Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults

Impact of Opioid Dose Reductions on Patient-Reported Mental Health and Suicide-Related Behavior and Relationship to Patient Choice in Tapering Decisions

Mental health and suicide-related harms resulting from prescription opioid tapering are poorly documented and understood. Six health systems contributed opioid prescribing data from January 2016 to April 2020. Patients 18 to 70 years old with evidence of opioid tapering participated in semi-structured interviews. Individuals who experienced suicide attempts were oversampled. Family members of suicide decedents who had experienced opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Patients were 68% female, 80% White, and 15% Hispanic, mean age 58. All family members were female spouses of White, non-Hispanic male decedents. Among the subgroup (n = 60) who experienced a documented suicide attempt, reported experiencing suicidal ideation during tapering, or were family members of suicide decedents, 40% reported that opioid tapering exacerbated previously recognized mental health issues, and 25% reported that tapering triggered new-onset mental health concerns. Among participants with suicide behavior, 47% directly attributed it to opioid tapering. Common precipitants included increased pain, reduced life engagement, sleep problems, withdrawal, relationship dissolution, and negative consequences of opioid substitution with other substances for pain relief. Most respondents reporting suicide behavior felt that the decision to taper was made by the health care system or a clinician (67%) whereas patients not reporting suicide behavior were more likely to report it was their own decision (42%). This study describes patient-reported mental health deterioration or suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Clinicians should screen for, monitor, and treat suicide behavior while assisting patients in tapering opioids. PERSPECTIVE: This work describes changes in patient-reported mental health and suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Recommendations for improving care include mental health and suicide risk screening during and following opioid tapering.

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

Opioid Prescribing Patterns After Imposition of Setting-Specific Limits on Prescription Duration

Importance

Despite their widespread adoption across the US, policies imposing one-size-fits-all limits on the duration of prescriptions for opioids have shown modest and mixed implications for prescribing.

Objective

To assess whether a prescription duration limit policy tailored to different clinical settings was associated with shorter opioid prescription lengths.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study examined changes in opioid prescribing patterns for opioid-naive Medicaid enrollees aged 12 to 64 years before and after implementation of a statewide prescription duration limit policy in West Virginia in June 2018. Patients with cancer or Medicare coverage were excluded. The policy assigned a 7-day duration limit to opioid prescriptions for adults treated in outpatient hospital- or office-based practices, a 4-day limit for adults treated in emergency departments, and a 3-day limit for pediatric patients younger than 18 years regardless of clinical setting. Data were examined from January 1, 2017, through September 30, 2019, and data were analyzed from June 12 to October 30, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Whether a patient's initial opioid prescription was longer in days than the June 2018 policy limit for a given care setting before and after policy implementation. Interrupted time series models were used to calculate the association between the policy's implementation and outcomes.

Results

The analytic sample included 44 703 Medicaid enrollees (27 957 patients [62.5%] before policy implementation and 16 746 patients [37.5%] after policy implementation; mean [SD] age, 33.9 [13.4] years; 27 461 females [61.4%]). Among adults treated in outpatient hospital- or office-based settings, the duration limit policy was associated with a decrease of 8.83 (95% CI, -10.43 to -7.23) percentage points (P < .001), or a 56.8% relative reduction, in the proportion of prescriptions exceeding the 7-day limit. In the emergency department setting, the policy was associated with a decrease of 7.03 (95% CI, -10.38 to -3.68) percentage points (P < .001), a 37.5% relative reduction, in the proportion of prescriptions exceeding the 4-day limit. The proportion of pediatric opioid prescriptions longer than the 3-day limit decreased by 12.80 (95% CI, -17.31 to -8.37) percentage points (P < .001), a 26.5% relative reduction, after the policy's implementation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that opioid prescription duration limits tailored to different clinical settings are associated with reduced length of prescriptions for opioid-naive patients. Additional research is needed to evaluate whether these limits are associated with reductions in the incidence of opioid use disorder or with unintended consequences, such as shifts to illicit opioids.

