Cited by 10Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseHealthcare Policy and Management

Opioid Prescribing in Canada following the Legalization of Cannabis: A Clinical and Economic Time-Series Analysis

Open access
Dranitsaris, George, DeAngelis, Carlo, Pearson, Blake, McDermott, Laura, Pohlmann-Eden, Bernd·2021·Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Abstract

PURPOSE: On 17 October 2018 recreational cannabis became legal in Canada, thereby increasing access and reducing the stigma associated with its use for pain management. This study assessed total opioid prescribing volumes and expenditures prior to and following cannabis legalization. METHODS: National monthly claims data for public and private payers were obtained from January 2016 to June 2019. The drugs evaluated consisted of morphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, oxycodone, tramadol, and the non-opioids gabapentin and pregabalin. All opioid volumes were converted to a mean morphine equivalent dose (MED)/claim, which is analogous to a prescription from a physician. Gabapentin and pregabalin claims data were analyzed separately from the opioids. Time-series regression modelling was undertaken with dependent variables being mean MED/claim and total monthly spending. The slopes of the time-series curves were then compared pre- versus post-cannabis legalization. RESULTS: Over the 42-month period, the mean MED/claim declined within public plans (p < 0.001). However, the decline in MED/claim was 5.4 times greater in the period following legalization (22.3 mg/claim post vs. 4.1 mg/claim pre). Total monthly opioid spending was also reduced to a greater extent post legalization ($Can267,000 vs. $Can95,000 per month). The findings were similar for private drug plans; however, the absolute drop in opioid use was more pronounced (76.9 vs. 30.8 mg/claim). Over the 42-month period, gabapentin and pregabalin usage also declined. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that easier access to cannabis for pain may reduce opioid use for both public and private drug plans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40258-021-00638-4

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dranitsaris, G., DeAngelis, C., Pearson, B., McDermott, L., & Pohlmann-Eden, B.
Affiliations
  • Augmentium Pharma Consulting (Canada) (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Dranitsaris, George
Venue
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published
2021-01-25
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
537-544
ISSN
  • 1175-5652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1896
OpenAlex
W3124736841
Cited by
10
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Scientus Pharma Inc (100)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
opioid prescribing, cannabis legalization, recreational cannabis, opioid use reduction, morphine milligram equivalents, gabapentin, pregabalin, pain management
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Canada, Cannabis, Humans, Oxycodone, Practice Patterns, Physicians'

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review