IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State-level prescription drug monitoring program mandates and adolescent injection drug use in the United States, 1995–2017: A difference-in-differences analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Joel J Earlywine
  • Scott E Hadland
  • Julia Raifman

Abstract

Background: Prescription opioid misuse is an ongoing crisis and a risk factor for injection drug use (IDU). Few studies have evaluated strategies for preventing opioid or IDU initiation among adolescents. We evaluated changes in the proportion of adolescents reporting IDU before and after prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) mandates were implemented in 18 states compared to 29 states without such mandates. Methods and findings: This difference-in-differences analysis used biannual Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System (YRBSS) data representative of adolescents 17 to 18 years old across 47 states from 1995 to 2017. We compared changes in adolescent IDU in 18 states with and 29 states without PDMP mandates. Among 331,025 adolescents, 51.7% identified as male, 62.1% as non-Hispanic white, 17.4% as non-Hispanic black, and 14.6% as Hispanic. Overall, 3.5% reported IDU during the 2 years prior to PDMP mandates. In the final multivariable difference-in-differences model, we included individual age, sex, and race/ethnicity, as well as state and year as covariates from the YRBSS. We also included state- and year-specific poverty rates based on US Census Bureau data. Additionally, we controlled for state implementation of (non-mandated) PDMPs before states subsequently implemented mandates and pill mill laws. We conducted several sensitivity analyses, including repeating our main analysis using a logistic, rather than linear, model, and with a lead indicator on PDMP mandate implementation, a lag indicator, and alternative policy implementation dates. PDMP mandates were associated with a 1.5 percentage point reduction (95% CI −2.3 to −0.6 percentage points; p = 0.001) in adolescent IDU, on average over the years following mandate implementation, a relative reduction of 42.9% (95% CI −65.7% to −17.1%). The association of PDMP mandates with this reduction persisted at least 4 years beyond implementation. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. Limitations include the multi-stepped causal pathway from PDMP mandate implementation to changes in IDU and the potential for omitted state-level time-varying confounders. Conclusions: Our analysis indicated that PDMP mandates were associated with a reduction in adolescent IDU, providing empirical evidence that such mandates may prevent adolescents from initiating IDU. Policymakers might consider PDMP mandates as a potential strategy for preventing adolescent IDU. Joel Earlywine and colleagues report on adolescent injection drug use and state prescription drug monitoring mandates in the United States.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Joel J Earlywine & Scott E Hadland & Julia Raifman, 2020. "State-level prescription drug monitoring program mandates and adolescent injection drug use in the United States, 1995–2017: A difference-in-differences analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    3. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Colleen Carey, 2018. "The Effect of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on Opioid Utilization in Medicare," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 77-112, February.
    4. Birk, Erica G. & Waddell, Glen R., 2017. "The Mitigating Role of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the Abuse of Prescription Drugs," IZA Discussion Papers 10990, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Delcher, C. & Wang, Y. & Wagenaar, A.C. & Goldberger, B.A. & Cook, R.L. & Maldonado-Molina, M.M., 2016. "Prescription and Illicitopioid deaths and the prescription drug monitoring program in Florida," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(6), pages 10-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beth Ann Griffin & Megan S. Schuler & Elizabeth A. Stuart & Stephen Patrick & Elizabeth McNeer & Rosanna Smart & David Powell & Bradley Stein & Terry Schell & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, 2020. "Variation in Performance of Commonly Used Statistical Methods for Estimating Effectiveness of State-Level Opioid Policies on Opioid-Related Mortality," NBER Working Papers 27029, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Shishir Shakya & Jane E. Ruseski, 2023. "The effect of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on county‐level opioid prescribing practices and spillovers," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(3), pages 435-454, July.
    3. Jetter, Michael & Magnusson, Leandro M. & Roth, Sebastian, 2020. "Becoming sensitive: Males’ risk and time preferences after the 2008 financial crisis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    4. Deiana, Claudio & Giua, Ludovica & Nistico, Roberto, 2019. "The Economics behind the Epidemic: Afghan Opium Price and Prescription Opioids in the US," IZA Discussion Papers 12872, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Alberto Ortega, 2023. "Medicaid Expansion and mental health treatment: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 755-806, April.
    6. Joseph A. Clougherty & Jo Seldeslachts, 2013. "The Deterrence Effects of US Merger Policy Instruments," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1114-1144, October.
    7. Johanna Catherine Maclean & Lauren Hersch Nicholas & Keshar M. Ghimire, 2017. "The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws on Social Security Disability Insurance and Workers' Compensation Benefit Claiming," Working Papers id:12111, eSocialSciences.
    8. Teng Wang, 2017. "To Build or to Buy? The Role of Local Information in Credit Market Development," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-013, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    9. Lauren Hersch Nicholas & Johanna Catherine Maclean, 2019. "The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on the Health and Labor Supply of Older Adults: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 455-480, March.
    10. Johanna Catherine Maclean & Melissa Oney & Joachim Marti & Jody Sindelar, 2018. "What factors predict the passage of state‐level e‐cigarette regulations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 897-907, May.
    11. Alice M. Ellyson & Jevay Grooms & Alberto Ortega, 2022. "Flipping the script: The effects of opioid prescription monitoring on specialty‐specific provider behavior," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 297-341, February.
    12. Deiana, Claudio & Giua, Ludovica, 2018. "The US Opidemic: Prescription Opioids, Labour Market Conditions and Crime," MPRA Paper 85712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Resul Cesur & Joseph J. Sabia & W. David Bradford, 2019. "Did the War on Terror Ignite an Opioid Epidemic?," NBER Working Papers 26264, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Ahomäki, Iiro & Pitkänen, Visa & Soppi, Aarni & Saastamoinen, Leena, 2020. "Impact of a physician-targeted letter on opioid prescribing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    15. Chie Hanaoka & Hitoshi Shigeoka & Yasutora Watanabe, 2015. "Do Risk Preferences Change? Evidence from Panel Data before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake," NBER Working Papers 21400, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Shao-Hsun Keng & Shin-Yi Wu, 2014. "Living Happily Ever After? The Effect of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance on the Happiness of the Elderly," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 783-808, August.
    17. Shishir Shakya & Collin Hodges, 2023. "Must‐access prescription drug monitoring programs and retail opioid sales," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 146-165, January.
    18. Johanna Catherine Maclean & Keshar M. Ghimire & Lauren Hersch Nicholas, 2021. "Marijuana legalization and disability claiming," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 453-469, February.
    19. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Colleen M. Carey & Giacomo Meille, 2020. "How well do doctors know their patients? Evidence from a mandatory access prescription drug monitoring program," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(9), pages 957-974, September.
    20. Brady P. Horn & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Michael R. Strain, 2017. "Do Minimum Wage Increases Influence Worker Health?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1986-2007, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.