MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971934297 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00103

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Mandates: Impact On Opioid Prescribing And Related Hospital Use

2019· article· en· W2971934297 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hefei Wen, Jason M. Hockenberry, Philip J. Jeng, Yuhua Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMedicaidMedicineMedical prescriptionEmergency departmentQuarter (Canadian coin)Emergency medicinePrescription drugOpioidControlled substanceMedical emergencyBlock grantFamily medicineHealth carePsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comprehensive mandates for prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) require state-licensed prescribers and dispensers both to register with and to use the programs in most clinical circumstances. Such mandates have the potential to improve providers' participation and reduce opioid-related adverse events. Using Medicaid prescription data and hospital utilization data across the US in the period 2011-16, we found that state implementation of comprehensive PDMP mandates was associated with a reduction in the opioid prescription rate from 161.47 to 147.07 per 1,000 enrollees per quarter, a reduction in the opioid-related inpatient stay rate from 97.50 to 93.34 per 100,000 enrollees per quarter, and a reduction in the opioid-related emergency department (ED) visit rate from 74.60 to 61.36 per 100,000 enrollees per quarter. Our estimated annual reductions of approximately 12,000 inpatient stays and 39,000 ED visits could save over $155 million in Medicaid spending, a fact that deserves policy attention when states attempt to strengthen and refine PDMPs to better tackle the opioid crisis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207