View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Impacts of State‐Level Opioid Review Programs on Injured Workers and Their Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study in Washington and Ohio.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Impacts of State‐Level Opioid Review Programs on Injured Workers and Their Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study in Washington and Ohio.
Authors: PADAMSEE, TASLEEM J., MONTGOMERY, COURTNI, KIENZLE, STEFAN, STRAUGHN, JEREMY B., ELMORE, ANDREA, FULTON‐KEHOE, DEBORAH L., SCHULMAN, BERYL, WICKIZER, THOMAS M., FRANKLIN, GARY M.
Source: Milbank Quarterly. Sep2024, Vol. 102 Issue 3, p605-631. 27p.
Subjects: National health services, Qualitative research, Medical quality control, Research funding, Interviewing, Health policy, Descriptive statistics, Occupational health services, Judgment sampling, Workers' compensation, Physicians' attitudes, Work-related injuries, Pain management, Opioid analgesics, Physician practice patterns, Physician-patient relations, Research methodology, Narcotics, Drug prescribing, Patients' attitudes
Geographic Terms: Ohio, Washington (State)
Abstract: Policy PointsWorkers' compensation agencies have instituted opioid review policies to reduce unsafe prescribing. Providers reported more limited and cautious prescribing than in the past; both patients and providers reported collaborative pain‐management relationships and satisfactory pain control for patients.Despite the fears articulated by pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates, opioid review programs have not generally resulted in unmanaged pain or reduced function in patients, anger or resistance from patients or providers, or damage to patient–provider relationships or clinical autonomy.Other insurance providers with broad physician networks may want to consider similar quality‐improvement efforts to support safe opioid prescribing. Context: Unsafe prescribing practices have been among the central causes of improper reception of opioids, unsafe use, and overdose in the United States. Workers' compensation agencies in Washington and Ohio have implemented opioid review programs (ORPs)—a form of quality improvement based on utilization review—to curb unsafe prescribing. Evidence suggests that such regulations indeed reduce unsafe prescribing, but pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates have raised concerns about negative impacts that could also result. This study explores whether three core sets of problems have actually come to pass: (1) unmanaged pain or reduced function among patients, (2) anger or resistance to ORPs from patients or providers, and (3) damage to patient–provider relationships or clinical autonomy. Methods: In‐depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 48 patients (21 from Washington, 27 from Ohio) and 32 providers (18 from Washington, 14 from Ohio) who were purposively sampled to represent a range of injury and practice types. Thematic coding was conducted with codebooks developed using both inductive and deductive approaches. Findings: The consequences of opioid regulations have been generally positive: providers report more limited prescribing and a focus on multimodal pain control; patients report satisfactory pain control and recovery alongside collaborative relationships with providers. Participants attribute these patterns to a broad environment of opioid caution; they do not generally perceive workers' compensation policies as distinctly impactful. Both patients and providers comment frequently on the difficult aspects of interacting with workers' compensation agencies; effects of these range from simple inconvenience to delays in care, unmanaged pain, and reduced potential for physical recovery. Conclusions: In general, the three types of feared negative impacts have not come to pass for either patients or providers. Although interacting with workers' compensation agencies involves difficulties typical of interacting with other insurers, opioid controls seem to have generally positive effects and are generally perceived of favorably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 180986688
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Impacts of State‐Level Opioid Review Programs on Injured Workers and Their Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study in Washington and Ohio.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22PADAMSEE%2C+TASLEEM+J%2E%22">PADAMSEE, TASLEEM J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22MONTGOMERY%2C+COURTNI%22">MONTGOMERY, COURTNI</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22KIENZLE%2C+STEFAN%22">KIENZLE, STEFAN</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22STRAUGHN%2C+JEREMY+B%2E%22">STRAUGHN, JEREMY B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22ELMORE%2C+ANDREA%22">ELMORE, ANDREA</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22FULTON‐KEHOE%2C+DEBORAH+L%2E%22">FULTON‐KEHOE, DEBORAH L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22SCHULMAN%2C+BERYL%22">SCHULMAN, BERYL</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22WICKIZER%2C+THOMAS+M%2E%22">WICKIZER, THOMAS M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22FRANKLIN%2C+GARY+M%2E%22">FRANKLIN, GARY M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Milbank+Quarterly%22">Milbank Quarterly</searchLink>. Sep2024, Vol. 102 Issue 3, p605-631. 27p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+health+services%22">National health services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+research%22">Qualitative research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+quality+control%22">Medical quality control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+funding%22">Research funding</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviewing%22">Interviewing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+policy%22">Health policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Occupational+health+services%22">Occupational health services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judgment+sampling%22">Judgment sampling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Workers'+compensation%22">Workers' compensation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physicians'+attitudes%22">Physicians' attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work-related+injuries%22">Work-related