Publications

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of substance use are more likely than those without substance use to experience chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), to be prescribed opioids, and to experience opioid misuse or overdose. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) in safety-net settings care for low-income patients with CNCP and substance use, usually without specialist consultation. To inform communication related to opioid risk, we explored PCPs' and patients' perceptions of the risks of chronic opioid therapy.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 23 PCPs and 46 of their patients, who had a history of CNCP and substance use. We recruited from 6 safety-net health care settings in the San Francisco Bay Area. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analyzed transcripts using grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

(1) PCPs feared harming patients and the community by opioid prescribing. PCPs emphasized fear of opioid overdose. (2) Patients did not highlight concerns about the adverse health consequences of opioids, except for addiction. (3) Both patients and PCPs were concerned about PCPs' medicolegal risks related to opioid prescribing. (4) Patients reported feeling stigmatized by policies aimed at reducing opioid misuse.

CONCLUSION

We identified differences in how clinicians and patients perceive opioid risk. To improve the informed consent process for opioid therapy, patients and PCPs need to have a shared understanding of the risks of opioids and engage in discussions that promote patient autonomy and safety. As clinics implement opioid prescribing policies, clinicians must develop effective communication strategies in order to educate patients about opioid risks and decrease patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination.

OBJECTIVE

In 2013, the American College of Rheumatology published its Choosing Wisely list, which identified 2 radiographic procedures (peripheral joint magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and dual x-ray absorptiometry [DXA] scans) that were at risk for overuse.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study to measure the use of peripheral joint MRI, peripheral joint radiographs, and DXA scans in a national cohort of Medicare patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during 2008-2009, before the start of the Choosing Wisely campaign. Diagnoses were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes; utilization was calculated using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Utilization was analyzed at the individual level and at the regional level (by hospital referral region [HRR]).

RESULTS

There were 8,051 patients with RA who were included: 81% were women, and the mean age was 76 years. Over a 2-year period, the mean number of peripheral joint MRIs per beneficiary was 0.3 (median 0 [range 0-50]), peripheral joint radiographs per beneficiary was 2.6 (median 1 [range 0-33]), and DXA scans per beneficiary was 0.7 (median 0 [range 0-11]). Only 6.8% of patients received >1 peripheral joint MRI, and 6% of HRRs had a mean number of peripheral joint MRIs >1.

CONCLUSION

There is variation in the use of peripheral joint MRI, peripheral joint radiographs, and DXA scans among Medicare patients with RA, although only a small number of HRRs have consistently high utilization. Although we cannot judge the appropriateness of each procedure, variation in use across regions signals the need for investigations to examine potential overutilization.

There has been a great deal of state-level legislative activity focused on immigration and immigrants over the past decade in the United States. Some policies aim to improve access to education, transportation, benefits, and additional services while others constrain such access. From a social determinants of health perspective, social and economic policies are intrinsically health policies, but research on the relationship between state-level immigration-related policies and Latino health remains scarce. This paper summarizes the existing evidence about the range of state-level immigration policies that affect Latino health, indicates conceptually plausible but under-explored relationships between policy domains and Latino health, traces the mechanisms through which immigration policies might shape Latino health, and points to key areas for future research. We examined peer-reviewed publications from 1986 to 2016 and assessed 838 based on inclusion criteria; 40 were included for final review. These 40 articles identified four pathways through which state-level immigration policies may influence Latino health: through stress related to structural racism; by affecting access to beneficial social institutions, particularly education; by affecting access to healthcare and related services; and through constraining access to material conditions such as food, wages, working conditions, and housing. Our review demonstrates that the field of immigration policy and health is currently dominated by a "one-policy, one-level, one-outcome" approach. We argue that pursuing multi-sectoral, multi-level, and multi-outcome research will strengthen and advance the existing evidence base on immigration policy and Latino health.