scholarly journals The Marginalization of Chronic Pain Patients on Chronic Opioid Therapy

2009 ◽  
Vol 3;12 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 493-498
Author(s):  
John F. Peppin

The realities of treating chronic pain do not reflect the attention that marginalization of patients taking opioids has received. Physicians continue the same prejudices and biases that were present decades ago. One theory proposed to explain this poor treatment has been titled, the “barriers to pain management.” The barriers are not treated as moral issues, but rather as clinical aberrations and do not explain continued poor treatment. However, the barriers do not explain certain types of cases where there appears to be specific unfounded concerns related to a specific class of medications, e.g, opioids. Four cases are presented, from the authors experience, illustrating the marginalization of chronic pain patients on chronic opioid therapy admitted to a tertiary care hospital. These types of cases have not been presented in the literature previously and illustrate the failure of the barriers to explain marginalization. In each of these cases mental status changes was the presenting problem. However, in each of these cases, these changes were not related to their opioids, but were explained by clear reasons, other than opioids. Regardless, in each case, the attending physician blamed the opioids, without further workup and stopped them reflexively. It is proposed that there may be more complex psychosocial issues involved in the marginalization of chronic pain patients. This case series illustrates a ubiquitous problem demanding further examination and discussion. It is hoped that this case series will create interest in further research in this area. Key words: Chronic pain, opioids, marginalization, bias, barriers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 1468-1475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dermot P. Maher ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
Shihab Ahmed ◽  
Tina Doshi ◽  
Charlene Malarick ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 417-424

BACKGROUND: Florida House Bill 21 (HB21) was implemented in July 2018 to limit Schedule II opioids prescriptions for patients with acute pain to a 3-day supply. Little is known about the potential unintended effects that such opioid restriction policies may have on chronic pain patients, who are exempt from the law. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of HB21 on opioid utilization measures among a cohort of chronic opioid therapy (COT) patients. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design with interrupted time series analyses. SETTING: Pharmacy claims from January 1, 2015 to June 31, 2019 from a large employer-based health plan in Florida. METHODS: COT patients were those who received a >= 70 days’ supply of opioids in the prior 90 days, representing 15,310 patients. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to compare the following monthly measures among COT patients before and after HB21 implementation: 1) number of COT patients, 2) daily Morphine Milligram Equivalents [MMEs], 3) days’ supply of prescriptions. RESULTS: There was a significant 25% reduction in the trend (pre-HB21 RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93, 0.96 versus post-HB21 RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.76) and an 8% immediate decrease (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.97) in the monthly prevalence of COT patients after HB21 implementation. However, no significant change was observed in trends for monthly number of days supplied per prescription, monthly MMEs per COT patient-day, or total MMEs per prescription. LIMITATIONS: Our study used data from employer-based private health insurance and did not include a longer post-policy period to adjust for implementation lag. CONCLUSION: Fewer patients received COT after HB21; however, patients who continued to receive COT experienced no significant changes in their regimen. The study did not assess whether COT patients were appropriately tapered or if therapeutic alternatives were initiated for new chronic pain patients. KEY WORDS: Prescription opioids, health policy evaluation, chronic opioid therapy, drug utilization


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-587
Author(s):  
Karen J. Sherman ◽  
Rod L. Walker ◽  
Kathleen Saunders ◽  
Susan M. Shortreed ◽  
Michael Parchman ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert N. Jamison ◽  
Marc O. Martel ◽  
Chuan-Chin Huang ◽  
Dylan Jurcik ◽  
Robert R. Edwards

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Mailis-Gagnon ◽  
Balaji Yegneswaran ◽  
SF Lakha ◽  
Keith Nicholson ◽  
Amanda J Steiman ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Pain clinics tend to see more complex chronic pain patients than primary care settings, but the types of patients seen may differ among practices.OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present observational study was to describe the pain and demographic characteristics of patients attending a university-affiliated tertiary care pain clinic in Toronto, Ontario.METHODS: Data were collected on 1242 consecutive new patients seen over a three-year period at the Comprehensive Pain Program in central Toronto.RESULTS: Musculoskeletal problems affecting large joints and the spine were the predominant cause of pain (more prevalent in women), followed by neuropathic disorders (more prevalent in men) in patients with recognizable physical pathology. The most affected age group was in the 35- to 49-year age range, with a mean pain duration of 7.8 years before the consultation. While 77% of the Comprehensive Pain Program patients had relevant and detectable physical pathology for pain complaints, three-quarters of the overall study population also had significant associated psychological or psychiatric comorbidity. Women, in general, attended the pain clinic in greater numbers and had less apparent physical pathology than men. Finally, less than one in five patients was employed at the time of referral.CONCLUSIONS: The relevance of the data in relation to other pain clinics is discussed, as well as waiting lists and other barriers faced by chronic pain patients, pain practitioners and pain facilities in Ontario and Canada.


2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 770-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Butler ◽  
Simon H. Budman ◽  
Gilbert J. Fanciullo ◽  
Robert N. Jamison

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document