Abstract
Mixed-methods study to evaluate implementation, enforcement, and outcomes of u.s. state laws intended to curb high-risk opioid prescribing
APHA 2021 Annual Meeting and Expo
Methods: We studied 16 U.S. states that implemented one of the laws of interest (4 states with each type of law: PDMP enrollment, PDMP query, pill mill, prescribing cap) and no confounding laws in a four-year period, two years pre/post law. We used difference-in-differences and augmented synthetic control analyses of Marketscan commercial claims data, which includes over 40 million U.S. adults, to conduct single-state analyses: each intervention state had its own study period and comparison group. Outcomes included opioid prescribing patterns, opioid overdose, and guideline-concordant non-opioid chronic pain treatment. We triangulated quantitative results with in-depth qualitative case studies (N=114 key informant interviews) of the 16 intervention states.
Results: Mandatory PDMP enrollment and query laws had no effects on outcomes. Pill mill laws were associated with 1-2 percentage-point reductions in high-dose (>90 MME) prescribing (p<0.05). Opioid prescribing cap laws were associated with small but statistically significant 2-3 percentage-point decreases in the proportion of people with chronic pain receiving opioid prescriptions and comparably sized increases in non-opioid therapies. None of the laws were associated with changes in opioid overdose. Qualitative results suggested that states lack systems to enforce opioid prescribing laws.
Conclusions: This study used a rigorous design-based strategy to isolate the independent effects of laws on outcomes. Findings suggest that state opioid prescribing laws, as implemented, have had minimal effects on opioid prescribing, overdose, and non-opioid chronic pain treatment.
Public health or related public policy