2013 PDMP Workshops


Download a 29-page Preview Guide (pdf) to the 2013 National Rx Drug Abuse Summit.
 

Part 1 – New PDMP Developments / Thursday, April 4, 2013, 8:30 am – 9:30 am
Moderator John L. Eadie
Director, Prescription Monitoring Program Center of Excellence, Brandeis University
Presenters Marty Allain
Director, INSPECT
 
 
Josh Bolin
Government Affairs Director, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
 
LCDR Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH
Prescription Drug Overdose Team, Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Description According to the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL), in 2004, only 22 states had enacted legislation to implement a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). By 2010, the number of states with PDMP laws rose to 42. Today, every state except one has enacted legislation to implement a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). However, these programs must continue to evolve in order to enhance access to data and assist clinicians in reducing prescription drug abuse. In this session, we will discuss the new PDMP developments that are currently underway to integrate data and the impact these laws are having on prescribing practices and the prescription drug abuse issue.
Learning Objectives 1. Explain a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP)
2. Investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of state-level programs to make improvements.
3. Outline strategies to enhance collaborations with law enforcement, prosecutors, treatment professionals, the medical community, pharmacies, and regulatory boards to establish a comprehensive PDMP strategy.
Part 2 – New Focuses for PDMP’s Efforts / Thursday, April 4, 2013, 9:45 am – 10:45 am
Moderator John L. Eadie
Director, Prescription Monitoring Program Center of Excellence, Brandeis University
Presenters Jennifer Frazier
Health Policy Analyst, Department of Health and Human Services
 
 
CDR Jinhee Lee
Public Health Advisor, Division of Pharmacologic Therapies, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA
 
 
Mike Small
Department of Justice Administrator II, California Department of Justice
 
 
Len Young
Epidemiologist, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Description As each state adopts their own version of the PDMP, opportunities for new focuses for PDMPs must be undertaken in order to increase the effectiveness of these programs. This session will outline best practices for the PDMP to notify prescribers who are frequently visited by doctor shoppers. We will also discuss the evaluation of high volume prescribers and deaths of patients by the media.
Learning Objectives 1. Outline strategies to enhance existing programs’ abilities to analyze and use collected data to identify drug abuse trends.
2. Explain how to enhance existing programs’ ability to analyze and use collected data.
3. Outline new opportunities for PDMP to effectively identify doctor shoppers.
Part 3 – PDMP Coordination with Third-Party Payers / Thursday, April 4, 2013, 11:00 am – Noon
Moderator John L. Eadie
Director, Prescription Monitoring Program Center of Excellence, Brandeis University
Presenters Chris Baumgartner
PMP Director, Washington State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
 
Alex Swedlow
Executive Vice President, Research, California Workers’ Compensation Institute
 
Bruce C. Wood
Associate General Counsel and Director, Workers’ Compensation, American Insurance Association
Description Comprehensive, well-designed PDMPs can serve a critical role in thwarting prescription drug abuse, as well as illegal drug diversion. It is essential for there to be broad access to PDMP data – by those with a legitimate purpose in such data – and as essential for PDMP programs to actively monitor their databases for suspicious activity, thereby providing a critical check on prescribers and dispensers and facilitating data-sharing.
Learning Objectives 1. State the basis for broad access to PDMP database, including third-party payers.
2. Identify specific strategies to avoid risky prescribing to help physicians avoid trouble with their Boards of the DEA.
3. Outline approaches to data-sharing among states.