High-risk and Long-term Opioid Prescribing to Military Spouses in the Millennium Cohort Family Study.

INTRODUCTION: The use and misuse of opioids by active service members has been examined in several studies, but little is known about their spouses' opioid use. This study estimates the number of military spouses who received high-risk or long-term opioid prescriptions between 2010 and 2014, and addresses how the Military Health System can help prevent risky prescribing in order to improve military force readiness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data from the Millennium Cohort Family Study, a nationwide survey of 9,872 spouses of service members with 2 to 5 years of military service, augmented with information from the military's Pharmacy Data Transaction Service about prescriptions for controlled drugs dispensed to these service members' spouses. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of opioid prescribing indicative of long-term use (≥60 day supply or at least one extended-release opioid prescription in any 3-month period) and, separately, high-risk use (daily dosage of ≥90 morphine mg equivalent or total dosage of ≥8,190 morphine mg equivalent, or prescriptions from more than three pharmacies, or concurrent prescriptions). For each of these dependent variables, we conducted bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression models using information about spouses' physical health, sociodemographic characteristics, substance use behaviors, perceived social support, and stresses associated with military stress, among others. Informed consent, including consent to link survey responses to medical and personnel records, was obtained from all participants. The Naval Health Research Center's Institutional Review Board and the Office of Management and Budget approved the study. RESULTS: Spouses were predominantly female (86%), had not served in the military themselves (79%), and were spouses of enlisted (91%) active duty (86%) service members. Almost half (47.6%) of spouses obtained at least one opioid prescription during the 2-year observation window, and 8.5% had received opioid prescriptions that posed risk to their health. About 7% met the criteria for receipt of high-risk opioid prescriptions, 3% obtained opioids from three or more pharmacies during a 3-month period, and 4% of spouses who received any opioids received both long-term and high-risk prescriptions. Adverse childhood experiences, physical pain, and lack of social support were associated with increased odds of obtaining high-risk opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 48% of military spouses had used Military Health System insurance to fill at least one opioid prescription during the 2-year observation period. The Department of Defense has taken measures to minimize high-risk opioid prescribing, including passing prescribing guidelines in 2017, establishing the controlled drug management analysis reporting tool, establishing a pain management education and training program, and more. These efforts should continue to expand as reducing the numbers of service members and spouses at risk for adverse events may be effective in reducing opioid misuse and improve the overall health and safety of military spouses and thus, the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces.

An Experimental Test of the Effectiveness of Unsolicited Reporting by a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program in Reducing Inappropriate Acquisition of Opioids.

OBJECTIVES: This research looked at whether notifying prescribers and pharmacies about patients who use multiple providers to obtain opioids reduces their prescribing activity (including use of multiple providers, numbers of opioid prescriptions, or amounts of opioids obtained). DESIGN: Nevada's prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) identified patients using multiple providers to obtain opioids and assigned them alternately to an intervention or control group. Controlled substance prescription histories were sent only to intervention patients' providers. Subsequent opioid purchases by patients in both groups were compared. SETTING: All pharmacies and dispensers in the state are required to report every prescription for Schedule II-IV opioids dispensed to the PDMP. SUBJECTS: All patients receiving opioids from more than four different Nevada prescribers and more than four pharmacies during the previous six months assigned to the intervention (N = 436) or control group (N = 441). METHODS: We used ordinary least squares regression to estimate notification effects on each outcome, accounting for preexisting differences among groups. RESULTS: Providers receiving unsolicited notices were 13% less likely to continue prescribing to patients than providers not notified. Eighty-four percent of the intervention patients' prescribers discontinued prescribing to them after assignment, compared with 80.5% of the control group's prescribers-who were not notified. Because patients in both groups found other prescribers to replace discontinued prescribers, notification had at most a small effect on patients' use of multiple providers, numbers of opioid prescriptions, or amounts of opioids purchased. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring prescribers to solicit patients' prescription histories is likely to be a more effective use of PDMP resources than proactive notification.

The ecology of prescription opioid abuse in the USA: geographic variation in patients' use of multiple prescribers ("doctor shopping").

PURPOSE: This study estimates the prevalence in US counties of opioid patients who use large numbers of prescribers, the amounts of opioids they obtain, and the extent to which their prevalence is predicted by ecological attributes of counties, including general medical exposure to opioids. METHODS: Finite mixture models were used to estimate the size of an outlier subpopulation of patients with suspiciously large numbers of prescribers (probable doctor shoppers), using a sample of 146 million opioid prescriptions dispensed during 2008. Ordinary least squares regression models of county-level shopper rates included independent variables measuring ecological attributes of counties, including rates of patients prescribed opioids, socioeconomic characteristics of the resident population, supply of physicians, and measures of healthcare service utilization. RESULTS: The prevalence of shoppers varied widely by county, with rates ranging between 0.6 and 2.5 per 1000 residents. Shopper prevalence was strongly correlated with opioid prescribing for the general population, accounting for 30% of observed county variation in shopper prevalence, after adjusting for physician supply, emergency department visits, in-patient hospital days, poverty rates, percent of county residents living in urban areas, and racial/ethnic composition of resident populations. Approximately 30% of shoppers obtained prescriptions in multiple states. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between prevalence of doctor shoppers and opioid patients in a county could indicate either that easy access to legitimate medical treatment raises the risk of abuse or that drug abusers take advantage of greater opportunities in places where access is easy. Approaches to preventing excessive use of different prescribers are discussed.

Geographic variation and disparity in stimulant treatment of adults and children in the United States in 2008.

OBJECTIVE This study estimated the prevalence of stimulant treatment among both adults and children at national, state, and county levels during 2008 and explored explanations for wide variations in treatment prevalence. METHODS Records of 24.1 million stimulant prescriptions dispensed to insured and uninsured patients were obtained from approximately 76% of U.S. retail pharmacies. Data were weighted to estimate treatment prevalence on March 15, 2008, for all U.S. states and counties. Regression models were used to estimate the associations among the counties' treatment rates and the characteristics of the counties and their resident populations. RESULTS An estimated 2.5% of children ≤ 17 years of age (3.5% of males and 1.5% of females) and .6% of persons >17 years of age were being treated with stimulants in March 2008. Treatment prevalence among states varied widely, and variation among counties was even wider. Two-thirds of the variation among counties in treatment prevalence was associated with supply of physicians, socioeconomic composition of the population, and, among children, funding for special education. Rates of children and adults in treatment were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS Wide variations in treatment prevalence signal disparities between established clinical practice guidelines and actual practice, especially for primary care, where most patients prescribed stimulants are managed. Better education and training for physicians may improve identification and treatment, thereby reducing disparities in care for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other disabling conditions.

Estimating the prevalence of opioid diversion by "doctor shoppers" in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Abuse of prescription opioid analgesics is a serious threat to public health, resulting in rising numbers of overdose deaths and admissions to emergency departments and treatment facilities. Absent adequate patient information systems, "doctor shopping" patients can obtain multiple opioid prescriptions for nonmedical use from different unknowing physicians. Our study estimates the prevalence of doctor shopping in the US and the amounts and types of opioids involved. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The sample included records for 146.1 million opioid prescriptions dispensed during 2008 by 76% of US retail pharmacies. Prescriptions were linked to unique patients and weighted to estimate all prescriptions and patients in the nation. Finite mixture models were used to estimate different latent patient populations having different patterns of using prescribers. On average, patients in the extreme outlying population (0.7% of purchasers), presumed to be doctor shoppers, obtained 32 opioid prescriptions from 10 different prescribers. They bought 1.9% of all opioid prescriptions, constituting 4% of weighed amounts dispensed. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not provide information to make a clinical diagnosis of individuals. Very few of these patients can be classified with certainty as diverting drugs for nonmedical purposes. However, even patients with legitimate medical need for opioids who use large numbers of prescribers may signal dangerously uncoordinated care. To close the information gap that makes doctor shopping and uncoordinated care possible, states have created prescription drug monitoring programs to collect records of scheduled drugs dispensed, but the majority of physicians do not access this information. To facilitate use by busy practitioners, most monitoring programs should improve access and response time, scan prescription data to flag suspicious purchasing patterns and alert physicians and pharmacists. Physicians could also prevent doctor shopping by adopting procedures to screen new patients for their risk of abuse and to monitor patients' adherence to prescribed treatments.

Geographic variation in opioid prescribing in the U.S.

UNLABELLED: Estimates of geographic variation among states and counties in the prevalence of opioid prescribing are developed using data from a large (135 million) representative national sample of opioid prescriptions dispensed during 2008 by 37,000 retail pharmacies. Statistical analyses are used to estimate the extent to which county variation is explained by characteristics of resident populations, their healthcare utilization, proxy measures of morbidity, availability of healthcare resources, and prescription monitoring laws. Geographic variation in prevalence of prescribed opioids is large, greater than the variation observed for other healthcare services. Counties having the highest prescribing rates for opioids were disproportionately located in Appalachia and in southern and western states. The number of available physicians was by far the strongest predictor of amounts prescribed, but only one-third of county variation is explained by the combination of all measured factors. Wide variation in prescribing opioids reflects weak consensus regarding the appropriate use of opioids for treating pain, especially chronic noncancer pain. Patients' demands for treatment have increased, more potent opioids have become available, an epidemic of abuse has emerged, and calls for increased government regulation are growing. Greater guidance, education, and training in opioid prescribing are needed for clinicians to support appropriate prescribing practices. PERSPECTIVE: Wide geographic variation that does not reflect differences in the prevalence of injuries, surgeries, or conditions requiring analgesics raises questions about opioid prescribing practices. Low prescription rates may indicate undertreatment, while high rates may indicate overprescribing and insufficient attention to risks of misuse.