Stop Blaming the Opioid Epidemic on Patients Who Shop Around for Doctors

A new study finds that the problem is much more complicated than pill-seeking patients and crooked physicians.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

As the death toll from the opioid epidemic continues to skyrocket, media and political attention has focused on so-called doctor shoppers, or patients who go from doctor to doctor in search of narcotics prescriptions. Headlines have also singled out pill mills, or doctors illicitly prescribing pills in exchange for cash. But a study released Thursday in the medical journal Addiction finds that the trend of overprescription to high-risk patients is far more complex. “You have this narrative that there are these opioid shoppers and rogue prescribers and they’re driving the epidemic, and in fact the data suggests otherwise,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, a study author and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness.

The study found that of those prescribed opioids in 2015, doctor shoppers were exceedingly rare, making up less than one percent of prescription opioid users—effectively “a rounding error,” says Alexander. The bigger problem, the researchers found, was that many patients were prescribed a potentially lethal combination of medications. One in ten prescription opioid users were concurrently prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines, a class of medications like Xanax or Valium that, when taken with opioids, can dramatically increases the risk of overdose. What’s more, another 4 percent of patients were on high doses of opioids for more than 3 months—which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly discourages.

So who’s responsible for these risky prescribing practices? The team distinguished between the small set of high-volume prescribers—roughly 8,000 doctors and other providers who consistently prescribe the most opioids in the states where the study took place—from the nearly 200,000 low-volume prescribers. Those 8,000 providers prescribed to a whole lot of high-risk patients: A whopping 91 percent of those patients prescribed high doses for more than three months, and three quarters of those patients concurrently prescribed benzodiazapenes and opioids, received opioid prescriptions from high-volume prescribers.

But Alexander notes that the majority of opioids overall are prescribed by the larger group of low-volume providers, and that the vast majority of these high-volume suppliers aren’t the pill mills we hear about in the news. “Most of these doctors aren’t ‘rogue’ prescribers only accepting cash and seeing 300 patients a day,” he said. “They’re simply doctors that are prescribing exceedingly high volumes of opioids. We need to do abetter job of educating them.” In addition to cracking down on pill mills, he added, public health efforts must include educating well-intentioned doctors about the risks of opioid addiction.

Some of this education is already in effect: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines last year urging doctors to consider opioids for chronic pain only as a last resort. Some states have passed legislation capping the first dose of opioids to just a few days. Every state has a prescription drug monitoring program, or a database that doctors can check to see if patients are already prescribed opioids (though many don’t require that physicians check it). Meanwhile, Jeff Sessions appointed a cohort of 12 prosecutors to crack down on physicians and pharmacies distributing high volumes of opioids.

And, as I noted in a column earlier this year, doctors are increasingly embracing a number of alternatives to opioids for pain management. “The bottom line is that we have lots of tools in the tool box that we’re not using,” says Alexander.

Efforts to wean Americans off of opioids are beginning to pay off: Prescription rates are slowly dipping after their peak in 2010, though Americans still consume more than two thirds of the world’s prescription opioids. 

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