Impact of Statewide Statute Limiting Days' Supply to Opioid-Naive Patients

INTRODUCTION

To address the ongoing opioid crisis, states use policy enactment to restrict prescribing by licensed healthcare providers and mandate the use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. There have been mixed results regarding the effectiveness of such state policies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of Colorado Senate Bill 18-022, which limits opioid prescriptions to ≤7-day supply among patients without an opioid prescription in the previous year (i.e., are opioid naive).

METHODS

This is a retrospective interrupted time-series analysis of opioid prescribing to evaluate the weekly percentage of opioid prescriptions consistent with statutory limits for ≤7-day supply among opioid-naive patients before and after enactment using Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs data from May 21, 2017 to May 25, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed in 2021-2022.

RESULTS

The weekly percentage of opioid prescriptions ≤7-day supply increased by an average of 0.12% per week (p<0.0001) from 79.7% to 87.4% in the week before enactment. The week after enactment, the average increased by 0.2% (p=0.67). The year after enactment, the average weekly percentage change was 0.07% per week, a 0.05% decrease (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Statutory limits on days' supply among opioid-naive patients had little impact on opioid prescribing in Colorado. Legislating limits on opioid prescribing should be evaluated using Prescription Drug Monitoring Program data and considered for deimplementation when not impactful.

Impact of opioid law on prescriptions and satisfaction of pediatric burn and orthopedic patients: An epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the reduction in prescribed opioid pain dosage units to pediatric patients experiencing acute pain and to assess patient satisfaction with pain control 90-day post discharge following the 2017 Ohio opioid prescribing cap law.

METHODS

The retrospective chart review included 960 pediatric (age 0-18 years) burn injury and knee arthroscopy patients treated between August 1, 2015-August 31, 2019. Prospectively, legal guardians completed a survey for a convenience sample of 50 patients. Opioid medications (days and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs)/kg) prescribed at discharge before and after the Ohio law implementation were collected. Guardians reported experience and satisfaction with their child's opioid prescription at 90-days post discharge.

RESULTS

From pre-law to post-law, there was a significant decrease (p<0.001) within the burn and knee cohorts in the median days (1.7 to 1.0 and 5.0 to 3.8, respectively) and median total MMEs prescribed (15.0 to 2.5 and 150.0 to 90.0, respectively). An interrupted time series analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in MMEs/kg and days prescribed at discharge when the 2017 Ohio opioid prescription law went into effect, with an abrupt level change. Prospectively, more than half of participants were satisfied (72% burn and 68% knee) with their pain control and felt they received the right amount of medication (84% burn and 56% knee). Inpatient opioid use was not changed pre- and post-law.

CONCLUSIONS

Discharge opioids prescribed for pediatric burn and knee arthroscopy procedures has decreased from 2015-2019. Caregivers varied greatly in their satisfaction with pain control and the amount of opioid prescribed.

Impact of state opioid laws on prescribing in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Excessive opioid prescribing has resulted in opioid diversion and misuse. In July 2018, Michigan's Public Act 251 established a state-wide policy limiting opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a 7-day supply. Traumatic injury increases the risk for new persistent opioid use, yet the impact of prescribing policy in trauma patients remains unknown. To determine the relationship between policy enactment and prescribing in trauma patients, we compared oral morphine equivalents prescribed at discharge before and after implementation of Public Act 251.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, adult patients who received any oral opioids at discharge from a Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2021, were identified. The exposure was patients admitted starting July 1, 2018. Inpatient oral morphine equivalents per day 48 hours before discharge and discharge prescription oral morphine equivalents per day were calculated. Student's t test and an interrupted time series analysis were performed to compare mean oral morphine equivalents per day pre- and post-policy. Multivariable risk adjustment accounted for patient/injury factors and inpatient oral morphine equivalent use.

RESULTS

A total of 3,748 patients were included in the study (pre-policy n = 1,685; post-policy n = 2,063). Implementation of the prescribing policy was associated with a significant decrease in mean discharge oral morphine equivalents per day (34.8 ± 49.5 vs 16.7 ± 32.3, P < .001). After risk adjustment, post-policy discharge prescriptions differed by -19.2 oral morphine equivalents per day (95% CI -21.7 to -16.8, P < .001). The proportion of patients obtaining a refill prescription 30 days post-discharge did not increase after implementation (0.38 ± 0.48 vs 0.37 ± 0.48, P = .7).

