scholarly journals The Effect of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on Opioid Utilization in Medicare

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Buchmueller ◽  
Colleen Carey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prescription Drug ◽  
Drug Monitoring ◽  
Medicare Part D ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Prescription Opioids ◽  
Part D ◽  
Monitoring Programs ◽  
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs

The misuse of prescription opioids has become a serious epidemic in the United States. In response, states have implemented Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), which record a patient’s opioid prescribing history. While few providers participated in early systems, states have recently begun to require providers to access the PDMP under certain circumstances. We find that “must access” PDMPs significantly reduce measures of misuse in Medicare Part D. In contrast, we find that PDMPs without such provisions have no effect. We find stronger effects when providers are required to access the PDMP under broad circumstances, not only when they are suspicious. (JEL H75, I11, I12, I18)

A History of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the United States: Political Appeal and Public Health Efficacy

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (8) ◽  
pp. 1191-1197
Author(s):  
A. Jay Holmgren ◽  
Alyssa Botelho ◽  
Allan M. Brandt
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Prescription Drug ◽  
Drug Monitoring ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative Databases ◽  
Opioid Crisis ◽  
Monitoring Programs ◽  
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs ◽  
History Of

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have become a widely embraced policy to address the US opioid crisis. Despite mixed scientific evidence on their effectiveness at improving health and reducing overdose deaths, 49 states and Washington, DC have adopted PDMPs, and they have received strong bipartisan legislative support. This article explores the history of PDMPs, tracking their evolution from paper-based administrative databases in the early 1900s to modern-day electronic systems that intervene at the point of care. We focus on two questions: how did PDMPs become so widely adopted in the United States, and how did they gain popularity as an intervention in the contemporary opioid crisis? Through this historical approach, we evaluate what PDMPs reflect about national drug policy and broader cultural understandings of substance use disorder in the United States today. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1191–1197. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305696)

scholarly journals Early National Dissemination of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide for Advanced Prostate Cancer in Medicare Part D

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. e694-e702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan E.V. Caram ◽  
Tudor Borza ◽  
Hye-Sung Min ◽  
Jennifer J. Griggs ◽  
David C. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Regional Variation ◽  
Medicare Part D ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Part D ◽  
Hospital Referral ◽  
Early National

Introduction: Abiraterone and enzalutamide were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 and 2012 to treat men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Most men with mCRPC are > 65 years of age and thus eligible for Medicare Part D. We conducted a study to better understand the early dissemination of these drugs across the United States using national Medicare Part D data. Methods: We evaluated the number of prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide by provider specialty and hospital referral region (HRR) using Medicare Part D and Dartmouth Atlas data. We categorized HRRs by abiraterone and enzalutamide prescriptions, adjusted for prostate cancer incidence, and examined factors associated with regional variation using multilevel regression models. Results: Among providers who wrote the majority of prescriptions for abiraterone or enzalutamide in 2013 (n = 2,121), 87.5% were medical oncologists, 3.3% were urologists, and 9.2% were other provider specialties. Among prescribers, approximately 30% were responsible for three quarters of the claims for abiraterone and 20% were responsible for more than half the claims for enzalutamide. Some HRRs demonstrated low-prescribing rates despite average medical oncology and urology physician workforce density. Our multilevel model demonstrated that regional factors potentially influenced variation in care. Conclusion: The majority of prescriptions written for abiraterone and enzalutamide through Medicare Part D in 2013 were written by a minority of providers, with marked regional variation across the United States. Better understanding of the early national dissemination of these effective but expensive drugs can help inform strategies to optimize introduction of new, evidence-based mCRPC treatments.

scholarly journals Early national dissemination of abiraterone and enzalutamide for advanced prostate cancer in Medicare Part D.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Megan Veresh Caram ◽  
Tudor Borza ◽  
Hye-Sung Min ◽  
Jennifer J. Griggs ◽  
David Christopher Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Regional Variation ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Medicare Part D ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Part D ◽  
Hospital Referral ◽  
Early National

35 Background: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are oral medications approved by the Food & Drug Administration in 2011 and 2012 to treat men with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer. Most men with advanced prostate cancer are over age 65 and thus eligible for Medicare Part D. We conducted a study to better understand the early dissemination of these drugs across the United States using national Medicare Part D data. Methods: We evaluated the number of prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide by provider specialty and hospital referral region (HRR) using Medicare Part D and Dartmouth Atlas data. We categorized HRRs by abiraterone and enzalutamide prescriptions, adjusted for prostate cancer incidence, and examined factors associated with regional variation using multilevel regression models. Results: Among all providers who wrote prescriptions for abiraterone or enzalutamide in 2013 (n=2121), 87.5% were medical oncologists, 3.3% urologists, and 9.2% were listed as other provider specialties. Among those who prescribed either drug, 5% of providers were responsible for 75% of the claims for abiraterone, and 7% were responsible for 75% of the claims for enzalutamide. Some HRRs demonstrated low-prescribing rates despite average medical oncology and urology physician workforce density. Conclusions: The majority of prescriptions written for abiraterone and enzalutamide through Medicare Part D in 2013 were written by a minority of providers with marked regional variation across the United States. Better understanding the early national dissemination of these effective but expensive drugs can help inform strategies to optimize introduction of new, evidence-based advanced prostate cancer treatments.

scholarly journals Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Prescription Opioid–Related Outcomes in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Puac-Polanco ◽  
Stanford Chihuri ◽  
David S Fink ◽  
Magdalena Cerdá ◽  
Katherine M Keyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Prescription Drug ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Drug Monitoring ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Prescription Opioid ◽  
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs ◽  
Opioid Diversion

Abstract Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a crucial component of federal and state governments’ response to the opioid epidemic. Evidence about the effectiveness of PDMPs in reducing prescription opioid–related adverse outcomes is mixed. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether PDMP implementation within the United States is associated with changes in 4 prescription opioid–related outcome domains: opioid prescribing behaviors, opioid diversion and supply, opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders, and opioid-related deaths. We searched for eligible publications in Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A total of 29 studies, published between 2009 and 2019, met the inclusion criteria. Of the 16 studies examining PDMPs and prescribing behaviors, 11 found that implementing PDMPs reduced prescribing behaviors. All 3 studies on opioid diversion and supply reported reductions in the examined outcomes. In the opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders domain, 7 of 8 studies found associations with prescription opioid–related outcomes. Four of 8 studies in the opioid-related deaths domain reported reduced mortality rates. Despite the mixed findings, emerging evidence supports that the implementation of state PDMPs reduces opioid prescriptions, opioid diversion and supply, and opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorder outcomes. When PDMP characteristics were examined, mandatory access provisions were associated with reductions in prescribing behaviors, diversion outcomes, hospital admissions, substance-use disorders, and mortality rates. Inconsistencies in the evidence base across outcome domains are due to analytical approaches across studies and, to some extent, heterogeneities in PDMP policies implemented across states and over time.

scholarly journals Naloxone Co-prescribing to Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids in the Medicare Part D Program, United States, 2016-2017

JAMA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 322 (5) ◽  
pp. 462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Jones ◽  
Wilson Compton ◽  
Meena Vythilingam ◽  
Brett Giroir
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Medicare Part D ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Prescription Opioids ◽  
Part D
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document