sex, race/ethnicity, age group, or length of appointment time was not associated with screening for unhealthy alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use using a validated questionnaire is uncommonly performed during US primary care visits. Interventions or incentives may be needed to increase uptake of USPSTF alcohol screening recommendations.

Patient, caregiver, and oncologist predictions of quality of life in advanced cancer: Accuracy and associations with end-of-life care and caregiver bereavement.

BACKGROUND: Informed treatment decision-making necessitates accurate prognostication, including predictions about quality of life. AIMS: We examined whether oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers accurately predict patients' future quality of life and whether these predictions are prospectively associated with end-of-life care and bereavement. MATERIALS & METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of clinical trial data. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 156), caregivers (n = 156), and oncologists (n = 38) predicted patient quality of life 3 months into the future. Patients subsequently rated their quality of life 3 months later. Medical record data documented chemotherapy and emergency department (ED)/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death (n = 79 decedents). Caregivers self-reported on depression, anxiety, grief, purpose, and regret 7-months post-mortem. In mixed-effects models, patient, caregiver, and oncologist quality-of-life predictions at study entry were used to predict end-of-life care and caregiver outcomes, controlling for patients' quality of life at 3-month follow-up, demographic and clinical characteristics, and nesting within oncologists. RESULTS: Caregivers (P < 0.0001) and oncologists (P = 0.001) predicted lower quality of life than what patients actually experienced. Among decedents, 24.0% received chemotherapy and 54.5% had an ED/inpatient visit. When caregivers' predictions were more negative, patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy (P = 0.028) or have an ED/inpatient visit (P = 0.033), and caregivers reported worse depression (P = 0.002), anxiety (P = 0.019), and grief (P = 0.028) and less purpose in life (P < 0.001) 7-months post-mortem. CONCLUSION: When caregivers have more negative expectations about patients' quality of life, patients receive less intensive end-of-life care, and caregivers report worse bereavement outcomes.

Association of Dose Tapering With Overdose or Mental Health Crisis Among Patients Prescribed Long-term Opioids.

Importance: Opioid-related mortality and national prescribing guidelines have led to tapering of doses among patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. There is limited information about risks related to tapering, including overdose and mental health crisis. Objective: To assess whether there are associations between opioid dose tapering and rates of overdose and mental health crisis among patients prescribed stable, long-term, higher-dose opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study using deidentified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from 2008 to 2019. Adults in the US prescribed stable higher doses (mean ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents/d) of opioids for a 12-month baseline period with at least 2 months of follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Exposures: Opioid tapering, defined as at least 15% relative reduction in mean daily dose during any of 6 overlapping 60-day windows within a 7-month follow-up period. Maximum monthly dose reduction velocity was computed during the same period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Emergency or hospital encounters for (1) drug overdose or withdrawal and (2) mental health crisis (depression, anxiety, suicide attempt) during up to 12 months of follow-up. Discrete time negative binomial regression models estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of outcomes as a function of tapering (vs no tapering) and dose reduction velocity. Results: The final cohort included 113 618 patients after 203 920 stable baseline periods. Among the patients who underwent dose tapering, 54.3% were women (vs 53.2% among those who did not undergo dose tapering), the mean age was 57.7 years (vs 58.3 years), and 38.8% were commercially insured (vs 41.9%). Posttapering patient periods were associated with an adjusted incidence rate of 9.3 overdose events per 100 person-years compared with 5.5 events per 100 person-years in nontapered periods (adjusted incidence rate difference, 3.8 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 3.0-4.6]; aIRR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.53-1.85]). Tapering was associated with an adjusted incidence rate of 7.6 mental health crisis events per 100 person-years compared with 3.3 events per 100 person-years among nontapered periods (adjusted incidence rate difference, 4.3 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 3.2-5.3]; aIRR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.96-2.65]). Increasing maximum monthly dose reduction velocity by 10% was associated with an aIRR of 1.09 for overdose (95% CI, 1.07-1.11) and of 1.18 for mental health crisis (95% CI, 1.14-1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients prescribed stable, long-term, higher-dose opioid therapy, tapering events were significantly associated with increased risk of overdose and mental health crisis. Although these findings raise questions about potential harms of tapering, interpretation is limited by the observational study design.

