CONTEXT: Mask mandates are one form of nonpharmaceutical intervention that has been utilized to combat the spread of SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the association between state-issued mask mandates and changes in county-level and hospital referral region (HRR)-level COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference and event study models were estimated to examine the association between state-issued mask mandates and COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: All analyses were conducted with US county-level data. INTERVENTIONS: State-issued mask mandates. County-level data on the mandates were collected from executive orders identified on state government Web sites from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily county-level (and HRR-level) estimates of inpatient beds occupied by patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were collected by the US Department of Health and Human Services. RESULTS: The state issuing of mask mandates was associated with an average of 3.6 fewer daily COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100 000 people (P < .05) and a 1.2-percentage-point decrease in the percentage of county beds occupied with COVID-19 patients (P < .05) within 70 days of taking effect. Event study results suggest that this association increased the longer mask mandates were in effect. In addition, the results were robust to analyses conducted at the HRR level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that state-issued mask mandates were associated with reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States during the earlier portion of the pandemic. As new variants of the virus cause spikes in COVID-19 cases, reimposing mask mandates in indoor and congested public areas, as part of a layered approach to community mitigation, may reduce the spread of COVID-19 and lessen the burden on our health care system.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid overdose is a leading public health problem in the United States; however, national data on overdose deaths are delayed by several months or more. OBJECTIVES: To build and validate a statistical model for estimating national opioid overdose deaths in near real time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional study, signals from 5 overdose-related, proxy data sources encompassing health, law enforcement, and online data from 2014 to 2019 in the US were combined using a LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression model, and weekly predictions of opioid overdose deaths were made for 2018 and 2019 to validate model performance. Results were also compared with those from a baseline SARIMA (seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average) model, one of the most used approaches to forecasting injury mortality. EXPOSURES: Time series data from 2014 to 2019 on emergency department visits for opioid overdose from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, data on the volume of heroin and synthetic opioids circulating in illicit markets via the National Forensic Laboratory Information System, data on the search volume for heroin and synthetic opioids on Google, and data on post volume on heroin and synthetic opioids on Twitter and Reddit were used to train and validate prediction models of opioid overdose deaths. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Model-based predictions of weekly opioid overdose deaths in the United States were made for 2018 and 2019 and compared with actual observed opioid overdose deaths from the National Vital Statistics System. RESULTS: Statistical models using the 5 real-time proxy data sources estimated the national opioid overdose death rate for 2018 and 2019 with an error of 1.01% and -1.05%, respectively. When considering the accuracy of weekly predictions, the machine learning-based approach possessed a mean error in its weekly estimates (root mean squared error) of 60.3 overdose deaths for 2018 (compared with 310.2 overdose deaths for the SARIMA model) and 67.2 overdose deaths for 2019 (compared with 83.3 overdose deaths for the SARIMA model). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this serial cross-sectional study suggest that proxy administrative data sources can be used to estimate national opioid overdose mortality trends to provide a more timely understanding of this public health problem.

INTRODUCTION: Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder is a cornerstone to addressing the opioid overdose epidemic. However, recent research suggests that the distribution of medications for opioid use disorder has been inequitable. This study analyzes the racial‒ethnic disparities in the receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder. METHODS: Medicaid claims data from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System for the years 2017-2019 were used for the analysis. Logistic regression models estimated the odds of receiving buprenorphine and Vivitrol within 180 days after initial opioid use disorder diagnosis on the basis of race‒ethnicity. Analysis was conducted in 2022. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black people, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native/Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander people, and Hispanic people had 42%, 12%, and 22% lower odds of buprenorphine receipt and 47%, 12%, and 20% lower odds of Vivitrol receipt, respectively, than non-Hispanic White people, controlling for clinical and demographic patient variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are racial‒ethnic disparities in the receipt of buprenorphine and Vivitrol among Medicaid patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder after adjusting for demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics. The potential strategies to address these disparities include expanding the workforce of providers who can prescribe medications for opioid use disorder in low-income communities and communities of color and allocating resources to address the stigma in medications for opioid use disorder treatment.

