Profiling multiple provider prescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulants, and anorectics

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of multiple providers for different controlled substances using the largest electronic prescription monitoring program (PMP) in the United States. A secondary objective was to explore patient and medication variables associated with prescriptions involving multiple providers. PMPs monitor the final allocation of controlled substances from pharmacist to patient. The primary purpose of this scrutiny is to diminish the utilization of multiple providers for controlled substances.

METHODS

This is a secondary data analysis of the California PMP, the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES). The prevalence of multiple provider episodes was determined using data collected during 2007. A series of binomial logistic regressions was used to predict the odds ratio (OR) of multiple prescriber episodes for each generic type of controlled substance (i.e., opioid, benzodiazepine, stimulant, or diet pill (anorectic) using demographic and prescription variables.

RESULTS

Opioid prescriptions (12.8%) were most frequently involved in multiple provider episodes followed by benzodiazepines (4.2%), stimulants (1.4%), and anorectics (0.9%), respectively. The greatest associations with multiple provider episodes were simultaneously receiving prescriptions for different controlled substances.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids were involved in multiple provider prescribing more frequently than other controlled substances. The likelihood of using multiple providers to obtain one class of medications was substantially elevated as patients received additional categories of controlled substances from the same provider or from multiple practitioners. Polypharmacy represents a signal that requires additional vigilance to detect the potential presence of doctor shopping.

Medical use, misuse, and diversion of opioids in India

In less-developed countries, opioids such as morphine are often not available for pain relief because of excessive regulations imposed to prevent their misuse and diversion. We describe the effect that these draconian measures have had on the availability of drugs for medical use in Kerala, India, and present results of a study, which we did to ascertain whether or not the misuse and diversion of opioids is as prevalent as the government reaction would suggest. We followed 1723 patients in Calicut, India, who were being treated for pain with oral morphine on an outpatient home-care basis. Over 2 years, we did not identify any instances of misuse or diversion. These results suggest that, in the context of India as a less-developed country, oral morphine can be dispensed safely to patients for use at home. We recommend that palliative care programmes talk to concerned governmental authorities, to make them aware of the medical need for opioids, and communicate with local news media to increase awareness of palliative care and the use of these analgesics. Our project has overcome regulatory barriers that had interrupted availability of morphine and its use in pain relief in India.

Controlled substances and pain management: changes in knowledge and attitudes of state medical regulators

Physicians report that concern about regulatory investigation negatively influences their prescribing of opioid analgesics. The views of medical regulators about the legality of prescribing controlled substances for pain management were studied in 1991. However, little is known about whether these views have changed in light of increased emphasis on pain management and educational programs for state medical boards. Two studies that examined this issue are described. In Study 1, a 1997 survey of state medical board members was compared to results obtained in 1991 to evaluate differences in knowledge and perceptions about opioid analgesics. Important changes were observed over time, particularly regarding characteristics of "addiction" and the legality of prolonged prescribing of opioids. For Study 2, a longitudinal survey was conducted of medical board members who participated in five workshops about pain management and regulatory policy. Results revealed significant and sustained changes in attitudes about the incidence of iatrogenic addiction when using opioids to treat pain, the analgesic and side-effect properties of opioids, and the perceived legality of prescribing opioids. Recommendations for reducing concerns about regulatory scrutiny are presented, including the need for a more intensive education program, increasing the rate of adoption of new state medical board policies, and improving communication between regulators and clinicians.

Pharmacists' knowledge of and attitudes toward opioid pain medications in relation to federal and state policies

OBJECTIVE

To assess Wisconsin pharmacists' knowledge of and attitudes toward the use of opioid analgesics in the management of chronic cancer and noncancer pain, and to explore the potential for these beliefs to interfere with pharmacist dispensing, the last link of the distribution chain of controlled substances to patients.

DESIGN

Mail survey.

