Unlimited Discretion: How Unchecked Bureaucratic Discretion Can Threaten Abortion Availability.

Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.

Assessing psychosocial costs: Ohio patients' experiences seeking abortion care.

OBJECTIVES: Existing research has not thoroughly characterized the psychosocial costs associated with seeking abortion care in restrictive states. Our study seeks to fill this gap by analyzing the accounts of Ohio abortion patients from 2018 to 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Using inductive and deductive approaches, we analyzed semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews with 41 Ohio residents who obtained abortion care from one of three clinics in Ohio or Pennsylvania. RESULTS: Ohioans seeking abortion care often experienced fear of judgment, interpersonal strain, and stress as a result of efforts to overcome pre-Dobbs financial, geographic, and timing challenges. Those who needed financial assistance or traveled more than an hour generally reported greater exposure to psychosocial costs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study incurred a complex set of psychosocial costs. Psychosocial costs often resulted from, or were exacerbated by, the financial, geographic, and time-sensitive burdens that patients experienced seeking care. IMPLICATIONS: The psychosocial costs incurred by patients seeking abortion care may be exacerbated in restrictive contexts, especially those who do not have access to insurance coverage for care. Psychosocial costs associated with care seeking are likely to increase as states implement more severe restrictions post-Dobbs. To fully understand abortion costs, researchers must examine costs comprehensively, including both financial and psychosocial costs.

Selecting an Abortion Clinic: The Role of Social Myths and Risk Perception in Seeking Abortion Care.

Recent shifts in the abortion provision landscape have generated increased concern about how people find abortion care as regulations make abortion less accessible and clinics close. Few studies examine the reasons that people select particular facilities in such constrained contexts. Drawing from interviews with 41 Ohio residents, we find that people's clinic selections are influenced by the risks they associate with abortion care. Participants' strategies for selecting an abortion clinic included: drawing on previous experience with clinics, consulting others online, discerning reputation through name recognition and clinic type, and considering location, especially perceptions about place (privacy, legality, safety). We argue that social myths inform the risks people anticipate when seeking health care facilities, shaping care seeking in ways that are both abortion-specific and more general. These findings can also inform research in other health care contexts where patients increasingly find their options constrained by rising costs, consolidation, and facility closure.

Communication between nurse care managers and patients who take opioids for chronic pain: Strategies for exploring aberrant behavior.

OBJECTIVE: One approach to potential misuse of prescription opioids by patients with chronic pain is team-based collaborative primary care, with primary care visits complemented by frequent visits with nurse care managers (NCMs) specializing in addiction care. However, little is known about the communication strategies NCMs employ in these visits. This study aimed to describe strategies NCMs used with patients when discussing aberrancies encountered during opioid monitoring. DESIGN: Observational study of NCM-patient interactions. Patients' primary care providers had been randomized to the treatment arm of a study evaluating an intervention, of which NCM visits were part, to change opioid prescribing patterns. The overall intervention was found to be successful. SETTING: Four primary care settings. PARTICIPANTS: Two NCMs and 41 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Forty one interactions between two NCMs and 41 unique patients were directly observed, and the detailed field notes coded for strategies using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes describing strategies that NCMs use to navigate aberrant patient behavior emerged: (1) NCM develops therapeutic relationship with patient; (2) NCM encourages adherence to monitoring strategies by contextualizing intensive opioid management for patient; (3) NCM inquires into discrepancies between patient's narrative and objective data to further understand aberrancy; (4) NCM assesses patient's medication use and pain to obtain more information about aberrancy and determine risk for opioid misuse; and (5) NCM educates patient and makes recommendations to guide appropriate medication use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a potential model for the replication of intensive care management strategies utilizing NCMs in primary care.

A Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Primary Care Provider Adherence to Chronic Opioid Therapy Guidelines and Reduce Opioid Misuse: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse is a significant public health problem as well as a patient safety concern. Primary care providers (PCPs) are the leading prescribers of opioids for chronic pain, yet few PCPs follow standard practice guidelines regarding assessment and monitoring. This cluster randomized controlled trial will determine whether four implementation strategies; nurse care management, use of a patient registry, academic detailing, and electronic tools, will increase PCP adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and reduce opioid misuse among patients, relative to electronic tools alone. The implementation strategies and intervention content are based on the chronic care model. METHODS: We include 53 PCPs from three Boston-area community health centers and one urban safety-net hospital-based primary care practice who have at least four patients meeting the following inclusion criteria: 1) age≥18; 2) one or more completed visits to the primary care practice in the past year; 3) long-term opioid treatment defined as three or more opioid prescriptions written at least 21days apart within 6months and 4) an inpatient or outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis for musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain. We consider PCPs to be study subjects, and obtained a waiver of informed consent for patients because the study is promoting an established standard of care. We enrolled participants (PCPs) from December 2012 through March 2015. PCPs were randomized to receive the intervention, which includes four components: 1) nurse care management, 2) use of a patient registry, 3) academic detailing, and 4) electronic tools, or a control condition, which includes only the use of the electronic tools. The intervention PCPs receive the services of a nurse-managed registry for planning individual patient care and conducting population-based care for patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. In academic detailing visits, trained co-investigators provide intervention PCPs with individualized education to change prescribing practice. Electronic tools, located on a web site external to the EMR, www.mytopcare.org, include validated instruments to assess patient status, and management resources to facilitate PCP adherence to suggested monitoring. Electronic tools are available to PCPs in both study arms. The primary outcomes are PCP adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and patient opioid misuse. Secondary outcomes include measures of substance abuse, possible opioid diversion, and level of opioid risk among patients. We will follow PCPs and their estimated 1200 chronic pain patients for 1year after study enrollment. To determine whether the intervention condition achieves greater adherence to guidelines and reduced opioid misuse after 1year compared to the control condition, we will compare the baseline and follow-up measures of the individual patients, stratifying by intervention status and noting differences that are statistically significant at the p=0.05 level. Analyses will be based on intent-to-treat. RESULTS: Randomization resulted in groups with similar baseline characteristics. The ages of PCPs are evenly distributed, with inclusion of both PCPs who have recently completed training and those who have been in practice for more than 20years. Two-thirds of enrolled PCPs are women, and one-third are non-white. DISCUSSION: The study will determine the impact of this multicomponent intervention on improving PCP adherence to guidelines and reducing opioid misuse among patients.

Prenatal substance exposure: What predicts behavioral resilience by early adolescence?

Understanding behavioral resilience among at-risk adolescents may guide public policy decisions and future programs. We examined factors predicting behavioral resilience following intrauterine substance exposure in a prospective longitudinal birth-cohort study of 136 early adolescents (ages 12.4-15.9 years) at risk for poor behavioral outcomes. We defined behavioral resilience as a composite measure of lack of early substance use initiation (before age 14), lack of risky sexual behavior, or lack of delinquency. Intrauterine substance exposures included in this analysis were cocaine, tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. We recruited participants from Boston Medical Center as mother-infant dyads between 1990 and 1993. The majority of the sample was African American/Caribbean (88%) and 49% female. In bivariate analyses, none and lower intrauterine cocaine exposure level predicted resilience compared with higher cocaine exposure, but this effect was not found in an adjusted model. Instead, strict caregiver supervision (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 6.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.90, 19.00], p = .002), lower violence exposure (AOR = 4.07, 95% CI [1.77, 9.38], p < .001), and absence of intrauterine tobacco exposure (AOR = 3.71, 95% CI [1.28, 10.74], p = .02) predicted behavioral resilience. In conclusion, caregiver supervision in early adolescence, lower violence exposure in childhood, and lack of intrauterine tobacco exposure predicted behavioral resilience among a cohort of early adolescents with significant social and environmental risk. Future interventions should work to enhance parental supervision as a way to mitigate the effects of adversity on high-risk groups of adolescents. (PsycINFO Database Record

Variability in opioid prescription monitoring and evidence of aberrant medication taking behaviors in urban safety-net clinics.

