Starrels, Joanna L.

Importance Opioid prescribing has decreased in the US for more than a decade. However, less is known about how prescribing trends differ by prescriber specialty and separately for short-term and long-term opioid prescribing for which the indications, clinical decision-making, and potential for harm vary substantially. Objective To characterize opioid analgesic prescribing trends in the US between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, by prescriber specialty, analyzing short-term and long-term opioid use episodes separately. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used administrative claims data for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients (aged ≥65 years and <65 years with long-term disability) with at least 90 days of enrollment in medical and prescription coverage. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2025 to September 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures Prescribing volume, daily dose, and prescription duration. Results The study identified 110 288 218 opioid fills by 14 959 612 patients during the 15-year study period. Among opioid fills, 59.4% were attributed to female patients; the median (IQR) age at opioid fill was 61 (50-71) years. From 2010 to 2024, decreases in opioid prescribing were greater for long-term than short-term opioid use episodes (eg, commercial cohort: 81.3% reduction [from 33.2 fills per 100-person years in 2010 to 6.2 in 2024] and 74.6% reduction [from 36.2 fills per 100-person years in 2010 to 9.2 in 2024]), respectively. The proportion of all opioid fills written by primary care clinicians decreased (eg, Medicare Advantage with disability cohort: from 52.2% to 47.2%), whereas those written by pain medicine specialists increased (eg, Medicare Advantage with disability cohort: from 17.1% to 25.7%). Distinct trends for short-term and long-term opioid use episodes were observed in prescription characteristics, such as daily dose and duration. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of opioid prescribing trends in the US between 2010 and 2024, decreases in prescribing were greatest in long-term opioid use episodes, and prescribing was increasingly concentrated among pain medicine specialists. These findings suggest the need to balance reductions in opioid prescribing with provision of nonopioid pain treatments and raise concerns about access to care for patients taking opioids for chronic pain management.

AbstractIntroductionThe learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training.MethodsSince 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges.ResultsTo date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non‐clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID‐19‐related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities.ConclusionsFour years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.