Does Restricting Opioids Lead to More Heroin Overdose Deaths?

Turns out Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), a condition suffered by newborn babies of opioid-addicted mothers, isn't the only risk to children in the fight against opioid misuse and abuse.  A JAMA Pediatrics article published yesterday showed a more than 2-fold increase in hospitalizations among children due to opioid poisonings.  While the bulk of these hospitalizations were predictably among older adolescents, the fastest growing cohort of hospitalizations occurred among the youngest children (toddlers and pre-schoolers) who can't tell the difference between candy and OxyContin.  A follow-on piece in the Washington Post fairly equates this public health risk to the gun control debate. Lock up the guns, lock up the drugs - our kids are paying too high a price.  

In other news, this month's Health Affairs contains a really interesting article on the relationship between state laws and opioid / heroin overdose deaths (Health Affairs 35, No. 10 (2016); 1876-1883).  Here are the high level conclusions:

• States that pass laws pertaining to mandatory physician review of PDMP data and the strict licensing of pain clinics reduced opioid amounts prescribed by 8% and opioid overdose death rates by 12%.  
• The study also observed a large (though statistically insignificant) reduction in heroin overdose death rates.  This might be counter-intuitive to you because some believe cutting off the supply of opioids in a community creates risk of increased heroin use.  

The public policy conclusions here are important.  First, if passing these common-sense laws really does lead to decreases in opioid supply and overdose deaths, there isn't any good reason not to implement mandatory PDMP checks and strict pain clinic laws (unless you live in Missouri... in which case irrational concerns over privacy consistently inhibit adoption of sound public health policy). 

Second, the study found "no evidence to support the assertion that policies to curb opioid prescribing are leading to heroin overdoses."  This doesn't mean that heroin overdoses haven't been on the rise; in fact, they've been increasing in virtually every state in the country.  What the study authors are saying is that new opioid restrictions do not appear to be accelerating the rise in heroin overdose deaths.  

Opioid and heroin abuse is clearly a complicated public health problem.  But this data suggests we should avoid the policy trap of using the one (potential heroin overdose deaths) as an excuse to not do the other (restrict the opioid supply through mandatory PDMP checks and strict pain clinic licensing). If there is data out there to the contrary, I'd honestly love to see it.  I think it's important to litigate these studies to ensure we're moving in the right direction.
  

As the devil can cite scripture for his purpose, we all seem able to find anecdotes to support our policy views.  Stories can be powerful illustrators of truth, but let's make sure we use data to guide our public policy discussions. 

Michael 

On Twitter @PRIUM1

The Solution to Every Healthcare Debate: Access vs. Cost

Two things you need to know about Suboxone (or buprenorphine) this morning highlight the essential elements of all past, present, and future healthcare debates.

First, the manufacturer is being sued by the Attorney General of Illinois (and 35 other AGs) for violation of antitrust statutes.  The states allege that Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals (now known as Indivior, because someone clearly new to marketing thought that would actually be easier to say) has effectively blocked generic competition for Suboxone by scheming to devise a new formulation (the film, an upgrade from the pill) in order to extend the patent protection of its franchise.  Believing, of course, that they are more sinned against than sinning, Indivior took to their web site to issue a statement that they will vigorously defend themselves against the charges.  I'm not sufficiently informed to weigh in on the merits of the suit.  I'll just point out that the company's actions are fairly typical of pharmaceutical companies and that were this a cholesterol medication instead of a potential addiction mitigation drug, I'm not sure we'd see this much attention paid to it by 36 state attorneys general.

Second, current physician capacity for treating opioid use disorder with Suboxone isn't being utilized.  A research letter published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that despite initial limits on the number of patients a certified physician may treat at any one time of 30 and subsequent limits (after 1 year of prescribing) of 100 patients, these doctors are treating numbers of patients far below those thresholds.  In the 7 states with the highest number of certified physicians, the monthly median patient census per doctor was found to me as follows:

• California: 7
• Florida: 11
• Massachusetts: 22
• Michigan: 7
• New York: 11
• Pennsylvania: 18
• Texas: 10

Increasing the number of certified prescribers and the number of patients they may treat at any one time is a linchpin of the federal government's response to the prescription opioid epidemic.  So it's somewhat concerning that we're so focused on increasing capacity when we're clearly not even close to utilizing the capacity we have.  

Why is this?  Why the law suit?  Why the lack of utilization of existing capacity?  

Like every other debate in healthcare, when you peel back the onion far enough, you find two competing philosophical concepts that dictate nearly every public policy decision that confronts us: COST and ACCESS.  

The law suit is primarily about COST and secondarily about ACCESS (presumably, if a more affordable - read 'lower COST' - generic were to become available, more patients could potentially ACCESS therapy).  

The JAMA study is about ACCESS and it shows that despite our investment in capacity (which COSTS money), we're still not very good at ACCESS itself.  

Follow the money.  Follow the patients.  The solutions to all healthcare issues rest somewhere in the incentives, structure, and balance of the two.  

Michael 

On Twitter @PRIUM1

It's Actually NOT 10% of Doctors Driving the Opioid Epidemic

A brief research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association published just yesterday highlights a fascinating phenomenon in opioid prescribing and does so against the backdrop of workers' compensation data from the California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI).

Recall that CWCI data indicates that 10% of prescribers are responsible for nearly 80% of the opioid prescriptions in the California work comp system (and 88% of opioid costs!).  That's an astounding statistic and one that has led many observers and decision-makers to conclude that the solution to mitigating the opioid epidemic is to change the behavior of a small subset of prescribers that were driving the utilization of potentially dangerous medications.  I've heard this from a multitude of sources: "It's a relatively small group of the prescribers who are really responsible for this problem.  How do we change their prescribing behavior?"

The authors of this recent research letter decided to test whether the same ratio was exhibited in a much broader data set: all Medicare claims.  Granted, this is a data set not representative of the work comp injured worker population, but it's still an interesting question: Do we see that 10% of prescribers to Medicare patients drive 80% (or more) of the opioid prescriptions?  The answer would lend itself to opioid misuse and abuse mitigation strategies that go far beyond work comp and speak to the national effort to curb addiction and overdose deaths.  What are we aiming for?  10% of prescribers? Or a broader group?

The answer: the top 10% of Medicare prescribers account for only 56.7% of all opioid claims. Not only is this far below the CWCI data point of 80%, but it's also significantly less than the percentage of overall prescriptions (opioids and non-opioids) written by the top 10% of overall Medicare prescribers (63%).

Does this mean the CWCI data is less accurate or less valuable to us?  Absolutely not.  On the contrary, the CWCI data should help focus our work comp specific strategies for opioid misuse and abuse.  But for those of us concerned with the broader, national (and, increasingly, international) issue of opioid misuse and abuse, this JAMA research letter suggests that a broader, more comprehensive set of strategies that span a wider swath of prescribers will be necessary.  

Perhaps of even greater consequence is the specialty make-up of the prescribers.  The number of opioid claims in the Medicare data set are overwhelmingly from general practitioners (note that this chart is on a log scale... look at the actual numbers... family practice and internal medicine doctors are responsible for about 28 million opioid claims vs. a little over 3 million for pain management and interventional pain management combined).  

Two conclusions:

1) We need broad-based strategies to confront the opioid epidemic, though in work comp our efforts may be focused on a smaller subset of prescribers.  

2) These broad efforts need to focus on education for general practitioners.  Chronic pain is fundamentally an issue of primary care and we would be wise to treat it as such.  

Michael 

On Twitter @PRIUM1