Longitudinal Dose Trajectory Among Patients Tapering Long-Term Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dose trajectory of new opioid tapers and estimate the percentage of patients with sustained tapers at long-term follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse® which includes de-identified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment records for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees, representing a diverse mixture of ages, ethnicities, and geographical regions across the United States. SUBJECTS: Patients prescribed stable, higher-dose opioids for ≥12 months from 2008 to 2018. METHODS: Tapering was defined as ≥15% relative reduction in average MME/day during any of six overlapping 60-day periods in the initial 7 months of follow-up after the period of stable baseline dosing. Average monthly dose was ascertained during consecutive 60-day periods up to 16 months of follow-up. Linear regression estimated the geometric mean relative dose by tapering status and follow-up duration. Poisson regression estimated the percentage of tapered patients with sustained dose reductions at follow-up and patient-level predictors of failing to sustain tapers. RESULTS: The sample included 113,618 patients with 203,920 periods of stable baseline dosing (mean follow-up = 13.7 months). Tapering was initiated during 37,170 follow-up periods (18.2%). After taper initiation, patients had a substantial initial mean dose reduction (geometric mean relative dose .73 [95% CI: .72-.74]) that was sustained through 16 months of follow-up; at which point, 69.8% (95% CI: 69.1%-70.4%) of patients who initiated tapers had a relative dose reduction ≥15%, and 14.2% (95% CI: 13.7%-14.7%) had discontinued opioids. Failure to sustain tapers was significantly less likely among patients with overdose events during follow-up (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: .56 [95% CI: .48-.67]) and during more recent years (aIRR: .93 per year after 2008 [95% CI: .92-.94]). CONCLUSIONS: In an insured and Medicare Advantage population, over two-thirds of patients who initiated opioid dose tapering sustained long-term dose reductions, and the likelihood of sustaining tapers increased substantially from 2008 to 2018.

Watchful waiting as a strategy to reduce low-value spinal imaging: study protocol for a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute low back pain frequently request diagnostic imaging, and clinicians feel pressure to acquiesce to such requests to sustain patient trust and satisfaction. Spinal imaging in patients with acute low back pain poses risks from diagnostic evaluation of false-positive findings, patient labeling and anxiety, and unnecessary treatment (including spinal surgery). Watchful waiting advice has been an effective strategy to reduce some low-value treatments, and some evidence suggests a watchful waiting approach would be acceptable to many patients requesting diagnostic tests. METHODS: We will use key informant interviews of clinicians and focus groups with primary care patients to refine a theory-informed standardized patient-based intervention designed to teach clinicians how to advise watchful waiting when patients request low-value spinal imaging for low back pain. We will test the effectiveness of the intervention in a randomized clinical trial. We will recruit 8-10 primary care and urgent care clinics (~ 55 clinicians) in Sacramento, CA; clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to intervention and control groups. Over a 3- to 6-month period, clinicians in the intervention group will receive 3 visits with standardized patient instructors (SPIs) portraying patients with acute back pain; SPIs will instruct clinicians in a three-step model emphasizing establishing trust, empathic communication, and negotiation of a watchful waiting approach. Control physicians will receive no intervention. The primary outcome is the post-intervention rate of spinal imaging among actual patients with acute back pain seen by the clinicians adjusted for rate of imaging during a baseline period. Secondary outcomes are use of targeted communication techniques during a follow-up visit with an SP, clinician self-reported use of watchful waiting with actual low back pain patients, post-intervention rates of diagnostic imaging for other musculoskeletal pain syndromes (to test for generalization of intervention effects beyond back pain), and patient trust and satisfaction with physicians. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether standardized patient instructors can help clinicians develop skill in negotiating a watchful waiting approach with patients with acute low back pain, thereby reducing rates of low-value spinal imaging. The trial will also examine the possibility that intervention effects generalize to other diagnostic tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255199 . Registered on January 20, 2020.

Reliability of Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Academic Family Medicine Meetings.

