Impact of Ambiguous and Restrictive Regulations on Opioid-Prescribing Practice in Georgia.

CONTEXT: Chronic pain management with opioids in incurable patients remains a challenge of modern medicine regardless of the evidence-based effectiveness of opioids and recommendations of authorities such as the World Health Organization and International Narcotics Control Board. Many countries, including Georgia, maintain overly restrictive regulations that contribute to inadequate pain management.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers to pain management in Georgia caused by legislation, administrative issues, and physicians' lack of knowledge and understanding of legislative aspects governing opioid use, and their impact on opioid-prescribing practice.

METHODS: We conducted a survey among 550 primary health care physicians. In total, 302 physicians completed the questionnaire. Overall, 289 questionnaires were analyzed statistically with SPSS version 20 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

RESULTS: We found that 38% of the physicians avoid prescribing opioids and only one-third of the physicians make an independent decision to treat the patients with opioids. About one-third of the physicians know the updated liberalized legislation and even fewer follow it. Those who apply more liberal legislation and have better medical practice are investigated three to five times more by legal authorities for prescribing morphine to incurable patients than those who do not.

CONCLUSION: Ambiguous legislation negatively influences opioid-prescribing practice. Most of the physicians believe that the legislation is restrictive. Physicians who have better medical and legal knowledge and understanding are controlled and investigated more because of their opioid-prescribing practice. Physicians who are concerned that they might be investigated are less inclined to prescribe opioids or use liberalized regulations.