Table 1.
Select attributes of prescription drug monitoring programsa pertinent to crash report linkage, investigation, and analyses (n=51)b
| Attribute | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Year Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) first operational | |
| <1990 | 9 (18) |
| 1990-1999 | 7 (14) |
| 2000-2009 | 17 (33) |
| 2010-2017 | 18 (35) |
| Agency responsible for PDMP administration | |
| Pharmacy Board | 20 (39) |
| Department of Health | 17 (33) |
| Professional Licensing Agency | 6 (12) |
| Law Enforcement Agency | 4 (8) |
| Substance Abuse Agency | 3 (6) |
| Consumer Protection Agency | 1 (2) |
| Authority to release PDMP data for research | |
| No authority to release | 3 (6) |
| Authorized to release | 48 (94) |
| Law enforcement access to data | |
| Access if active investigation | 36 (71) |
| Access if court process (e.g., court order, subpoena, search warrant) | 15 (29) |
| Types of data available to law enforcement | |
| Patient, prescriber, dispenser histories | 42 (82) |
| Patient and prescriber histories | 6 (12) |
| Patient history | 1 (2) |
| Unknown | 2 (4) |
| Controlled substances monitored c | |
| Schedules II-IV | 12 (24) |
| Schedules II-V | 39 (76) |
| Requirement that substance-related driving convictions be included in PDMP | |
| Yes | 1 (2) |
| No | 50 (98) |
a
Missouri’s PDMP does not span the entire state.
b
Includes 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia
c
Several PDMPs also monitor other specific drugs of concern that might fall outside of these classes (e.g., pseudoephedrine); see Appendix for specific information by state.