CONCLUSION

Discharge prescription amounts for opioids in trauma patients decreased by approximately one-half after the implementation of opioid prescribing policies, and there was no compensatory increase in subsequent refill prescriptions. Future work is needed to evaluate the effect of these policies on the adequacy of pain management and functional recovery after injury.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on U.S. Adults With Chronic Pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain affects an estimated 20% of U.S. adults. Because high-deductible health plans have captured a growing share of the commercial insurance market, it is unknown how high-deductible health plans impact care for chronic pain.

METHODS

Using 2007-2017 claims data from a large national commercial insurer, statistical analyses conducted in 2022-2023 estimated changes in enrollee outcomes before and after their firm began offering a high-deductible health plan compared with changes in outcomes in a comparison group of enrollees at firms never offering a high-deductible health plan. The sample included 757,530 commercially insured adults aged 18-64 years with headache, low back pain, arthritis, neuropathic pain, or fibromyalgia. Outcomes, measured at the enrollee year level, included the probability of receiving any chronic pain treatment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; the number of nonpharmacologic pain treatment days; number and days' supply of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; and total annual spending and out-of-pocket spending.

RESULTS

High-deductible health plan offer was associated with a 1.2 percentage point reduction (95% CI= -1.8, -0.5) in the probability of any chronic pain treatment and an $11 increase (95% CI=$6, $15) in annual out-of-pocket spending on chronic pain treatments among those with any use, representing a 16% increase in average annual out-of-pocket spending over the pre-high deductible health plan offer annual average. Results were driven by changes in nonpharmacologic treatment use.

CONCLUSIONS

By reducing the use of nonpharmacologic chronic pain treatments and marginally increasing out-of-pocket costs among those using these services, high-deductible health plans may discourage more holistic, integrated approaches to caring for patients with chronic pain conditions.

Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

BACKGROUND

State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain.

DESIGN

Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law.

SETTING

United States, 2010 to 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month.

RESULTS

In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented.

LIMITATIONS

This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Association of a State Prescribing Limits Policy with Opioid Prescribing and Long-term Use: an Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescription opioids were a major initial driver of the opioid crisis. States have attempted to reduce overprescribing by enacting policies that limit opioid prescriptions, but the impacts of such policies on new prescribing and subsequent transitions to long-term use are not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of implementation of a state prescribing limits policy with opioid prescribing and transitions to long-term opioid use.

DESIGN

Interrupted time series analyses assessing trends in new opioid prescriptions and long-term use before and after policy implementation.

PATIENTS

A total of 130,591 New Jersey Medicaid enrollees ages 18-64 who received an initial opioid prescription from January 2014 to December 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

New Jersey's opioid prescribing limit policy implemented in March 2017.

MAIN MEASURES

Total new opioid prescriptions, percentage of new prescriptions with >5 days' supply, and transition to long-term opioid use, defined as having opioid supply on day 90 after the initial prescription.

KEY RESULTS

Policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in new opioid prescriptions of 0.86 per 10,000 enrollees, halving the pre-policy decline in the prescribing rate. Among new opioid prescriptions, the percentage with >5 days' supply decreased by about 1 percentage point (-0.76 percentage points, 95% CI -0.89, -0.62) following policy implementation. However, policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in the rate of initial prescriptions with supply on day 90 (9.95 per 10,000 new prescriptions, 95% CI 4.80, 15.11) that reversed the downward pre-implementation trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The New Jersey policy was associated with a reduction in initial prescriptions with >5 days' supply, but not with an overall decline in new opioid prescriptions or in the rate at which initial prescriptions led to long-term use. Given their only modest benefits, policymakers and clinicians should carefully weigh potential unintended consequences of strict prescribing limits.