In 2019, 65.8 million U.S. adults reported past-month binge drinking and 35.8 million reported illicit drug use or prescription pain reliever misuse during the past month; 20.4 million met diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder during the past year (1). Approximately 81,000 persons died of a drug overdose* during May 2019-May 2020; excessive alcohol use contributes to an estimated 95,000 deaths per year (2). Persons with a substance use disorder are at elevated risk for overdose and associated harms (3). To examine the prevalence of past 30-day substance use patterns and the severity of problems experienced across seven biopsychosocial domains (alcohol, drug, employment, family, legal, medical, and psychiatric), CDC used 2019 data from the National Addictions Vigilance Intervention and Prevention Program (NAVIPPRO) Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version (ASI-MV) tool (4); these data are collected from adults aged 18 years who seek substance use treatment in the United States. Alcohol was the most commonly reported substance used during the past 30 days (35.8%), followed by cannabis (24.9%), prescription opioids (misuse) (18.5%), illicit stimulants (14.0%), heroin (10.2%), prescription sedatives or tranquilizers (misuse) (8.5%), cocaine (7.4%), illicit fentanyl (4.9%), and prescription stimulants (misuse) (1.8%).() Polysubstance use (use of two or more substances) during the past 30 days was reported by 32.6% of respondents. Among the biopsychosocial domains measured, 45.4% of assessments reported more severe problems with drugs; others reported psychiatric (35.2%), legal (28.8%), medical (27.4%), employment (25.0%), alcohol (24.2%), and family problems (22.8%). These findings highlight the complex nature of substance use in the United States, the interplay between substance use and mental illness, and the complex challenges that persons with substance use disorder face when seeking treatment. Actions to enhance comprehensive substance use programs that incorporate polysubstance use and co-occurring mental health problems into strategies for prevention, treatment, and response are needed, as is expanded linkage to services. CDC provides data and resources to equip and inform states, territories, and local jurisdictions to help improve opioid prescribing practices, improve linkage to care for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and prevent and reverse overdoses.().

In response to the opioid overdose crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (CDC Guideline) in 2016, which included recommendations to initiate opioids carefully and only when expected benefits outweigh risks.1 Although opioid prescriptions have decreased in recent years,2 an estimated 9.4 million people misused opioids in 2020.3 Little is known about how prescriptions dispensed to opioid-naive individuals (i.e., those new to opioid therapy) have changed in recent years; previous research focused on commercially insured individuals from 2012 to 2017.4 Understanding these patterns is important given the association between initial opioid-prescribing characteristics, such as prescription duration, and the likelihood of long-term use.5 This study examines previous opioid prescription history and initial prescription characteristics among individuals with dispensed opioid prescriptions from 2017 through 2020 using a large all-payer pharmaceutical claims database.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 stay-at-home orders may reduce access to substance use treatment and naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal drug. The objective of this analysis was to compare monthly trends in pharmacy-based dispensing rates of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (buprenorphine and extended-release [ER] naltrexone) and naloxone in the United States during March 2019-December 2020 by age and sex. METHODS: We calculated monthly prescription dispensing rates per 100,000 persons using IQVIA New to Brand. We used Joinpoint regression to calculate monthly percent change in dispensing rates and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests to examine differences in median monthly rates overall, and by age and sex between March 2019-December 2019 and March 2020-December 2020. RESULTS: Buprenorphine dispensing increased among those aged 40-64 years and ≥ 65 years from March 2019 to December 2020. Median rates of total ER naltrexone dispensing were lower in March 2020-December 2020 compared to March 2019-December 2019 for the total population, and for females and males. From March 2019 to December 2020, ER naltrexone dispensing decreased and naloxone dispensing increased for those aged 20-39 years. CONCLUSIONS: Dispensing ER naltrexone declined during the study period. Given the increase in substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining equivalent access to MOUD may not be adequate to accommodate rising numbers of new patients with opioid use disorder. Access to all MOUD and naloxone could be further expanded to meet potential needs during and after the public health emergency, given their importance in preventing opioid overdose-related harms.

BACKGROUND: While reduced exposure to prescription opioids may decrease risks, including overdose and opioid use disorder, abrupt tapering or discontinuation may pose new risks. OBJECTIVES: To examine potentially unsafe tapering and discontinuation among dosage changes in opioid prescriptions dispensed to US patients on high-dose long-term opioid therapy. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study of adults (18 years) on stable high-dose (50 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] daily dosage) long-term opioid therapy during a 180-day baseline and a 360-day follow-up using all-payer pharmaceutical claims data, 2017-2019. MEASURES: Dosage tapering, increases, and/or stability during follow-up; sustained dosage stability, reductions, or discontinuation at the end of follow-up; and tapering rate. Patients could experience more than one outcome during follow-up. RESULTS: Among 595,078 patients receiving high-dose long-term opioid therapy in the sample, 26.7% experienced sustained dosage reductions and 9.3% experienced discontinuation. Among patients experiencing tapering, 62.0% experienced maximum taper rates between >10-40% reductions per month and 36.1% experienced monthly rates 40%. Among patients with mean baseline daily dosages 150 MME, 47.7% experienced a maximum taper rate 40% per month. Relative to baseline, 19.7% of patients experiencing tapering had long-term dosage reductions 40% per month at the end of follow-up. IMPLICATIONS: Dosage changes for patients on high-dose long-term opioid therapy may warrant special attention, particularly over shorter intervals, to understand how potentially sudden tapering and discontinuation can be reduced while emphasizing patient safety and shared decision-making. Rapid discontinuation of opioids can increase risk of adverse outcomes including opioid withdrawal.