Little is known about variability in primary care providers' (PCPs) adherence to opioid-monitoring guidelines for patients. We examined variability of adherence to monitoring guidelines among PCPs and ascertained the relationship between PCP adherence and opioid misuse by their patients. We included primary care patients receiving long-term opioids (≥3 prescriptions within 6 months) for chronic noncancer pain and PCPs with ≥4 eligible patients. We examined guideline adherence using: (1) electronic health record documentation of opioid treatment agreement, (2) past-year urine drug screen (UDS), and (3) evidence of misuse through early refills (≥2 opioid prescriptions written 7-25 days after the previous prescription). Covariates included morphine equivalent daily opioid medication dose (MED, >50 mg/d vs ≤50mg/d). Multilevel regression models assessed variability among PCPs, and odds ratios examined associations among patient-level binary outcomes. Sixty-seven PCPs prescribed opioids to 1546 patients. Significant variability was found between PCPs in use of agreement (variance = 1.27, P < 0.001), UDS (variance = 1.75, P < 0.001), and early refills (variance = 0.29, P = 0.002). Primary care providers had a mean of 48% of patients with agreement (range, 9%-84%), 56% with ≥1 UDS (range, 7%-91%) and 36% with early refills (range, 19%-60%). High MED among patients was associated with increased odds of agreement (1.93, confidence interval [CI], 1.53-2.44), UDS (2.65, CI: 2.06-3.41), and early refill (2.92, CI: 2.30-3.70). Primary care providers varied significantly in adherence to opioid prescription guidelines. Increased patient risk was associated with increased monitoring and with greater misuse. Future work should study system-level interventions to enable clinical monitoring and support opioid guideline adherence.

Adherence to prescription opioid monitoring guidelines among residents and attending physicians in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines and potential opioid misuse in patients of resident vs attending physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Large primary care practice at a safety net hospital in New England. SUBJECTS: Patients 18-89 years old, with at least one visit to the primary care clinic within the past year and were prescribed long-term opioid treatment for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record by a trained data analyst through a clinical data warehouse. The primary outcomes were adherence to any one of two American Pain Society Guidelines: (1) documentation of at least one opioid agreement (contract) ever and (2) any urine drug testing in the past year, and evidence of potential prescription misuse defined as ≥2 early refills. We employed logistic regression analysis to assess whether patients' physician status predicts guideline adherence and/or potential opioid misuse. RESULTS: Similar proportions of resident and attending patients had a controlled substance agreement (45.1% of resident patients vs. 42.4% of attending patient, P = 0.47) or urine drug testing (58.6% of resident patients vs. 63.6% of attending patients, P = 0.16). Resident patients were more likely to have two or more early refills in the past year relative to attending patients (42.8% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.004). In the adjusted regression analysis, resident patients were more likely to receive early refills (odds ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.26-2.62) than attending patients. CONCLUSIONS: With some variability, residents and attending physicians were only partly compliant with national guidelines. Residents were more likely to manage patients with a higher likelihood of opioid misuse.

Era of faster FDA drug approval has also seen increased black-box warnings and market withdrawals.

After approval, many prescription medications that patients rely on subsequently receive new black-box warnings or are withdrawn from the market because of safety concerns. We examined whether the frequency of these safety problems has increased since 1992, when the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, legislation designed to accelerate the drug approval process at the Food and Drug Administration, was passed. We found that drugs approved after the act's passage were more likely to receive a new black-box warning or be withdrawn than drugs approved before its passage (26.7 per 100.0 drugs versus 21.2 per 100.0 drugs at up to sixteen years of follow-up). We could not establish causality, however. Our findings suggest the need for reforms to reduce patients' exposure to unsafe drugs, such as a statement or symbol in the labeling, medication guides for patients, and marketing materials indicating that a drug was approved only recently.