PURPOSE: To assess the reliability of peer review of abstracts submitted to academic family medicine meetings in North America. METHODS: We analyzed reviewer ratings of abstracts submitted: 1) as oral presentations to the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) meeting from 2016 to 2019, as well as 2019 poster session or workshop submissions; and 2) in 12 categories to the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) Spring 2018 meeting. In each category and year, we used a multi-level mixed model to estimate the abstract-level intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the reliability of initial review (using the abstract-level ICC and the number of reviewers per abstract). RESULTS: We analyzed review data for 1554 NAPCRG oral presentation abstracts, 418 NAPCRG poster or workshop abstracts, and 1145 STFM abstracts. Across all years, abstract-level ICCs for NAPCRG oral presentations were below 0.20 (range, 0.10 in 2019 to 0.18 in 2016) and were even lower for posters and workshops (range, 0.00-0.10). After accounting for the number of reviewers per abstract, reliabilities of initial review for NAPCRG oral presentations ranged from 0.24 in 2019 to 0.30 in 2016 and 0.00 to 0.18 for posters and workshops in 2019. Across 12 STFM submission categories, the median abstract-level ICC was 0.21 (range, 0.12-0.50) and the median reliability was 0.42 (range, 0.25-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: For abstracts submitted to North American academic family medicine meetings, inter-reviewer agreement is often low, compromising initial review reliability. For many submission categories, program committees should supplement initial review with independent postreview assessments.

When Physicians Say No: Predictors of Request Denial and Subsequent Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Physician denial of patient requests is associated with lower patient satisfaction. Our objective was to explore factors that influence physician request denial and patient satisfaction after request denial. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of 1141 adult patients seen during 1319 outpatient visits with 56 primary care physicians. We measured patients' postvisit self-report of requests and request fulfillment, visit satisfaction, sociodemographics, health status, symptom burden, life satisfaction, medical skepticism, and whether patients saw their usual physician and a faculty or resident physician. We used mixed-effects regression analyses to identify predictors of request denial and visit satisfaction among patients who had a request denied. RESULTS: Patients made at least 1 request at 867 visits (65.7%) with at least 1 denied request reported at 182 visits (21.0%). Patients who saw their usual physician were less likely to report a request denial (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88), and patients with the highest symptom burden (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.38 to 3.55) or greater medical skepticism (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.78) were more likely to report request denials. After request denials, patients seeing their usual physicians reported significantly greater visit satisfaction compared with not seeing their usual physician (adjusted percentile rank in visit satisfaction: 12.4%; 95% CI, 3.5% to 21.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one fifth of visits in primary care have a denied request. Having an office visit with one's usual physician is associated with reduced likelihood of request denial and may mitigate the adverse impacts of request denial on patient visit satisfaction.

Trends and Rapidity of Dose Tapering Among Patients Prescribed Long-term Opioid Therapy, 2008-2017.

Importance: A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prescribing guideline cautioned against higher-dose long-term opioid therapy and recommended tapering daily opioid doses by approximately 10% per week if the risks outweigh the benefits. Warnings have since appeared regarding potential hazards of rapid opioid tapering. Objectives: To characterize US trends in opioid dose tapering among patients prescribed long-term opioids from 2008 to 2017 and identify patient-level variables associated with tapering and a more rapid rate of tapering. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment records for 100 031 commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, representing a diverse mixture of ages, races/ethnicities, and geographical regions across the United States. Adults with stable, higher-dosage (mean, ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]/d) opioid prescriptions for a 12-month baseline period and 2 or more months of follow-up from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017, were included in the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Tapering was defined as 15% or more relative reduction in mean daily MME during any of 6 overlapping 60-day windows within a 7-month follow-up period. The rate of tapering was computed as the maximum monthly percentage dose reduction. Results: Among the 100 031 participants (53 452 [53.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.6 [11.8] years), from 2008 to 2015, the age- and sex-standardized percentage of patients tapering daily opioid doses increased from 10.5% to 13.7% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] per year, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.05-1.06]) before increasing to 16.2% in 2016 and 22.4% in 2017 (aIRR in 2016-2017 vs 2008-2015, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.16-1.25]). Patient-level covariates associated with tapering included female sex (aIRR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.10-1.15]) and higher baseline dose (aIRR for ≥300 MMEs/d vs 50-89 MMEs/d, 2.57 [95% CI, 2.48-2.65]). Among patients tapering daily opioid doses, the mean (SD) maximum dose reduction was 27.6% (17.0%) per month, and 18.8% of patients had a maximum tapering rate exceeding 40% per month (ie, faster than 10% per week). More rapid dose reduction was associated with 2016-2017 vs 2008-2015 (adjusted difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 0.8%-2.1%]) and higher baseline dose (adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 2.2%-3.3%] for 90-149 vs 50-89 MMEs/d). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients using long-term opioid therapy are increasingly undergoing dose tapering, particularly women and those prescribed higher doses; in addition, dose tapering has become more common since 2016. Many patients undergoing tapering reduce daily doses at a rapid maximum rate.