PURPOSE: In response to the opioid crisis, opioid analgesic guidelines and prescribing limits have proliferated. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine evidence from studies evaluating the patient or public health impact of federal and state opioid analgesic prescribing guidelines and laws, describe gaps and challenges in current research, and highlight opportunities for improving future research. METHODS: We focused on evidence from a literature review covering 2013 through 2019. We identified 30 studies evaluating opioid analgesic thresholds based on federal policies and guidelines, state laws, and Medicaid state plans that attempt to influence the course of patient care at or when the limit is exceeded (e.g., prior authorization). RESULTS: Most studies evaluated changes in prescribing or dispensing patterns of opioid analgesics, largely finding decreases in prescribing after policy enactment. Fewer studies evaluated patient or public health outcomes beyond changes in prescribing and dispensing patterns; results were infrequently stratified by potentially important sociodemographic and clinical factors. No studies assessed the potential for adverse patient outcomes for which we have emerging evidence of harms. CONCLUSIONS: We describe knowledge gaps and propose opportunities for future research to sufficiently assess the potential impact and unintended consequences of opioid analgesic prescribing laws, regulations, guidelines, and policies.

BACKGROUND: Deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) have increased since 2013 in the United States. Little research has examined individuals using IMF. This study aims to explore the characteristics of US adults who used IMF, heroin, or misused prescription opioids and examine the associations between demographic, clinical, psychosocial characteristics and IMF use. METHODS: A convenience sample of adults aged ≥ 18 years being assessed for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment was collected between January-December 2019 using the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version instrument. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to examine the associations between demographic, clinical, psychosocial characteristics and IMF use. RESULTS: Adults reporting IMF as their primary lifetime substance use problem also reported using other substances-most often alcohol or heroin-both in the past 30 days and during their lifetime. Characteristics associated with increased odds of reporting IMF as the primary lifetime substance use problem included age 18-24 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-2.38) versus 45-54 years, non-Hispanic Black persons (aOR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.11-1.85) versus non-Hispanic White persons, being assessed in Northeast (aOR = 15.46; 95% CI = 8.67-27.56) versus West, and having a history of at least one lifetime overdose (1 overdose (aOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49-2.44); 2 overdoses (aOR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.48-2.58); 3 or more overdoses (aOR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.82-2.82)). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide new insights into this high-risk population and help identify strategies to address increasing overdose death rates involving IMF. Opportunities for intervention include expanding naloxone distribution and harm reduction programs and connecting individuals with nonfatal overdoses to SUD treatment.

Background: While overall opioid prescribing has been decreasing in the United States, the rates of prescribing at the county level have been variable. Previous studies show that social determinants of health (the social and economic conditions in which we live) may play a role in opioid prescribing; however, researchers have not examined this relationship across US counties. This cross-sectional study seeks to determine whether county-level sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., economic, housing, social environment, healthcare environment, and population characteristics) are associated with county level differences in opioid dispensing. Methods: Data from 2,881 counties in the United States from 2017 to 2018 were used for this study. Opioid dispensing was measured using morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per capita. Spatial error models were used to measure the association between county-level sociodemographic characteristics and MME per capita while adjusting for spatial correlation between neighboring counties. Results: In the adjusted model, counties with a higher percentage of people below the poverty line, with less than a 4-year college degree, and without health insurance were associated with higher MME dispensed per capita, as were counties with higher percentages of families headed by a single parent, persons separated or divorced, and those with disabilities. Conversely, minority race/ethnicity and rural population were associated with lower opioid dispensing. Conclusions: County-level sociodemographics can differ in their association with opioid dispensing, hence examining which county-level factors help in improving opioid prescribing, and implementing overdose prevention strategies that tackle these factors is important. © 2021

