Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 251

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

State Legal Restrictions and Prescription-Opioid Use among Disabled Adults

Open access
Meara, Ellen, Horwitz, Jill R., Powell, Wilson, McClelland, Lynn, Zhou, Weiping, O'Malley, A. James, Morden, Nancy E.·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In response to rising rates of opioid abuse and overdose, U.S. states enacted laws to restrict the prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. The effect of these laws on opioid use is unclear. METHODS: We tested associations between prescription-opioid receipt and state controlled-substances laws. Using Medicare administrative data for fee-for-service disabled beneficiaries 21 to 64 years of age who were alive throughout the calendar year (8.7 million person-years from 2006 through 2012) and an original data set of laws (e.g., prescription-drug monitoring programs), we examined the annual prevalence of beneficiaries with four or more opioid prescribers, prescriptions yielding a daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED) of more than 120 mg, and treatment for nonfatal prescription-opioid overdose. We estimated how opioid outcomes varied according to eight types of laws. RESULTS: From 2006 through 2012, states added 81 controlled-substance laws. Opioid receipt and potentially hazardous prescription patterns were common. In 2012 alone, 47% of beneficiaries filled opioid prescriptions (25% in one to three calendar quarters and 22% in every calendar quarter); 8% had four or more opioid prescribers; 5% had prescriptions yielding a daily MED of more than 120 mg in any calendar quarter; and 0.3% were treated for a nonfatal prescription-opioid overdose. We observed no significant associations between opioid outcomes and specific types of laws or the number of types enacted. For example, the percentage of beneficiaries with a prescription yielding a daily MED of more than 120 mg did not decline after adoption of a prescription-drug monitoring program (0.27 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.05 to 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of controlled-substance laws was not associated with reductions in potentially hazardous use of opioids or overdose among disabled Medicare beneficiaries, a population particularly at risk. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa1514387

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 251

Metadata

Authors
Meara, E., Horwitz, J. R., Powell, W., McClelland, L., Zhou, W., O'Malley, A. J., & Morden, N. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-07-07
Volume
375
Issue
1
Pages
44-53
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2466896638
Cited by
251
References
3
FWCI
32.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: State Legal Restrictions and Prescription-Opioid Use among Disabled Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa1514387
The paper
Meara, E., Horwitz, J. R., Powell, W., McClelland, L., Zhou, W., O'Malley, A. J., & Morden, N. E. (2016). State Legal Restrictions and Prescription-Opioid Use among Disabled Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1514387

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.