injuries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pain+management%22">Pain management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Opioid+analgesics%22">Opioid analgesics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physician+practice+patterns%22">Physician practice patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physician-patient+relations%22">Physician-patient relations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Narcotics%22">Narcotics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+prescribing%22">Drug prescribing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patients'+attitudes%22">Patients' attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ohio%22">Ohio</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Washington+%28State%29%22">Washington (State)</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Policy PointsWorkers' compensation agencies have instituted opioid review policies to reduce unsafe prescribing. Providers reported more limited and cautious prescribing than in the past; both patients and providers reported collaborative pain‐management relationships and satisfactory pain control for patients.Despite the fears articulated by pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates, opioid review programs have not generally resulted in unmanaged pain or reduced function in patients, anger or resistance from patients or providers, or damage to patient–provider relationships or clinical autonomy.Other insurance providers with broad physician networks may want to consider similar quality‐improvement efforts to support safe opioid prescribing. Context: Unsafe prescribing practices have been among the central causes of improper reception of opioids, unsafe use, and overdose in the United States. Workers' compensation agencies in Washington and Ohio have implemented opioid review programs (ORPs)—a form of quality improvement based on utilization review—to curb unsafe prescribing. Evidence suggests that such regulations indeed reduce unsafe prescribing, but pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates have raised concerns about negative impacts that could also result. This study explores whether three core sets of problems have actually come to pass: (1) unmanaged pain or reduced function among patients, (2) anger or resistance to ORPs from patients or providers, and (3) damage to patient–provider relationships or clinical autonomy. Methods: In‐depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 48 patients (21 from Washington, 27 from Ohio) and 32 providers (18 from Washington, 14 from Ohio) who were purposively sampled to represent a range of injury and practice types. Thematic coding was conducted with codebooks developed using both inductive and deductive approaches. Findings: The consequences of opioid regulations have been generally positive: providers report more limited prescribing and a focus on multimodal pain control; patients report satisfactory pain control and recovery alongside collaborative relationships with providers. Participants attribute these patterns to a broad environment of opioid caution; they do not generally perceive workers' compensation policies as distinctly impactful. Both patients and providers comment frequently on the difficult aspects of interacting with workers' compensation agencies; effects of these range from simple inconvenience to delays in care, unmanaged pain, and reduced potential for physical recovery. Conclusions: In general, the three types of feared negative impacts have not come to pass for either patients or providers. Although interacting with workers' compensation agencies involves difficulties typical of interacting with other insurers, opioid controls seem to have generally positive effects and are generally perceived of favorably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=180986688
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1468-0009.12705
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 605
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: National health services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical quality control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research funding
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviewing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Occupational health services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Judgment sampling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Workers' compensation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physicians' attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work-related injuries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pain management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Opioid analgesics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physician practice patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physician-patient relations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Narcotics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug prescribing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patients' attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ohio
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Washington (State)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Impacts of State‐Level Opioid Review Programs on Injured Workers and Their Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study in Washington and Ohio.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: PADAMSEE, TASLEEM J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: MONTGOMERY, COURTNI
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: KIENZLE, STEFAN
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: STRAUGHN, JEREMY B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: ELMORE, ANDREA
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: FULTON‐KEHOE, DEBORAH L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: SCHULMAN, BERYL
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: WICKIZER, THOMAS M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: FRANKLIN, GARY M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0887378X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 102
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Milbank Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1