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioids played a major role in the current opioid overdose epidemic. High rates of opioid prescribing and dispensing exposed many people to opioids, and high-dose opioid prescriptions (e.g., 90 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day) contributed to increases in opioid overdoses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention for States (PfS) program provided funding to jurisdictions ("PfS recipients") with a high burden of opioid-involved overdoses. This paper examines associations between strategies addressing high-dose opioid prescribing and changes in high-dose opioid dispensing. METHODS: Monthly opioid dispensing data (2014-2019) from IQVIA Xponent were analyzed using longitudinal growth models (LGM) to compare high-dose opioid dispensing rates in the 29 jurisdictions that participated in PfS with rates in non-PfS jurisdictions. Additional models examined associations between specific PfS activities and changes in high-dose dispensing among PfS recipients. RESULTS: High-dose dispensing rates decreased significantly in both PfS and non-PfS jurisdictions from 2014 to 2019. Rates of high-dose opioid dispensing rates in PfS jurisdictions were not significantly different than those in non-PfS jurisdictions (p = 0.07). Among PfS recipients, multiple activities were associated with decreases in high-dose dispensing rates over time, including moving towards real-time prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) reporting (p < 0.001) and implementation of opioid dispensing interventions for insurers/ health systems (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose opioid dispensing rates decreased throughout the United States from 2014-2019. As the drug epidemic continues to evolve, implementation of prevention activities by state and local partners is important. These findings highlight two potential prevention strategies and activities that jurisdictions can utilize.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify discrepancies between opioid prescribing and dispensing via the percentage of patients with Electronic Medical Record (EMR) prescriptions who subsequently filled the prescription within 90 days, defined as congruence, and compared opioid congruence with related medications. DATA SOURCES: Deidentified data from the IBM MarketScan Explorys Claims-EMR Dataset. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective, observational study, we examined congruence for commonly prescribed controlled substances-opioids, stimulants, and benzodiazepines. Congruence was stratified by age group and sex. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Continuously enrolled adults aged 18-64 years with an EMR encounter (excluding inpatient settings) and ≥ 1 prescription for selected classes between 1/1/2016 and 10/2/2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: During the study period, 1,353,478 adults had ≥1 EMR encounter. Patients with stimulants prescriptions had the highest congruence (83%) corresponding to 7151 claims for 8,635 EMR prescriptions, followed by opioids (66%; 62,766/95,690) and benzodiazepines (64%; 30,181/47,408). Chi-square testing showed congruence differed by age group within opioids (P < .0001) and benzodiazepines (P < .0001) and was higher among females within benzodiazepines (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that relying on claims data alone for opioid prescribing measures might underestimate actual prescribing magnitude by as much as one-third in these data. Combined EMR and claims data can help future research better understand characteristics associated with congruence or incongruence between prescribing and dispensing.

In 2019, 49,860 drug overdose deaths in the USA involved opioids.1 Naloxone can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. While the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone when factors that increase risk for opioid overdose are present, such as higher opioid dosages and the use of both opioid and benzodiazepines,2 the extent of concurrent naloxone dispensing among this population is unknown. Previous research, limited to Medicare beneficiaries, indicated that very few patients received concurrent naloxone prescriptions.3 Similarly, naloxone prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies remain low.4 We examine concurrent naloxone dispensing among individuals with high-risk opioid prescriptions in the USA from 2015 to 2019.

CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, county-level data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 community mitigation measures (e.g., stay-at-home orders) may worsen mental health and substance use-related harms such as opioid use disorder and overdose and limit access to medications for these conditions. We used nationally-representative data to assess dispensing of select substance use and mental health medications during the pandemic in the U.S. METHODS: IQVIA Total Patient Tracker data were used to calculate U.S. monthly numbers of unique patients dispensed buprenorphine, extended-release (ER) intramuscular naltrexone, naloxone, selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and for comparison, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) between January 2019-May 2020. Forecasted estimates of number of unique patients dispensed medications, generated by exponential smoothing statistical forecasting, were compared to actual numbers of patients by month to examine access during mitigation measures (March 2020-May 2020). RESULTS: Between March 2020-May 2020, numbers of unique patients dispensed buprenorphine and numbers dispensed naloxone were within forecasted estimates. Numbers dispensed ER intramuscular naltrexone were significantly below forecasted estimates in March 2020 (-1039; 95 %CI:-1528 to -550), April 2020 (-2139; 95 %CI:-2629 to -1650), and May 2020 (-2498; 95 %CI:-2987 to -2009). Numbers dispensed antidepressants and benzodiazepines were significantly above forecasted estimates in March 2020 (977,063; 95 %CI:351,384 to 1,602,743 and 450,074; 95 % CI:189,999 to 710,149 additional patients, respectively), but were within forecasted estimates in April 2020-May 2020. Dispensing patterns for statins and ARBs were similar to those for antidepressants and benzodiazepines. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on substance use and mental health underscore the need for innovative strategies to facilitate continued access to treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The use of multiple substances heightens the risk of overdose. Multiple substances, including alcohol, are commonly found among people who experience overdose-related mortality. However, the associations between alcohol use and the use of a range of other substances are often not assessed. Therefore, this study examines the associations between drinking patterns (e.g., binge drinking) and other substance use in the U.S., the concurrent use of alcohol and prescription drug misuse, and how other substance use varies by binge-drinking frequency. METHODS: Past 30-day alcohol and other substance use data from the 2016-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health were analyzed in 2020 among 169,486 U.S. respondents aged ≥12 years. RESULTS: The prevalence of other substance use ranged from 6.0% (nondrinkers) to 24.1% (binge drinkers). Among people who used substances, 22.2% of binge drinkers reported using substances in 2 additional substance categories. Binge drinking was associated with 4.2 (95% CI=3.9, 4.4) greater adjusted odds of other substance use than nondrinking. Binge drinkers were twice as likely to report concurrent prescription drug misuse while drinking as nonbinge drinkers. The prevalence of substance use increased with binge-drinking frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Binge drinking was associated with other substance use and concurrent prescription drug misuse while drinking. These findings can guide the implementation of a comprehensive approach to prevent binge drinking, substance misuse, and overdoses. This might include population-level strategies recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to prevent binge drinking (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes and regulating alcohol outlet density).

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency. Women are more likely than men to be prescribed opioid medications. Some states have adopted policies to improve opioid prescribing, including prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) and pain clinic laws. OBJECTIVE: Among reproductive-aged women, we examined the association of mandatory use laws for PDMPs in Kentucky (concurrent with a pain clinic law) and New York with overdose involving prescription opioids or heroin and opioid use disorder (OUD). STUDY DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND OUTCOME MEASURES: We conducted interrupted time series analyses estimating outcome changes after policy implementation in Kentucky and New York, compared with geographically close states without these policies (comparison states), using 2010-2014 State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases. Outcomes included rates of inpatient discharges and emergency department visits for overdoses involving prescription opioids or heroin and OUD among reproductive-aged women. RESULTS: Relative to comparison states, following Kentucky's policy change, we found an immediate postpolicy decrease and a decreasing trend in the rate of overdoses involving prescription opioids, an immediate postpolicy increase in the rate of overdoses involving heroin, and a decreasing trend in the OUD rate (P<0.01); New York's policy change was not associated with the assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PDMPs and pain clinic laws, such as those implemented in Kentucky, may be promising strategies to reduce the adverse impacts of high-risk opioid prescribing among reproductive-aged women. As states continue efforts to improve inappropriate opioid prescribing, similar strategies as those adopted in Kentucky merit consideration.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including birth defects, behavioral disorders, and impaired cognitive development (1). Little is known about the co-use of other substances by females who drink during pregnancy. CDC used 2015-2018 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to estimate the overall and trimester-specific prevalence of self-reported drinking in the past 12 months, current drinking, and binge drinking, overall and by trimester, and the co-use of other substances among pregnant females aged 12-44 years. Past drinking (12 months) was reported by 64.7% of pregnant respondents. Current drinking (at least one drink in the past 30 days) was reported by 19.6% of respondents who were in their first trimester of pregnancy and 4.7% of respondents who were in their second or third trimester. Binge drinking (consuming four or more drinks on at least one occasion in the past 30 days) was reported by 10.5% of first trimester respondents and 1.4% of second or third trimester respondents. Overall, 38.2% of pregnant respondents who reported current drinking also reported current use of one or more other substances. The substances used most with alcohol were tobacco and marijuana. Self-reported drinking prevalence was substantially lower among second or third trimester respondents than among first trimester respondents. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends alcohol use and substance use disorders screening for all females seeking obstetric-gynecologic care and counseling patients that there is no known safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy (2).

