There’s Something Strange About Missouri’s New Opioid Law

It’s the only state where doctors can’t see which patients are “shopping around” for opioid prescriptions.

Calling opioid addiction a “modern plague,” Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed an executive order on Monday establishing a statewide prescription drug monitoring program, ending Missouri’s holdout as the only state without such a program. 

But Missouri’s latest legislation is very different from other PDMPs, because it doesn’t make information available to doctors and other prescribers. In every other state, the programs provide databases that allow healthcare practitioners to make sure that patients aren’t “doctor-shopping,” or getting opioid prescriptions from multiple providers. 

The databases have a mixed reputation, in part because their use is limited: One study found that only about half of primary care doctors use the programs; another found that that only a third of prescribers are registered in the systems. Critics also say that the databases alone won’t solve the problem, particularly as drug users often transition from prescription pills to illicit drugs like heroin and fentanyl. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls PDMPs “among the most promising state-level interventions to improve painkiller prescribing” and advocates for states to adopt mandatory prescriber participation.

Missouri has long been the single state without such a program, despite repeated attempts to pass legislation authorizing a PDMP. That’s because of a small but vocal group of state legislators, led by State Senator Rob Schaaf, who argue that making such databases available to prescribers violates patient privacy. (Schaaf also once said of drug users, “If they overdose and kill themselves, it just removes them from the gene pool,” after filibustering a 2012 version of the bill.) In the meantime, counties covering more than half the state’s population have implemented their own monitoring programs.  

After efforts to implement a monitoring program repeatedly died in the legislature, Greitens took another tack. The executive order authorizes the state to contract with private pharmacy benefit management organizations, which amass and analyze data from insurers on which doctors are prescribing what medications. The organizations will provide data on the healthcare practitioners who stand out for over-prescribing opioids to the state’s Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), which will in turn refer cases to law enforcement and state licensing boards. The state has already entered a $250,000 contract with Express Scripts, a benefits manager, says state DHSS director Dr. Randall Williams. Talks with other such managers, like CVS and UnitedHealth, are in the works, he added.

“When we identify those doctors through the data analytics, we can either turn them over to law enforcement if we think it’s egregious—they’re selling or prescribing drugs for profit,” said Williams. “Or we can turn them over to the Missouri healing arts board for remediation or suspension or revocation.”

The announcement immediately drew criticism from public health advocates who contend that a PDMP will not succeed without doctors on board and addiction treatment targeted at those patients abusing prescription drugs. 

“While I certainly welcome the Governor’s attention to this crisis, I have serious questions about how meaningful this action will be if doctors writing prescriptions—and pharmacists filling those prescriptions—don’t have access to this database,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in a statement. “The welcome mat is still out for drug dealers to shop for prescriptions in our state.”

“A PDMP that providers can’t access is much less likely to be effective because you lose all the eyes and ears on the front line (e.g., doctors) and instead just have your central team looking for anomalies in a database,” wrote Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University psychiatry professor who advised the Obama administration on drug policy, in an email.

The contract with Express Scripts—and Greitens’ announcement of the executive order at the Express Scripts office—also raised some eyebrows, as the company supported Greitens’ inauguration festivities. Asked if the decision to contract with Express Scripts was influenced by the company’s financial support, Williams said, “Absolutely not.” After so many failed attempts to pass PDMP legislation, he said, the governor was looking for an alternative way to track prescription data. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate