








































The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 20, Issue 1 (2018). © 2018 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v20i2-3.191. All rights reserved.

The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug 
Monitoring Program

Reducing the Misuse of Prescription Opioids

LYNN S. MIRIGIAN
Program Evaluation Research Unit,  

University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy

LAURA A. HENDRICK
Drug Enforcement Administration, Philadelphia Field Division

JANICE L. PRINGLE
Program Evaluation Research Unit,  

University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy

MICHAEL A. ZEMAITIS
University of Pittsburgh Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences,  

University of Pittsburgh Health Policy Institute

In 2016, 4,642 Pennsylvanians died from a drug overdose and 85% of these 
deaths were due to an opioid overdose (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 
and University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy 2017). With a 37% increase in 
deaths from 2015, the Commonwealth’s response to this epidemic has come from 
several fronts. One valuable resource has been the modernization and imple-
mentation of Pennsylvania’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). 
PDMPs are state- run programs that record dispensing of most controlled sub-
stances and provide this data to physicians and pharmacists (among others) 
to inform their practice about possible opioid use disorder by a given patient. 
This article discusses the role of Pennsylvania’s PDMP in patient care and law 
enforcement to reduce opioid overdoses in the Commonwealth. Recent evidence 
is discussed that demonstrates the effectiveness of state-r un PDMPs and their 
impact on opioid misuse and prescribing patterns. It is important to note that 
additional research into the effectiveness of PDMPs in preventing opioid- related 
morbidity and mortality is needed.



136 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

Opioid overdoses in the United States have evolved into a full- fledged 
public health and public safety crisis, associated with rising overdose 
death rates, detrimental social consequences, increased health-  and 

safety- related risk, and high economic costs. In fact, overdose deaths have 
nearly tripled from 1999 to 2014 and continue to rise (Rudd et al. 2016). In 
2015, it is estimated that over 52,000 overdose deaths occurred nationwide, 
with about two- thirds related to opioid use (Rudd et al. 2016). Pennsylvania 
is clearly at the epicenter of the epidemic, with the sixth highest overdose 
rate in the United States in 2015 (Rudd et al. 2016). In 2016, fatal overdoses 
rose by 37% in Pennsylvania, totaling 4,642 people, with opioids (prescrip-
tion, heroin, fentanyl, fentanyl- related substances, nonprescription synthetics) 
found in 85% of overdose fatalities, and prescription opioids found in 25% of 
overdose fatalities (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and University of 
Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy 2017).

Nearly 3 million individuals in the United States are estimated to have 
an opioid use disorder involving prescription pain relievers or heroin (Bose 
et al. 2016). Opioid use disorders related to prescription pain medications are 
highest among adolescents and young adults, and approximately one- third 
of people 12 years and older who used drugs for the first time began with 
consuming a prescription drug nonmedically (Bose et al. 2016; U.S. Executive 
Office of the President of the United States of America 2011).

The role of prescription opioids in opioid use disorder and overdose lends 
itself to addressing prevention, intervention, and treatment efforts with pre-
scribers and dispensers. Several key initiatives in Pennsylvania specific to 
prescribers and dispensers are underway (described elsewhere in this special 
issue), including development of an extensive series of prescribing guidelines 
by the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs (DDAP) and the Penn-
sylvania Medical Society (PAMED); issuance of a standing order to Penn-
sylvania pharmacists to allow dispensing of naloxone to patients or third 
parties without a doctor’s prescription; and Good Samaritan legislation that 
safeguards individuals administering naloxone to save a life. This article will 
discuss the evolution and implementation of prescription drug monitoring 
programs (PDMPs), both nationally and in Pennsylvania. PDMPs are state- 
run programs that collect information on patients who receive controlled sub-
stances (see below) dispensed by a pharmacy or other dispenser. Currently, all 
states have such programs. Missouri, the last state to join, does have a limited 
PDMP law on the books as of July 17, 2017, but the program has not yet been 
implemented.



The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 137

Controlled Substances Monitored by the PDMP

PDMPs do not monitor all medications prescribed to a given individual, only 
those that are classified as controlled substances. The Controlled Substances 
Act (CSA), a federal drug policy that regulates the manufacture and distribu-
tion of controlled substances such as hallucinogens, narcotics, depressants, 
and stimulants, was enacted into law in 1970. The CSA categorizes drugs into 
five “Schedules” or classifications based on their potential for abuse, status in 
international treaties, and any medical benefits they may provide, in descend-
ing order, with Schedule I having the most potential harm (see Table 1).