"Cookbook medicine": Exploring the impact of opioid prescribing limits legislation on clinical practice and patient experiences

Opioid dependence and overdose are serious public health concerns. States have responded by enacting legislation regulating opioid-prescribing practices. Through in-depth interviews with clinicians, state officials, and organizational stakeholders, this paper examines opioid prescribing limits legislation (PLL) in North Carolina and how it impacts clinical practice. Since the advent of PLL, clinicians report being more mindful when prescribing opioids and as expected, writing for shorter durations for both acute and postoperative pain. But clinicians also report prescribing opioids less frequently for acute pain, refusing to write second opioid prescriptions, foisting responsibility for patient pain care onto other clinicians, and no longer writing opioid prescriptions for chronic pain patients. They directly credit PLL for these changes, including institutional policies enacted in response to PLL, and, to a lesser degree, notions of "do no harm." However, we argue that misapplication of and ambiguities in PLL along with defensive medicine practices whereby clinicians and their institutions center their legal interests over patient care, amplify these restrictive changes in clinical practice. Clinicians' narratives reveal downstream consequences for patients including undertreated pain, being viewed as drug-seeking when questioning opioid-prescribing decisions, and having to overuse the medical system to achieve pain relief.

The Future of the United States Overdose Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities

Policy Points People are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States. Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm-reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm-reduction services. Priorities for action include investing in evidence-based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply.

Effects of Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws on Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Persons with Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Many states have adopted laws that limit the amount or duration of opioid prescriptions. These limits often focus on prescriptions for acute pain, but there may be unintended consequences for those diagnosed with chronic pain, including reduced opioid prescribing without substitution of appropriate non-opioid treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid and non-opioid treatment among those diagnosed with chronic pain.

DESIGN

We used a difference-in-differences approach that accounts for staggered policy adoption. Treated states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019.

POPULATION

A total of 480,856 adults in the USA who were continuously enrolled in medical and pharmacy coverage from 2013 to 2019 and diagnosed with a chronic pain condition between 2013 and 2016.

MAIN MEASURES

Among individuals with chronic pain in each state: proportion with at least one opioid prescription and with prescriptions of a specific duration or dose, average number of opioid prescriptions, average opioid prescription duration and dose, proportion with at least one non-opioid chronic pain prescription, average number of such prescriptions, proportion with at least one chronic pain procedure, and average number of such procedures.

KEY RESULTS

State laws limiting opioid prescriptions were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing, non-opioid medication prescribing, or non-opioid chronic pain procedures among patients with chronic pain diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings do not support an association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and changes in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.

Impact of Changes to Concealed-Carry Weapons Laws on Fatal and Nonfatal Violent Crime, 1980-2019

The United States faces rapidly rising rates of violent crime committed with firearms. In this study, we sought to estimate the impact of changes to laws that regulate the concealed carrying of weapons (concealed-carry weapons (CCW) laws) on violent crimes committed with a firearm. We used augmented synthetic control models and random-effects meta-analyses to estimate state-specific effects and the average effect of adopting shall-issue CCW permitting laws on rates of 6 violent crimes: homicide with a gun, homicide by other means, aggravated assault with a gun, aggravated assault with a knife, robbery with a gun, and robbery with a knife. The average effects were stratified according to the presence or absence of several shall-issue permit provisions. Adoption of a shall-issue CCW law was associated with a 9.5% increase in rates of assault with a firearm during the first 10 years after law adoption and was associated with an 8.8% increase in rates of homicide by other means. When shall-issue laws allowed violent misdemeanants to acquire CCW permits, the laws were associated with higher rates of gun assaults. It is likely that adoption of shall-issue CCW laws has increased rates of nonfatal violent crime committed with firearms. Harmful effects of shall-issue laws are most clear when provisions intended to reduce risks associated with civilian gun-carrying are absent.

Association Between State Opioid Prescribing Limits and Duration of Opioid Prescriptions From Dentists

IMPORTANCE

In part to prevent the harms associated with dental opioid prescriptions, most states have enacted policies limiting the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. Whether these limits are associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions written by dentists is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between state opioid prescribing limits and the duration of opioid prescriptions from dentists.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This difference-in-differences cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, an all-payer database reporting prescription dispensing from 92% of retail pharmacies in the US. The sample included opioid prescriptions from dentists dispensed to children aged 0 to 17 years and adults 18 years or older from January 2014 through February 2020. Treatment states were those that implemented limits between January 2016 and December 2018. Control states were those that did not implement limits during the study period. Data on opioid prescribing limits were derived from the Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System. Data were analyzed from January 1 to September 30, 2022.

