Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs - PDMP Center of Excellence

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: An Assessment of the Evidence for Best Practices 4possible doctor shoppers—that is, individuals receiving multiple simultaneous prescriptions of commonlyabused drugs. This resulted in a rapid demand for reports upon request (Prescription Drug MonitoringProgram Center of Excellence [PDMP COE], Notes from the Field [NFF] 2.5). While the reports initiallywere sent by fax, Nevada developed in 2001 an online system that began issuing reports based uponusers’ direct inquiries. Kentucky soon followed Nevada’s lead, implementing a program in1999 and developing online capabilities within a few years. In 1994, the Alliance initiated a process tohelp standardize electronic formats for data collection. This resulted in the publication of the AmericanSociety for Automation in Pharmacy’s (ASAP) first version of guidelines for pharmacies to submitcontrolled substances prescription data to PDMPs. The standards have been updated frequently toincorporate enhancements in electronic system capabilities, and all PDMPs are now using a version of anASAP standard.Early studies in New York indicated that the state’s PDMP had greatly impacted stimulant, barbiturate,and later benzodiazepine prescribing and abuse (Fisher et al., 2011). Other studies suggested thatserialized prescription forms required by PDMPs had a so-‐called “chilling effect” on legitimate prescribing(Joranson & Dahl, 1989; Pearson et al., 2006; Fornili & Simoni-‐Wastila, 2011). In 1996, OxyContin wasintroduced, and sales of prescription opioids began to increase markedly. After a slow rise in 1984, thenumbers of first-‐time illicit users of pain relievers doubled between 1994 and 1998. Unintentional drugoverdose death rates, while increasing through the 1990s, began to increase more steeply in the early2000s, largely attributed to increased prescription opioid prescribing and abuse (Hall et al., 2008;Bohnert et al., 2011).An element of the federal response to the increasing death rate was the creation of the Harold RogersPrescription Drug Monitoring Program Grant Program in the Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA) in federal fiscal year 2002. BJA also designated the National Association for Model StateDrug Laws (NAMSDL) to assist states in developing PDMP legislation. At about the same time, PurduePharma, manufacturer of OxyContin, began to support the creation of new PDMPs with technical as wellas monetary assistance, specifying PDMP characteristics that it deemed desirable. In 2005, Congresspassed the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting (NASPER) Act, authorizing additionalfederal funding for PDMPs; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)was designated as the lead agency for NASPER.In 2008, in collaboration with the Alliance of States with Prescription Monitoring Programs and the HellerSchool of Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, BJA formed the PDMP Training andTechnical Assistance Center, charged with assisting PDMPs in planning, implementing, and enhancingtheir programs. Two years later, BJA funded the PDMP COE at the Heller School in order to providepractice-‐relevant information, evaluation, and expertise to PDMPs and their stakeholders, including thedevelopment of best practices. As the founder of these efforts and as the nation’s primary public funderof PDMPs via the Harold Rogers Grant Program, BJA has maintained a consistent focus ondeveloping PDMP best practices and encouraging innovative applications of PDMP data. As will be notedin this paper, BJA gives priority funding consideration to states proposing to implement evidence-‐basedpractices that contribute to PDMP effectiveness.
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: An Assessment of the Evidence for Best Practices 5As a result of increased public and private support and the growing recognition of PDMPs’ potential toaddress the prescription drug abuse epidemic, PDMPs proliferated rapidly. In 2001, 16 states had passedlegislation authorizing the creation of a PDMP; by June 2012, 49 states and one territory had passedsuch legislation, and 41 states had an operating PDMP.The environment in which the newer PDMPs were implemented differs technologically and politicallyfrom that of PDMPs implemented through the early 2000s, generating an array of newer PDMPpractices and a great diversity of practices across all PDMPs. For example, PDMPs implemented since2001 have typically included a secure online portal for authorized providers to access PDMP data abouttheir patients. All older PDMPs, except one, have evolved to permit provider access, often requiring newlegislation authorizing such access, and then a costly retrofitting of PDMP operations to accommodateonline and other new technology and new user demands. In contrast to the oldest PDMPs, newerPDMPs are often prohibited by law from providing unsolicited reports on patient or health care provideractivity to law enforcement agencies or providers (PDMP COE survey of PDMPs, 2010). Although the widerange of practices carried out by different PDMPs suggests the possibility of evaluating the effectivenessof individual practices, the diversity of practices itself constrains the extent to which individual practicescan be isolated and assessed across PDMPs, since other practices most often cannot be held constant.Although PDMPs currently differ in their relative emphasis on improving medical care versus reducingdrug diversion and abuse, they are well positioned to serve both objectives. Indeed, these objectivessubstantially overlap since the appropriate prescribing of controlled substances can reduce theirdiversion and abuse, while law enforcement efforts can protect public health by limiting diversion. This isanalogous to the collaboration of public health and law enforcement agencies in reducing automobileaccidents, injuries, and fatalities. For example, criminal investigations of doctor shoppers can bringpeople at risk of overdose and death into drug courts, where they can be placed into drug treatment andsupervised, protecting health and saving lives. Likewise, law enforcement efforts to shut down pill millsand doctor shopping rings can have substantial public health benefits by reducing the supply ofprescription drugs for street trafficking.The opportunity therefore exists in establishing PDMP best practices to bring together advocates ofeffective medicine, drug abuse prevention, drug control, and substance abuse treatment to addresscommon objectives using a common tool: improving the legitimate use of controlled substances andmitigating the prescription drug abuse epidemic by utilizing PDMP data in all their diverse applications.Despite differences in operations and objectives among PDMPs, the history outlined above depicts anenvironment in which program modification is the norm, with the identification and adoption of newconcepts, technologies, and standards as constants. This suggests that development of evidence-‐basedbest practices will be welcomed by PDMPs, and their adoption can be expected.
Page 1 and 2: Prescription Drug MonitoringProgram
Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsAcknowledgementsI.
Page 5 and 6: Prescription Drug Monitoring Progra
Page 7: Prescription Drug Monitoring Progra
Page 59 and 60:
Prescription Drug Monitoring Progra
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
show all

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs - PDMP Center of Excellence

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?