What Is the AAFP's Political Action Committee Fighting For?

In this essay, the author analyzes contributions from the American Academy of Family Physician's (AAFP's) political action committee (FamMedPAC) during the 2018 election cycle. The author highlights discrepancies between explicit AAFP legislative priorities and the voting records and public positions of Congressional members who received FamMedPAC support during the election cycle. The analysis raises questions about FamMedPAC's decision-making process for allocating support to candidates. The author posits that consistency between AAFP positions and those of candidates receiving FamMedPAC contributions is essential to preserve both public trust in family physicians and family physicians' trust in the AAFP.

Effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care Communication Intervention on Personal Caregiver Experiences of Cancer Care and Bereavement Outcomes.

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.

Patient Satisfaction with Clinicians and Short-Term Mortality in a US National Sample: the Roles of Morbidity and Gender.

BACKGROUND: In a prior study, we found patient satisfaction was associated with mortality. However, that study included few deaths, yielding wide confidence intervals, was criticized for possible morbidity under-adjustment, and lacked power to explore sociodemographic moderation. OBJECTIVE: To revisit the satisfaction-mortality association in a larger national sample, allowing more precise risk estimates, sequential morbidity adjustment, and exploration of sociodemographic moderation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 2000-2015 Adult Medical Expenditures Panel Surveys (MEPS) respondents (N = 92,952), each enrolled for 2 consecutive years. MAIN MEASURES: We used five Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS) items to assess patients' year 1 satisfaction with their clinicians. Death during the 2 years of MEPS participation was determined by proxy report. We modeled the satisfaction-mortality association in sequential regressions: model 1 included sociodemographics, model 2 added health status (approximating recommended CAHPS adjustment), and model 3 added smoking status, disease burden, and healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Satisfaction was not associated with mortality in model 1. In model 2, higher satisfaction was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratios [95% CIs] for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (top) quartiles vs. 1st quartile: 1.28 (1.01, 1.62), P = 0.04; 1.43 (1.12, 1.82), P = 0.004; and 1.57 (1.25, 1.98), P < 0.001, respectively). The associations were not attenuated in model 3. There was a significant interaction between gender and satisfaction (F[3, 443] = 3.62, P = 0.01). The association between satisfaction and mortality was significant in women only, such that their mortality advantage over men was eliminated in the highest satisfaction quartile. CONCLUSIONS: The association of higher patient satisfaction with clinicians with higher short-term mortality was evident only after CAHPS-recommended adjustment, was not attenuated by further morbidity adjustment, and was evident in women but not men. The findings suggest that characteristics among women who are more satisfied with their clinicians may be associated with increased mortality risk.

Prognostic accuracy of patients, caregivers, and oncologists in advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: In caring for patients with advanced cancer, accurate estimation of survival is important for clinical decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of 2-year survival probabilities estimated by oncologists, patients, and caregivers and to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with prognostic accuracy. METHODS: This was a secondary observational analysis of data obtained from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants included 38 oncologists, 263 patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer, and 193 of their caregivers from clinics in Sacramento and Western New York. Discrimination within each group (oncologists, patients, caregivers) was evaluated using the C statistic, whereas calibration was assessed by comparing observed to predicted 2-year mortality using the chi-square statistic. RESULTS: The median survival from study entry was 18 months, and 41.8% of patients survived for 2 years. C statistics for oncologists, patients, and caregivers were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86), 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.68), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), respectively; oncologists' predictions were better than the predictions of both patients (P = .001) and caregivers (P = .03). Oncologists also had superior calibration: their predictions of 2-year survival were similar to actual survival (P = .17), whereas patients' (P = .0001) and caregivers' (P = .003) predictions diverged significantly from actual survival. Although most oncologists' predictions were classified as realistic (62.0%), approximately one-half of patients' and caregivers' predictions (50.0% and 46.0%, respectively) were unduly optimistic. Among patients, nonwhite race and higher levels of social well-being predicted undue optimism (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with oncologists, patients and caregivers displayed inferior prognostic discrimination, and their predictions were poorly calibrated, primarily because of overoptimism.