Prescribing Patterns of Buprenorphine Waivered Physicians
Published in: Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 181, Supplement C (December 2017), Pages 213-218. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.10.002
Posted on RAND.org on November 07, 2017
Download Free Electronic Document
Key Takeaways
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Background
DATA 2000 enabled physicians with approved training to be waivered to prescribe buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) for a limited number of patients. A rule change in 2016 increased the patient limit for certain buprenorphine waivered physicians from 100 to 275. This study examines the prescribing patterns of buprenorphine prescribers by waiver limit status (30- or 100-patient limit).
Methods
Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) data from Ohio, California, and Maine were used to identify prescriptions for buprenorphine for OUD from January 2010 to April 2015. Analysis of prescribing patterns by prescriber waiver status included monthly patient censuses and treatment episode duration by state, year, and the frequency with which prescribers were near their respective patient limits.
Results
In the three states, 8638 physicians initiated 468,148 buprenorphine episodes. The adjusted mean monthly patient census was 42.9 for 100-patient waivered prescribers, 13.6 patients for 30-patient waivered prescribers, and 7.6 patients for prescribers unassociated with a waiver. Half (48.5%) of episodes were associated with 100-patient waivered prescribers, 26.9% with 30-patient waivered prescribers, and 24.4% with non-waivered prescribers. 30-patient waivered physicians were more likely to have no buprenorphine treatment episodes in a given month than 100-patient waivered prescribers.
Conclusions
Most buprenorphine prescribers practice well under their current patient limit and have numerous months with no patient episodes. For the few high prescribers, increasing the maximum patient limit beyond 100 has the potential to improve access but alone may not have widespread impact unless integrated into complementary approaches toward increasing prescriber capacity.
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.