BACKGROUND: Expansion of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment is a core component of the opioid overdose epidemic response. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 authorized nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) to obtain a DATA-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. The objectives of this study are to examine national- and county-level buprenorphine prescription dispensing, patterns by patient demographics and clinician specialty, and county-level characteristics associated with buprenorphine dispensing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed from approximately 92% of all retail prescriptions in the US (2017-2018). Analyses include rates of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed, by patient demographics and prescriber specialty, changes in buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed at the national- and county-level, and county-level characteristics associated with buprenorphine dispensing. RESULTS: Buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed increased by 9.1% nationally, from 40.7-44.4 per 1000 residents. From 2017 to 2018, NPs (351.9%) and PAs (257.3%) had the largest percent increases in dispensed buprenorphine prescriptions, accounting for 79.6% of the total increase. In 2018, county-level characteristics associated with high buprenorphine dispensing included. among others: greater potential buprenorphine treatment capacity, higher drug overdose death rates, and higher rates of Medicaid enrollment. Rural counties were associated with low buprenorphine dispensing. CONCLUSION: Buprenorphine dispensing rates increased in the US from 2017 to 2018, suggesting the addition of NPs and PAs by CARA has contributed to an increase in dispensed buprenorphine prescriptions.

Importance: UV radiation emissions from indoor tanning devices are carcinogenic. Regulatory actions may be associated with reduced exposure of UV radiation at a population level. Objective: To estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of banning indoor tanning devices or prohibiting their use by minors only in North America and Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis modeled data for individuals 12 to 35 years old in North America and Europe, who commonly engage in indoor tanning. A Markov cohort model was used with outcomes projected during the cohort's remaining life-years. Models were populated by extracting data from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses, epidemiologic reports, and cancer registrations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were numbers of melanomas and deaths from melanoma, numbers of keratinocyte carcinomas, life-years, and health care and productivity costs. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of results. Results: In an estimated population of 110932523 in the United States and Canada and 141970492 in Europe, for the next generation of youths and young adults during their remaining lifespans, regulatory actions that ban indoor tanning devices could be expected to gain 423000 life-years, avert 240000 melanomas (-8.2%), and avert 7.3 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-7.8%) in North America and gain 460000 life-years, avert 204000 melanomas (-4.9%), and avert 2.4 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-4.4%) in Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Economic cost savings of US $31.1 billion in North America and euro21.1 billion (US $15.9 billion) in Europe could occur. Skin cancers averted and cost savings after prohibiting indoor tanning by minors may be associated with one-third of the corresponding benefits of a total ban. Conclusions and Relevance: Banning indoor tanning may be associated with reduced skin cancer burden and health care costs. Corresponding gains from prohibiting indoor tanning by minors only may be smaller.

INTRODUCTION: With a rapid increase in prescription opioid overdose deaths and a proliferation of pain clinics in the mid-2000s, Florida emerged as an epicenter of the opioid overdose epidemic. In response, Florida implemented pain clinic laws and operationalized its Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. This study examines the effect of these policies on rates of inpatient stays and emergency department visits for opioid-related overdoses. METHODS: Using data from the 2008-2015 State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases, quarterly rates of inpatient stays and emergency department visits for prescription opioid-related overdoses and heroin-related overdoses were computed. A comparative interrupted time series analysis examined the effect of these policies on opioid overdose rates. North Carolina served as a control state because it did not implement similar policies during the study period. The data were analyzed in 2019. RESULTS: Compared with North Carolina, Florida's polices were associated with reductions in the rates of prescription opioid-related overdose inpatient stays and emergency department visits, a level reduction of 2.31 per 100,000 and a reduction in the trend of 0.16 per 100,000 population each quarter. The policies were associated with a reduction of 13,532 inpatient stays and emergency department visits for prescription opioid-related overdoses during the study period. No statistically significant association was found between the policies and heroin-related overdose inpatient stays and emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: To address the opioid overdose epidemic, states have implemented policies such as Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and pain clinic laws designed to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing. Such laws may be effective in reducing prescription opioid-related overdoses.

