Changes in Schedule II oral opioid volume dispensed in a private health plan following Florida’s Acute Pain Opioid Restriction Law

摘要

BACKGROUND: Florida’s House Bill 21 (HB21), implemented into law on July 1, 2018, limited opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a 3-day supply. While the law has been associated with a decrease in opioid prescribing for acute pain, its effect on opioid volume dispensed at the plan level remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of HB21 on the total volume dispensed of oral Schedule II opioids. We evaluated the change from before to after the law’s implementation in (1) total number of opioid units dispensed per month and (2) total morphine milligram equivalent (MMEs) dispensed per month. METHODS: Pharmacy claims from July 2017 to June 2019 were analyzed from a private health plan serving a large Florida employer. We summed the number of units and the total MMEs dispensed for each month per 1,000 enrollees. Units were defined as the total quantity of tablets/capsules dispensed for each Schedule II oral opioid prescription. We used interrupted time series (ITS) models, accounting for autocorrelation, to determine any immediate change after the policy implementation and to estimate trends before and after the policy. RESULTS: We identified 16,226 prescriptions of oral Scheduled II opioids dispensed to 6,315 enrollees over a 2-year period. The HB21 law was associated with an immediate but not statistically significant decrease of 110.25 units dispensed per 1,000 enrollees in the month after implementation (95% CI: ?218.84, ?1.67; P = 0.06). There was an immediate but not statistically significant decrease of 1,456.29 MMEs dispensed per 1,000 enrollees following HB21 implementation (95% CI: ?2,983.87, 71.29; P = 0.07). There were no significant changes in the slopes of the trends for total number of opioid units and total MMEs dispensed after HB21. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial lower quantities, there were no significant immediate reductions in total opioid units and MMEs dispensed in the year following the implementation of HB21. Our findings can inform other health plans on the potential effect of such restrictive laws and policies in other states where preexisting declining trends might have a higher impact than restriction policies. Future studies are needed to evaluate long-term intended and unintended consequences, including effects on patients’ access to care, resulting from this type of restrictive law. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Preliminary results of this study were presented at the Virtual ISPOR 2020 Conference held May 18-20, 2020.