Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Epidemiology. 2019 Mar;30(2):212–220. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000950

Table 2.

County-level association between selected prescription drug monitoring programs features and hospital discharges related to overdoses of prescription opioids and heroin. 990 counties within 16 US states, 2003–2014

Prescription Opioids Heroin
Median (95%CI) Median (95%CI)
Proactive reports to law enforcement 1.02 (0.99, 1.04) 0.82 (0.74, 0.91)
Proactive reports to licensing bodies 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) 1.29 (1.13, 1.47)
Proactive reports to prescriber/dispenser 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 1.06 (0.99, 1.13)
Mandatory registration for prescribers 0.97 (0.93, 1.01) 1.12 (1.00, 1.26)
Mandatory access 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) 1.69 (1.49, 1.90)
State shares data 1.12 (1.10, 1.15) 1.01 (0.95, 1.07)
Weekly reporting 0.92 (0.90, 0.93) 1.19 (1.12, 1.24)
All drug schedules reported 1.08 (1.06, 1.10) 1.09 (1.03, 1.16)
Presicion for model hyperparameters
Non-spatial random effect 18.3 (13.4, 24.9) 4.6 (3.3, 6.4)
CAR spatial random effect 5.8 (4.3, 7.9) 2.1 (1.4, 3.1)
County-level random trend 687.5 (597.5, 790.5) 152.7 (125.0, 187.1)
Deviance Information Criterion 66644 23112

Median = Rate ratio, computed as the exp(β) of the median posterior estimates. 95%CI = 95% Credible Interval. CAR = Conditional Autoregressive.

Models adjusted for the following county-level covariates: Rate of total hospital discharges; population density (1000s of people per square mile); % 20–44, 45–64, and 65 plus years of age; % white; % male; proportion of hospital discharges related to acute pain, proportion of hospital discharged related to chronic pain; % poverty, % unemployment. Models were also adjusted for State’s status on medical marijuana law, Naloxone access laws, Good Samaritan Law, Medicaid expansion, state fixed-effect, and a linear and quadratic time trend