SETTING

Urban and rural pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, and outpatient clinics in Wisconsin in 1998.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Representative sample of Wisconsin pharmacists.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses to self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Although most respondents were knowledgeable about the issues addressed in this study, there were important exceptions. Not all pharmacists knew what constitutes legitimate dispensing practices for controlled substances under federal or state policy in emergencies or for patients with terminal illnesses, and many were unaware of the important distinctions among addiction, physical dependence, and tolerance. Many respondents did not view the chronic prescribing/dispensing of opioids for more than several months to patients with chronic pain of malignant or nonmalignant origin as a lawful and acceptable medical practice; this was especially true when the patient had a history of opioid abuse.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists play a pivotal role in ensuring patient access to medications. Viewed in the context of federal and state controlled substances policies, our findings suggest that the incorrect knowledge and inappropriate attitudes of some pharmacists could contribute to a failure to dispense valid prescriptions for opioid analgesics to patients in pain.

Trends in medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics

CONTEXT

Pain often is inadequately treated due in part to reluctance about using opioid analgesics and fear that they will be abused. Although international and national expert groups have determined that opioid analgesics are essential for the relief of pain, little information has been available about the health consequences of the abuse of these drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the proportion of drug abuse related to opioid analgesics and the trends in medical use and abuse of 5 opioid analgesics used to treat severe pain: fentanyl, hydromorphone, meperidine, morphine, and oxycodone.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective survey of medical records from 1990 to 1996 stored in the databases of the Drug Abuse Warning Network (source of abuse data) and the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (source of medical use data).

PATIENTS

Nationally representative sample of hospital emergency department admissions resulting from drug abuse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Medical use in grams and grams per 100,000 population and mentions of drug abuse by number and percentage of the population.

RESULTS

From 1990 to 1996, there were increases in medical use of morphine (59%; 2.2 to 3.5 million g), fentanyl (1168%; 3263 to 41,371 g), oxycodone (23%; 1.6 to 2.0 million g), and hydromorphone (19%; 118,455 to 141,325 g), and a decrease in the medical use of meperidine (35%; 5.2 to 3.4 million g). During the same period, the total number of drug abuse mentions per year due to opioid analgesics increased from 32,430 to 34,563 (6.6%), although the proportion of mentions for opioid abuse relative to total drug abuse mentions decreased from 5.1% to 3.8%. Reports of abuse decreased for meperidine (39%; 1335 to 806), oxycodone (29%; 4526 to 3190), fentanyl (59%; 59 to 24), and hydromorphone (15%; 718 to 609), and increased for morphine (3%; 838 to 865).

CONCLUSIONS

The trend of increasing medical use of opioid analgesics to treat pain does not appear to contribute to increases in the health consequences of opioid analgesic abuse.

Regulatory barriers to pain management

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of relevant federal and state policies, as well as recommendations for identifying and addressing barriers to the treatment of cancer and non-cancer pain.

DATA SOURCES

Review of federal and state statutes and medical board guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in pain-related policies since the mid 1980s, with recent years showing a significant amount of policy development and adoption. However, a variety of laws and policies contain provisions that have the potential to discourage the use of opioid analgesics for the relief of pain.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The evaluation and treatment of patients with cancer and non-cancer pain can be enhanced by a knowledge of the specific restrictions of controlled substances statutes and practice guidelines. In this way, there will be less chance for nurses to practice outside established legal parameters.

Improving pain management through policy making and education for medical regulators

Physician concern about regulatory scrutiny as a barrier to appropriate prescribing for pain management has been identified and studied. A 1991 Pain Research Group survey demonstrated a need to provide updated information about opioids and pain management to state medical board members. Indeed, a national survey even showed a need to provide more education about pain management to oncology Physicians. Two approaches for responding to these concerns have been undertaken in several states by the state medical boards and the pain management community: the development and adoption of administrative policies designed to bring disciplinary standards in line with clinical practice; and the creation of education programs for state medical board members and staffs. Each can have a substantial impact on removing real and perceived regulatory barriers to effective pain relief.

Policy issues and imperatives in the use of opioids to treat pain in substance abusers

A great deal has been learned in the past fifteen years from the study of pain mechanisms. More recently, the relief of pain has begun to receive much needed attention as well. Although most, if not all, acute and cancer pain can be relieved, recent evidence shows that inadequate treatment of pain is still common among the general population—even for pain due to cancer. Inadequate treatment of cancer pain is even more likely if the patient is a member of an ethnic minority, female, elderly, or a child. Evidence also suggests that substance abusers are at risk for poor pain treatment.

A number of barriers which involve problems of knowledge, attitudes, and laws and regulations affect health care professionals, patients, and the health care system; collectively, they contribute to the inadequate treatment of pain.