The CSA was initiated to enable the United States to comply with the 
requirements of two international treaties. The 1961 Single Convention on 
Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances treaties 
set a system for classifying controlled substances in accordance with binding 
scientific and medical findings through the CSA, with two primary benefits. 
First, a schedule system makes it easier for state legislatures to enact criminal 
statutes by referring to the schedules rather than having to list all substances 
within the text of the law. Enforcement of the provisions of the CSA is a func-
tion of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Second, a schedule sys-
tem also makes it easier for drugs to be added and removed from a schedule 
rather than having to change an entire drug law. Proceedings to add, delete, 
or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Drug Administration 
(FDA), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer 

table 1. Schedule of controlled Substances

SCHEDULE I No currently accepted medical use; high abuse potential (e.g., 
LSD, Ecstasy, marijuana)

SCHEDULE II Accepted medical uses, but high abuse potential leading to 
psychological or physical dependence (e.g., morphine, oxycodone, 
methadone)

SCHEDULE III Less abuse potential than Schedule II drugs (e.g., codeine [in 
limited amounts], buprenorphine, amphetamines, anabolic 
steroids)

SCHEDULE IV Lower abuse potential than above (e.g., alprazolam, diazepam)

SCHEDULE V Preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics 
(e.g., codeine-containing cough syrups)

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division. 
Available at https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm.



138 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a pub-
lic interest group concerned with drug misuse, a state or local government 
agency, or an individual citizen.

As mentioned, the “drugs” monitored by a PDMP are controlled sub-
stances as defined by the CSA; however, PDMPs are state specific and the 
actual schedules monitored are determined by each individual program. The 
Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) administers the PDMP, and reg-
istration is mandatory for all prescribers and dispensers of Schedule II–V con-
trolled substances.

A Brief History of the PDMP (1939–current)

The first PDMP established in the United States was in California in 1939, 
followed by the Hawaii program in 1943. Between 1943 and 1990, seven other 
programs were established: Illinois (1961), Idaho (1967), Pennsylvania (1972), 
New York (1972), Rhode Island (1978), Texas (1981), and Michigan (1988). 
Early programs collected information on drugs currently equivalent to Sched-
ule II drugs only, and all used some type of state- issued serialized prescription 
forms. Multipage forms allowed one copy of the prescription to be sent to the 
PDMP monthly for data entry, while the pharmacy, and in most cases the 
prescriber, each kept a copy. Reports were only provided to law enforcement, 
regulatory agencies, or professional licensing agencies. During the 1990s, 
seven additional states operationalized PDMPs. During this time frame, sev-
eral improvements occurred. First, Oklahoma (1990), followed by Hawaii and 
Massachusetts (1992) became the first states to require electronic transmis-
sion of data, which increased accuracy and timeliness of submissions. Sec-
ond, several years after its establishment, the Nevada (1997) program began 
to provide data to prescribers and pharmacists by fax, and eventually via an 
online system.

Since 2000, 49 states have either established, updated, or maintained 
PDMPs. Not surprisingly, programs during this time saw an increased use 
of electronic submission protocols and reports. Since these programs are 
established and administered at the state level, there are differences between 
states, including housing of the program, funding, drug schedules collected, 
reporting requirements, collection of data for identified nonscheduled drugs, 
and which stakeholders have access to PDMP data. Overall, current programs 
typically collect data on all schedules of controlled substances; report data to a 
centralized database within 1–3 days; and provide reports to physicians, phar-
macists, law enforcement, licensing boards, and depending on the state, other 
appropriate groups. As time passes, more and more states are also requiring 



The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 139

some form of mandatory use of the PDMP, most often prior to prescribing 
or dispensing opioids and other controlled substances. Updated information 
on many characteristics of PDMPs is available at the website of the National 
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL).

As one reads the history of PDMPs, it appears that Pennsylvania was a 
pioneer in the area with a program established in 1972. However, this observa-
tion is somewhat deceiving. Although the other early implementers gradually 
increased the numbers of drugs reported and improved data access to health 
care practitioners, Pennsylvania lagged behind for many years. The following 
section details the history and evolution of the PDMP in the Commonwealth.

