0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Distribution of Opioids by Different Types of Medicare Prescribers

Jonathan H. Chen, MD, PhD1,2; Keith Humphreys, PhD1,2,3; Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD4; Anna Lembke, MD3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
2Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR), Stanford University, Stanford, California
3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California
4Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):259-261. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6662.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

This study shows that contrary to the California Worker’s Compensation data showing a small subset of prescribers accounting for a disproportionately large percentage of opioid prescribing, Medicare opioid prescribing is distributed across many different types of prescribers and specialities.

Researchers have suggested that the opioid overdose epidemic1 is primarily driven by small groups of prolific prescribers and “corrupt pill mills.”2,3 For example, the California Workers’ Compensation Institute found that 1% of prescribers accounted for one-third of schedule II opioid prescriptions and 10% accounted for 80% of prescriptions.4 This propagates a message that opioid overprescribing is a problem of a small group of high-volume prescribers, while general use is likely safe and effective. Medicare data provide the opportunity to address the question of whether such prescribing patterns occur across a national population.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Top 25 Prescriber Specialties by Total Medicare Part D Claims for Schedule II Opioids in 2013

Values are reported on logarithmic scale.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Cumulative Percentage Claims and Costs for the Top 10% of Prescribers for Different Populations

For example, 1% of California workers’ compensation (CA WC) Medicare prescribers incur 42% of their schedule II opioid costs. Note: The Medicare All Drug Claims curve overlaps and obscures the respective Costs curve.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Medicare & Workers' Compensation Opioid Comparison
Posted on December 29, 2015
Alex Swedlow
CWCI
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
Chen et al’s December 2015 research letter, “Distribution of Opioids by Different Types of Medicare Prescribers,” examined the National opioid prescribing patterns of Medicare physicians and compared them to those of California workers’ compensation physicians as documented in the California Workers’ Compensation Institute’s 2011 analysis (Swedlow, A., Ireland J. Johnson G. Prescribing patterns of schedule II opioids in California Workers’ Compensation. March 2011) . The research letter, however, failed to acknowledge the dissimilarities between the two systems that drive the observed differences, and thus produced a limited comparison of the experience across the two systems.

While Medicare accounts for approximately 20 percent of all California health care (California Healthcare Foundation 2015) , workers’ compensation accounts for less than 2 percent, and has a very different mix of patients, providers, injuries and treatments, as well as a different reimbursement model. Musculoskeletal injuries, the largest injury category utilizing opioids, are 3 to 4 times more prevalent in workers’ compensation than in Medicare ( Jones, S., David, R. Inpatient Utilization in the California Workers’ Compensation System. Research Update, CWCI, December 2014) . Workers’ compensation lacks Medicare’s supply and demand side controls (co-payments, deductibles, drug formularies) that have long been associated with curbing aberrant utilization and cost dynamics.

The authors are incorrect in their assertion that the CWCI study suggests that non-high volume prescribers’ reliance on Schedule II opioids is “likely safe and effective,” as the Institute study did not examine whether the actual prescriptions of the high-volume or low-volume prescribers were safe or unsafe. In a separate study we did highlight the use of Fentanyl for injured workers with minor strains (Prescribing Patterns of Schedule II Opioids Part 2: Fentanyl Prescriptions in California Workers’ Compensation. CWCI, April 2011) and we do agree that the national opioid epidemic is not the exclusive result of high-volume prescribers and must address all prescribers.

Alex Swedlow, MHSA
President, CWCI
aswedlow@cwci.org
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

3,619 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Results

brightcove.createExperiences();