Access to the PPM Journal and newsletters is FREE for clinicians.
11 Articles in Volume 15, Issue #2
Chronic Headache Management: Outpatient Strategies
Magnesium Sulfate Helpful in Treatment of Acute Migraines
New Guide to Migraine Rx Garners Mixed Reviews
Pain Education Across VA Clinics
12 Classes Offered at VA Pain School
Practical Guide to the Safe Use of Methadone
Chronic Pain Patients Who Fail Standard Treatment
Balancing State Opioid Policies With Need for Access to Pain Therapies
New Mexico’s Approach to Improving Pain and Addiction Management
Editor's Memo: Prescription Opioid Abuse is Declining
Ask the Expert: Lupus and Suicidal Ideation

Balancing State Opioid Policies With Need for Access to Pain Therapies

States are increasingly playing a regulatory role when it comes to certain pain medications. To follow is a discussion with Dr. Ziegler on the impact of drug regulation and enforcement on the treatment of pain.

Q : What research are you currently engaged in?

Dr. Ziegler: I am examining the proliferation of opioid dosage thresholds in various state prescribing policies. Once a chronic pain patient’s daily opioid dosage reaches a predetermined threshold—for example, 120 mg/d morphine equivalent dose (MED)—it triggers an action by the prescriber. The thresholds and the actions that prescribers must take once this threshold is reached differ by state. For example, in Washington State, a 120 mg/d MED threshold will trigger the prescribing physician to conduct, or refer the patient for, a pain consultation (exceptions and exemptions do exist).1

In some states, these thresholds appear in regulations, making the actions required actions, while in other states the thresholds appear in guidelines, making the actions merely recommended.

One goal of my research is to understand the impact of dosage threshold models across the United States and to examine their potential to create unintended consequences, specifically increased pain and increased opioid-related mortality—the very thing that policymakers are trying to prevent. Dr. Tennant and colleagues recently discussed rationale medical management in pain care.

Many policymakers are looking for the panacea or silver bullet solution to prevent unintended overdose, but it is complex problem and finding a solution will be extremely difficult. Preventing prescription drug abuse is complicated, and there are no easy answers. Many unintentional opioid overdoses stem from polypharmacy and/or polysubstance abuse; all solutions should keep this in mind.

Another goal of my research is to advance balanced policies and approaches. We hear a lot about opioid overdose rates, but we don’t hear a lot about undertreated pain. It is not appropriate for policies to focus solely on one issue and ignore the other.

Q: What advice would you give to primary care physicians and pain specialists who struggle with decisions about whether or not to prescribe opioids to patients with noncancer pain?

Dr. Ziegler: Prescribers certainly are concerned about prescribing opioids to patients with noncancer pain, but they also are concerned about prescribing opioids to those who are terminally ill. What is best for their patient? The Institute of Medicine and others recognize that pain is individualized; its treatment should be individualized as well.

I would also recommend that prescribers read Responsible Opioid Prescribing: A Clinician’s Guide by Scott Fishman, MD.2 The book covers patient evaluation, treatment plans, informed consent, periodic review, documentation, compliance, etc. Dr. Fishman offers good advice that is straight to the point. As he notes, clinicians should be familiar with state and federal prescribing rules and regulations. State medical or osteopathic associations might be helpful in locating these resources.

Q: Do you think that the reclassification of all hydrocodone combination agents from Schedule III to Schedule II under the federal Controlled Substances Act will help curb opioid abuse?

Dr. Ziegler:No, I do not (of course it depends on how one defines and measures abuse). I recently wrote an article about this topic for Pain View.3< The reason is that drug abuse is a moving target and is an extremely complex social and medical phenomenon. Politically, it may look like the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) did something by playing a significant role in the change from Schedule III, but the move will create access problems. This was a broad sweeping reform that has both positive and negative consequences. The action is positive in that it creates a barrier to abuse via more restrictive scheduling, but it is negative because it creates barriers to adequate treatment of pain by reducing legitimate access. The DEA is a law enforcement agency, not a public health agency. Drug abuse and undertreated pain are public health problems, not law enforcement problems.

Q: Can you give an example of a balanced policy on opioid prescribing?

Dr. Ziegler: Yes, New Mexico has decided not to establish a dosage threshold because of concern that such a policy would interfere with the patient-provider relationship. Instead, the state requires a mandatory continuing medical education course covering both prescription drug abuse prevention and the treatment of pain.4-7 Thus, the program is balanced and does not fixate on one problem at the expense of the other. The program was created by several stakeholders—regulators, practitioners, and the public—to ensure balance.

Another example of a balanced approach is Project Lazarus (http://projectlazarus.org)—a public health model that not only focuses on overdose but also provides educational opportunities related to pain treatment.

Q: How did you become interested in prescription drug policy and pain treatment?

Dr. Ziegler: I come from a medical family; thus, I had an interest in medicine already. However, I also was interested in the social sciences and politics, because I am a reformer.

In college, I took a course on bioethics and it merged my interest in medicine, politics, and reform. I was particularly interested in end-of-life decision making, because my overarching goal in research always has been a desire to reduce unnecessary human suffering.

When I was in law school, Jack Kevorkian was assisting the death of terminally ill people. It was at this time that pain treatment became intertwined with the topic of assisted death. Physicians became concerned that if they overmedicated a patient during end-of-life care and the patient expired, they might be accused of assisting death. I went on to practice law for a couple of years and then decided that what I really love to do is work in the health care and research fields.

When I was in my PhD program, my dissertation focused on the likelihood of prosecution stemming from opioid and non-opioid administrations. Coincidentally, the Mayday Fund had a request for proposal out on a similar topic, and I received a grant from the Fund to study pain management and the risk of criminal prosecution in Connecticut, Oregon, Maryland, and Washington. The research showed that the risk of investigation or prosecution was less when terminally ill patients were involved. This research led to publication of my research in several peer-reviewed outlets,8 and the opportunity to present my research at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

In 2005, with a grant from the Greenwall Foundation, I worked as a research fellow at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Zurich, Switzerland, where I studied the Swiss model of assisted suicide to explore its potential to inform the regulation of assisted death in the United States.

On my return to the United States, my research eventually returned to prescription drug policy and pain treatment, and ways that we can balance the need to ensure access to opioids with the need to prevent opioid abuse.

Q: What is the Mayday Fund, and how has your experience as a 2014-2015 Mayday Fellow changed your practice and research thus far?

Dr. Ziegler: The Mayday Fund is a philanthropic organization dedicated to alleviating the incidence, degree, and consequences of human pain. The Mayday Fund offers grants to educational institutions and public charities for a variety of programs, educational opportunities, and research on pain management.

The Fund also has underwritten The Mayday Pain & Society Fellowship, which is now in its 10th year. The program seeks to train leaders in the pain field to go beyond their professional pursuits and to advocate for effective pain management. To help facilitate that advocacy, we received training from a communications firm that helps us to communicate with the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders to deliver a clear and consistent message about the undertreatment of pain, pain research and treatment, pain education, and policies to improve pain care.

My experience with the Mayday Pain & Society Fellowship has made me aware of strategies for communicating with the media and policymakers, as well as the need to control the message, so that it does not become trivialized or lost. For me, that message is the necessity of balance. We cannot focus completely on preventing prescription drug abuse without also considering its impact on the treatment of pain. I now listen to media interviews in a different light and think about ways that the interviewees could have made some keys points without losing their audience or getting the interview off track. It is a skill-building process, and the training and feedback provided by the communications firm has been very helpful.

—Reported by Kristin Della Volpe

Last updated on: May 12, 2015

Join The Conversation

Register or Log-in to Join the Conversation
close X