EXPOSURES

State opioid prescribing limits.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcome was opioid prescription duration, as measured by days' supply. The association between limits and duration was evaluated using a linear model with a 2-way fixed-effects specification. Covariates included patient characteristics, prescription characteristics, and indicators of implementation of prescription drug monitoring program use mandates. Separate analyses of data from adults and children were conducted owing to differences in the number of treatment states and restrictiveness of limits by age.

RESULTS

The adult analysis included 56 607 314 opioid prescriptions for 34 364 775 patients (18 448 788 females [53.7%]; mean [SD] age at the earliest fill, 44.0 [17.4] years) in 22 treatment states and 12 control states. The child analysis included 3 720 837 opioid prescriptions for 3 165 880 patients (1 740 449 females [55.0%]; mean [SD] age at the earliest fill, 14.4 [3.5] years) in 23 treatment states and 12 control states. In both analyses, the median (25th-75th percentile) duration of opioid prescriptions was 3.0 (2-5) days. Implementation of limits, most of which allowed up to a 7-day supply of opioids, was not associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions for adults (mean days' supply: -0.06 days; 95% CI, -0.11 to <0.001 days) or children (mean days' supply: -0.07 days; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.02 days).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study of national pharmacy dispensing data, opioid prescribing limits were not associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions from dentists. Future research should investigate the potential role of alternative interventions in reducing opioid prescribing by dentists.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012–2019

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days’ supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012–2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

Association Between State Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws and Receipt of Opioid Prescriptions Among Children and Adolescents

Importance

High-dose and long-duration opioid prescriptions remain relatively common among children and adolescents, but there is insufficient research on the association of state laws limiting the dose and/or duration of opioid prescriptions (referred to as opioid prescribing cap laws) with opioid prescribing for this group.

Objective

To examine the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents.

Design Setting and Participants

This repeated cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for staggered policy adoption to assess the association of state opioid prescribing cap laws in the US from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2019, with receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Analyses were conducted between March 22 and December 15, 2021. Data were obtained from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national commercial insurance claims database. The analysis included 482 118 commercially insured children and adolescents aged 0 to 17 years with full calendar-year continuous insurance enrollment between 2013 and 2019. Individuals were included for every year in which they were continuously enrolled; they did not need to be enrolled for the entire 7-year study period. Those with any cancer diagnosis were excluded from analysis.

Exposure

Implementation of a state opioid prescribing cap law between January 1, 2017, and July 1, 2019. This date range allowed analysis of the same number years for both pre-cap and post-cap data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest included receipt of any opioid prescription and, among those with at least 1 opioid prescription, the mean number of opioid prescriptions, mean morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day, and mean days' supply.

Results

Among 482 118 children and adolescents (754 368 person-years of data aggregated to the state-year level), 245 178 (50.9%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 9.8 (4.8) years at the first year included in the sample (data on race and ethnicity were not collected as part of this data set, which was obtained from insurance billing claims). Overall, 10 659 children and adolescents (2.2%) received at least 1 opioid prescription during the study period. Among those with at least 1 prescription, the mean (SD) number of filled opioid prescriptions was 1.2 (0.8) per person per year. No statistically significant association was found between state opioid prescribing cap laws and any outcome. After opioid prescribing cap laws were implemented, a -0.001 (95% CI, -0.005 to 0.002) percentage point decrease in the proportion of youths receiving any opioid prescription was observed. In addition, percentage point decreases of -0.01 (95% CI, -0.10 to 0.09) in high-dose opioid prescriptions (>50 MMEs per day) and -0.02 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.08) in long-duration opioid prescriptions (>7 days' supply) were found after cap laws were implemented.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, no association was observed between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Alternative strategies, such as opioid prescribing guidelines tailored to youths, are needed.

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

METHODS

Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea).

RESULTS

Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.