INTRODUCTION: Concurrent prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines is discouraged by evidence-based clinical guidelines because of the known risks of taking these medications in combination. METHODS: This study analyzed concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing in 9 states using the 2015 Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, a multistate database of de-identified prescription drug monitoring program data. Concurrent prescribing rates were examined among individuals with both an opioid and a benzodiazepine prescription. Among patients with concurrent prescribing, total days of opioid supply, daily dosage of opioids, and total days of concurrent prescriptions were examined. Analyses were stratified by whether concurrent prescribing was from a single prescriber or multiple prescribers. Opioid prescribing and concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing rates were examined by age and sex. Analyses were conducted in 2018. RESULTS: Among 19,977,642 patients that were prescribed an opioid, 21.6% (4,324,092) were also prescribed a benzodiazepine, of which 54.9% (2,375,219) had concurrent prescriptions. More than half of patients with concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines received prescriptions from 2 or more distinct prescribers. Mean total opioid days, daily opioid dosage, and days of concurrent prescribing were higher among patients when multiple prescribers were involved compared with concurrent prescriptions from the same prescriber. Concurrent prescribing was more common among adults aged >/=50 years and female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Public health interventions are needed to reduce concurrent prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines. Evidence-based guidelines can help reduce concurrent prescribing when one prescriber is involved, and utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs and improved care coordination could help address concurrent prescribing when multiple prescribers are involved.

Few studies have investigated pricing and promotional practices used by the indoor tanning industry, despite their potential to promote indoor UV tanning-a well-established risk factor for melanoma skin cancer. Posing as potential customers, we telephoned 94 indoor tanning businesses in six United States (U.S.) cities and requested pricing information. The price of a single tanning session ranged from $0 to $23, and was lower at facilities that offered indoor tanning as a secondary service (mean $4.82 and free in 35%) than at tanning salons (mean $16.45). Session prices in salons could be as low as $1.50 with daily use of an unlimited monthly plan. Free indoor tanning, monthly packages, and memberships encourage increased use. Policies that limit free indoor tanning or that restrict pricing and advertising for indoor tanning exist in several places in the U.S. and Europe. Future research should evaluate whether those policies are effective in reducing indoor tanning.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription opioids were responsible for approximately 17,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2016. One in five prescription opioid deaths also involve alcohol. Drinkers who misuse prescription opioids (i.e., use without a prescription or use only for the experience or feeling it causes) are at a heightened risk of overdose. However, little is known about the relationship between drinking patterns and prescription opioid misuse. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 160,812 individuals (aged >/=12 years) who responded to questions about prescription opioid misuse and alcohol consumption in the 2012, 2013, or 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (analyzed in 2017-2018). The prevalence of self-reported past-30-days prescription opioid misuse was assessed by sociodemographic characteristics, other substance use (i.e., cigarettes, marijuana), and drinking patterns. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to calculate AORs. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, 1.6% (95% CI=1.5, 1.7) of all individuals aged >/=12 years (estimated 4.2 million) and 3.5% (95% CI=3.3, 3.8) of binge drinkers (estimated 2.2 million) reported prescription opioid misuse. Prescription opioid misuse was more common among binge drinkers than among nondrinkers (AOR=1.7, 95% CI=1.5, 1.9). Overall, the prevalence of prescription opioid misuse increased significantly with binge drinking frequency (p-value<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the 4.2 million people who misused prescription opioids during 2012-2014 were binge drinkers, and binge drinkers had nearly twice the odds of misusing prescription opioids, compared with nondrinkers. Widespread use of evidence-based strategies for preventing binge drinking might reduce opioid misuse and overdoses involving alcohol.

OBJECTIVE: Despite recent decreases in opioid prescribing rates, evidence suggests there is substantial variation in the way opioids are prescribed by providers. This study aims to identify patterns in high-volume opioid prescribing. METHODS: We conducted partitioning-around-medoids cluster analysis using the IQVIA Prescriber Profile dataset, including the number of opioid prescriptions filled at US retail pharmacies aggregated at the prescriber-level from July 2016 through June 2017. Clustering was used to identify prescription patterns within a sample of 10,000 high-volume opioid prescribers (defined as the top 10% of prescribers by number of opioid prescriptions during the 12-month period). Clustering variables included prescription counts by opioid type, and prescriber specialty, age, and region. RESULTS: Family medicine (32%), internal medicine (23%), and orthopedics (11%) were the most common high-volume prescribing specialties. Across specialties, hydrocodone and oxycodone were the most-frequently prescribed opioid types. Thirty-five clusters of prescribers were obtained, consistently comprised of a single majority specialty and region. All majority high-prescribing specialties were represented in Southern clusters, indicating consistently high volume opioid prescribing across specialties in the region. Prescribing patterns varied by drug type and region - across every Northeastern cluster, oxycodone prescribing was higher than hydrocodone. While clusters of pain medicine specialists had the highest median total prescriptions, emergency medicine specialist clusters had some of the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a clearer picture of current patterns among high-volume prescribers, who accounted for almost two-thirds of all opioid prescriptions. In light of the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic, this knowledge is critical for prevention activities.

