ArticlePloS one2026
Criterion validity and divergent risk profiles of long-term opioid therapy across medicare and medicaid.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceAccurate identification of patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) remains essential for clinical care and population health surveillance. Two widely used methods: prescription-based definitions and diagnostic codes are often treated as interchangeable, yet the criterion validity of code-based identification against a prescription-based reference standard is unknown, and the comparative risk profiles associated with each method across diverse populations are incompletely understood.
objectiveTo assess the criterion validity of diagnostic codes for identifying long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) using prescription-based LTOT as the reference standard, and to compare how each identification method corresponds to the risk of opioid use disorder, opioid poisoning, and other adverse outcomes across Medicare and Medicaid populations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsRetrospective cohort study using 100% Medicare and Medicaid claims data from 2016-2022. Criterion validity was assessed using complete beneficiary populations with a pain diagnosis (65.5 million Medicaid; 59.6 million Medicare). Risk-profile comparisons used incident LTOT cohorts identified by prescription-based 90-day LTOT, Z79.891 code, or both, excluding those with pre-existing opioid use disorder diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Criterion validity metrics included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Cohen's kappa for Z79.891 against prescription-based LTOT. Within incident LTOT cohorts, primary outcomes within 2 years included documented OUD diagnosis, opioid poisoning, medication for OUD (MOUD) receipt, all-cause mortality, drug mortality, and emergency department visits for pain.
resultsIn the full Medicaid population (N = 65.5 million), Z79.891 demonstrated sensitivity of 30.5% and specificity of 97.3% against prescription-based LTOT, with PPV of 40.2% and Cohen's κ = 0.313 (fair agreement). In Medicare (N = 59.6 million), sensitivity was 34.6%, specificity 91.4%, PPV 23.0%, and κ = 0.210 (fair agreement). Approximately two-thirds of prescription-based LTOT patients lacked Z79.891 coding in both populations. Among incident LTOT cohorts (771,581 Medicaid; 4,376,993 Medicare), the two identification methods demonstrated divergent risk profiles across insurance programs. In Medicaid, patients identified through prescription-based LTOT (n = 390,793) had significantly lower odds compared to code-based LTOT patients (n = 267,577) for OUD diagnosis (OR, 0.713; 95% CI, 0.696-0.730) and MOUD receipt (OR, 0.374; 95% CI, 0.364-0.385), but higher odds for all-cause mortality (OR, 2.277; 95% CI, 2.224-2.331) and opioid poisoning (OR, 1.117; 95% CI, 1.063-1.173). In Medicare, this pattern reversed: prescription-based LTOT patients (n = 1,045,466) demonstrated significantly higher odds than code-based LTOT patients (n = 2,845,109) for OUD diagnosis (OR, 3.009; 95% CI, 2.948-3.071), opioid poisoning (OR, 1.890; 95% CI, 1.802-1.981), and pain-related ED visits (OR, 1.204; 95% CI, 1.192-1.215), but lower odds for all-cause mortality (OR, 0.895; 95% CI, 0.886-0.904) and MOUD receipt (OR, 0.886; 95% CI, 0.841-0.932). Across programs, individuals with both types of identified LTOT (113,211 in Medicaid, 486,418 in Medicare) had the highest risk of OUD diagnosis and opioid poisoning. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Diagnostic codes demonstrate low sensitivity (30.5-34.6%) and only fair agreement (κ = 0.210-0.313) with prescription-based LTOT, indicating these methods identify largely different populations. These distinct populations show divergent, and often reversed, risk profiles across Medicare and Medicaid. Reliance on a single LTOT method of identification risks systematic misclassification of opioid-related risk, and population-specific, multi-method approaches to LTOT surveillance are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.