BackgroundPrescription opioid–related overdose deaths increased sharply during 1999–2010 in the United States in parallel with increased opioid prescribing. CDC assessed changes in national-level and county-level opioid prescribing during 2006–2015.MethodsCDC analyzed retail prescription data from QuintilesIMS to assess opioid prescribing in the United States from 2006 to 2015, including rates, amounts, dosages, and durations prescribed. CDC examined county-level prescribing patterns in 2010 and 2015.ResultsThe amount of opioids prescribed in the United States peaked at 782 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per capita in 2010 and then decreased to 640 MME per capita in 2015. Despite significant decreases, the amount of opioids prescribed in 2015 remained approximately three times as high as in 1999 and varied substantially across the country. County-level factors associated with higher amounts of prescribed opioids include a larger percentage of non-Hispanic whites; a higher prevalence of diabetes and arthritis; micropolitan status (i.e., town/city; nonmetro); and higher unemployment and Medicaid enrollment.Conclusions and Implications for Public Health PracticeDespite reductions in opioid prescribing in some parts of the country, the amount of opioids prescribed remains high relative to 1999 levels and varies substantially at the county-level. Given associations between opioid prescribing, opioid use disorder, and overdose rates, health care providers should carefully weigh the benefits and risks when prescribing opioids outside of end-of-life care, follow evidence-based guidelines, such as CDC’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, and consider nonopioid therapy for chronic pain treatment. State and local jurisdictions can use these findings combined with Prescription Drug Monitoring Program data to identify areas with prescribing patterns that place patients at risk for opioid use disorder and overdose and to target interventions with prescribers based on opioid prescribing guidelines.

CDC.

Background: The CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends considering prescribing naloxone when factors that increase risk for overdose are present (e.g., history of overdose or substance use disorder, opioid dosages ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents per day [high-dose], and concurrent use of benzodiazepines). In light of the high numbers of drug overdose deaths involving opioids, 36% of which in 2017 involved prescription opioids, improving access to naloxone is a public health priority. CDC examined trends and characteristics of naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies at the national and county levels in the United States. Methods: CDC analyzed 2012-2018 retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a health care, data science, and technology company, to assess U.S. naloxone dispensing by U.S. Census region, urban/rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics, including age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment. Factors associated with naloxone dispensing at the county level also were examined. Results: The number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies increased substantially from 2012 to 2018, including a 106% increase from 2017 to 2018 alone. Nationally, in 2018, one naloxone prescription was dispensed for every 69 high-dose opioid prescriptions. Substantial regional variation in naloxone dispensing was found, including a twenty-fivefold variation across counties, with lowest rates in the most rural counties. A wide variation was also noted by prescriber specialty. Compared with naloxone prescriptions paid for with Medicaid and commercial insurance, a larger percentage of prescriptions paid for with Medicare required out-of-pocket costs. Conclusion: Despite substantial increases in naloxone dispensing, the rate of naloxone prescriptions dispensed per highdose opioid prescription remains low, and overall naloxone dispensing varies substantially across the country. Naloxone distribution is an important component of the public health response to the opioid overdose epidemic. Health care providers can prescribe or dispense naloxone when overdose risk factors are present and counsel patients on how to use it. Efforts to improve naloxone access and distribution work most effectively with efforts to improve opioid prescribing, implement other harm-reduction strategies, promote linkage to medications for opioid use disorder treatment, and enhance public health and public safety partnerships. Characteristic No. of prescriptions (rate)

Key Points Question Among US insurers, what are the coverage and utilization management policies for nonpharmacologic treatments for chronic, noncancer low back pain? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 45 Medicaid, commercial, and Medicare Advantage plans, most plans covered at least physical and occupational therapy and chiropractic care for chronic noncancer pain, but there was little evidence of coverage of acupuncture and psychological interventions. Utilization management strategies such as visit limits and prior authorization were common, but criteria varied widely across the plans examined. Meaning The lack of consistent coverage and utilization management policies underscores the need for best practices to improve comprehensive, multimodal coverage of treatments for chronic, noncancer low back pain.

Drug poisoning mortality more than doubled in the United States from 2000 to 2015; poisoning mortality involving opioids more than tripled. 1,2 Increases in poisonings have been reported to have reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic white individuals in the United States from 2000 to 2014. 3 Specific contributions of drug, opioid, and alcohol poisonings to changes in US life expectancy since 2000 are unknown.

IMPORTANCE Federal emergency authorities were invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to expand use of telehealth for new and continued care, including provision of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).OBJECTIVE To examine receipt of telehealth services, MOUD (methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release [ER] naltrexone) receipt and retention, and medically treated overdose before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Heart failure is a serious health condition that requires a significant amount of informal care. However, informal caregiving costs associated with heart failure is largely unknown. Methods We used a study sample of non-institutionalized US respondents aged 50 and older from the 2010 Health and Retirement Study (n=19,762). Heart failure cases were defined by using self-reported information. The weekly informal caregiving hours were derived by a sequence of survey questions assessing (1) whether respondents had any difficulties in activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living, (2) whether they had caregivers or not because of reported difficulties, (3) the relationship between the patient and the caregiver, (4) whether caregivers were paid, and (5) how many hours per week each informal caregiver provided help. We used a two-part econometric model to estimate the informal caregiving hours associated with heart failure. The first part was a logit model to estimate the likelihood of using informal caregiving, and the second was a generalized linear model to estimate the amount of informal caregiving hours used among those who used informal caregiving. Replacement approach was used to estimate informal caregiving cost. Results The 943 (3.9%) respondents who self-reported as ever being diagnosed with heart failure used about 1.6 more hours of informal caregiving per week than those who did not have heart failure (P < .001). Informal caregiving hours associated with heart failure were higher among non-Hispanic blacks (3.9 hours/week) than non-Hispanic whites (1.4 hours/week). The estimated annual informal caregiving cost attributable to heart failure was $3 billion in 2010. Conclusion The cost of informal caregiving was substantial and should be included in estimating the economic burden of heart failure. The results should help public health decision makers in understanding the economic burden of heart failure and in setting public health priorities.

No abstract