This study examines trends in opioid prescribing at the US national and county levels during 2015 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership. CONCLUSION: We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.

BACKGROUND: We examined the longitudinal association between sociodemographic factors and an expanded definition of underemployment among those with and without cancer history in the United States. METHODS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2013) were used in multivariable regression analyses to compare employment status between baseline and two-year follow-up among adults aged 25-62 years at baseline (n = 1,614 with and n = 39,324 without cancer). Underemployment was defined as becoming/staying unemployed, changing from full to part-time, or reducing part-time work significantly. Interaction effects between cancer history/time since diagnosis and predictors known to be associated with employment patterns, including age, gender/marital status, education, and health insurance status at baseline were modeled. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of cancer survivors and 21% of individuals without cancer reported underemployment at follow-up (p = 0.002). Multivariable analyses indicated that those with a cancer history report underemployment more frequently (24.7%) than those without cancer (21.4%, p = 0.002) with underemployment rates increasing with time since cancer diagnosis. A significant interaction between gender/marital status and cancer history and underemployment was found (p = 0.0004). There were no other significant interactions. Married female survivors diagnosed >10 years ago reported underemployment most commonly (38.7%), and married men without cancer reported underemployment most infrequently (14.0%). A wider absolute difference in underemployment reports for married versus unmarried women as compared to married versus unmarried men was evident, with the widest difference apparent for unmarried versus married women diagnosed >10 years ago (18.1% vs. 38.7%). CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors are more likely to experience underemployment than those without cancer. Longer time since cancer diagnosis and gender/marital status are critical factors in predicting those at greatest risk of underemployment. The impact of cancer on work should be systematically studied across sociodemographic groups and recognized as a component of comprehensive survivorship care.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) improved health care coverage accessibility by expanding Medicaid eligibility, creating insurance Marketplaces, and subsidizing premiums. We examine coverage changes associated with ACA implementation, comparing adults with and without a cancer history. METHODS: We included nonelderly adults from the 2012 to 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Using information on state Medicaid policies (2013), expansion decisions (2015), family structure, income, insurance offers, and current coverage, we assigned adults in all 4 years to mutually exclusive eligibility categories including: Medicaid-eligible pre-ACA; expansion eligible for Medicaid; and Marketplace premium subsidy eligible. Linear probability regressions estimated pre-post (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015) coverage changes by eligibility category, stratified by cancer history. RESULTS: The uninsured rate for cancer survivors decreased from 12.4% to 7.7% (P<0.001) pre-post ACA implementation. Relative to income >400% of the federal poverty guideline, the uninsured rate for cancer survivors decreased by an adjusted 8.4 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-15.6] among pre-ACA Medicaid eligible; 16.7 percentage points (95% CI, 9.0-24.5) among expansion eligible, and 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.8 to 23.5, with a trend P=0.069) for premium subsidy eligible. Decreases in uninsured among expansion-eligible adults without a cancer history [9.7 percentage points (95% CI, 7.4-12.0), were smaller than for cancer survivors (with a trend, P=0.086)]. Despite coverage gains, approximately 528,000 cancer survivors and 19.1 million without a cancer history remained uninsured post-ACA, yet over half were eligible for Medicaid or subsidized Marketplace coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ACA implementation was associated with large coverage gains in targeted expansion groups, including cancer survivors, but additional progress is needed.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking has been causally linked to 12 tobacco-related cancers: oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum, liver, pancreas, larynx, lung, cervix, bladder, kidney, and acute myeloid leukemia. Tobacco-related cancers-related morbidity and mortality have been well described, but little is known about the prevalence of tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations and associated costs. This study estimates the annual number of tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations and their associated direct medical costs in the U.S. METHODS: This study examined data from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample, the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient care database in the U.S. The authors calculated number of hospitalizations, total costs, length of stay, and cost per stay for tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations and cancer hospitalizations not related to tobacco. RESULTS: In 2014, there were an estimated 461,295 annual tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations at a cost of $8.2 billion in the U.S. Tobacco-related cancers accounted for 45% of total cancer hospitalizations and cancer hospitalization costs. Compared with cancer hospitalizations not related to tobacco, tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations had a longer mean length of stay (6.8 vs 5.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of tobacco-related cancer hospitalizations is substantial in the U.S. These findings highlight the importance of tobacco prevention and cessation efforts to decrease the burden of tobacco-related cancers in the U.S.