The Evolution of the Pennsylvania PDMP (1972–present)

Pennsylvania passed Title 28 PA Consolidated Statute, Chapter 25, Subchapter 
A, Section 25.131 in 1972 to improve the ability of law enforcement to use con-
trolled substance data. The “original” PDMP program required pharmacies to 
report to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on triplicate paper forms 
to eight different regional offices around the Commonwealth. In 2002, the 
OAG operationalized an electronic prescription filing program for Schedule 
II controlled substances. Although efficiency of data collection was improved 
with electronic filing, deficiencies were apparent: only Schedule II drugs were 
monitored, data was submitted monthly, and reports could only be queried 
by law enforcement and were not available to physicians and pharmacists. As 
other state programs were introduced and existing programs were updated, 
by 2012, Pennsylvania was the only state that collected only Schedule II data 
monthly.

Recognizing the need to modernize, PDMP reform began in the 2011–12 
legislative session with the introduction of HB 1651, sponsored by Represen-
tative Gene DiGirolamo (R-Bucks). The bill proposed the establishment of 
the Pharmaceutical Accountability Monitoring System (PAMS) to replace 
the program established in 1972. This legislation was referred to the Com-
mittee on Human Services on August 6, 2011, and was laid on the table on 
February 6, 2012, without a floor vote. A second attempt to form the PAMS 
occurred during the 2012–13 legislative session. This attempt (HB 317) was 
also introduced by Representative DiGirolamo and was also laid on the table 
on December 8, 2013, without a floor vote.

The third attempt by the House to pass PAMS legislation took the form 
of HB 1694, sponsored by Representative Matt Baker (R-Tioga). The bill was 
introduced during the 2013–14 legislative session. Third consideration and 
final passage of the bill occurred on October 21, 2013, and the bill was sent to 



140 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

the Senate. The Senate version of a PDMP took the form of SB 1180 sponsored 
by Senator Pat Vance (R-Cumberland). This bill renamed the PDMP as the 
Achieving Better Care by Monitoring All Prescriptions (ABC- MAP) Act. The 
bill passed and was signed in the Senate on October 16, 2014, signed in the 
House on October 20, 2014, and signed by Governor Corbett on October 27, 
2014. ABC- MAP subsequently became Act 191, which currently defines the 
parameters of the Pennsylvania PDMP. The program is housed in the Depart-
ment of Health and began data collection in August 2016.

The Parameters of the PDMP (Act 191)

The PDMP monitors Schedule II–V controlled substances. Medication- 
assisted treatment (MAT) providers are not required to submit data to the 
Pennsylvania PDMP system. The two primary users of the PDMP system 
are the prescriber (a person who is licensed, registered, or otherwise law-
fully authorized to distribute, dispense, or administer a controlled substance, 
other drug, or device in the course of professional practice or research in 
this Commonwealth), and the dispenser (a person licensed to dispense in this 
Commonwealth, including mail- order and internet sales of pharmaceuticals). 
Both prescribers and dispensers are required to register and query the PDMP 
before prescribing or dispensing an opioid or benzodiazepine drug product 
under a set of predefined conditions available on the PDMP website.

The PDMP is continually updated and improved to give prescribers and 
dispensers more advanced tools to help practice and streamline workflow. For 
example, in September 2017 the PDMP launched an initiative to integrate the 
PDMP system with the electronic health records (EHRs) and pharmacy man-
agement systems of all eligible health care entities in Pennsylvania. According 
to the Department of Health (DOH) website, “The goal is to minimize any 
workflow disruption by providing near- instant and seamless access to critical 
prescription history information to both prescribers and pharmacists” (www 
.health.pa.gov). As an additional incentive, DOH is covering the subscription 
fees associated with using this service for every health care entity in Pennsyl-
vania that elects to connect its health IT system to the PDMP until August 
31, 2019. Any health care entity in Pennsylvania that is legally authorized to 
prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled substances is eligible to apply 
for integration. Applications for integration are available at the above website, 
and two health care entities have been integrated thus far.

Additionally, as of January 2018, the Pennsylvania Prescription Drug 
Monitoring Program is sharing data with 16 other states and D.C., help-
ing prescribers and pharmacists to obtain a more complete picture of their 



The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 141

patients’ controlled substance prescription histories, regardless of where they 
filled their prescriptions. However, challenges in obtaining an accurate picture 
of patient histories still remain. Hawk et al. found that, “although the PDMP 
can accurately reflect the history of prescription opioids of a patient, the abil-
ity to accurately differentiate between the phenotype of aberrant opioid use 
or opioid use disorder and that of untreated or undertreated pain based on 
PDMP information alone, particularly among patients who are uninsured or 
do not have a primary care provider, remains a challenge” (2017).

Evidence of PDMP Effectiveness

Nationally, the PDMP has been shown to be effective in addressing opioid 
use disorder, reducing overdoses, and minimizing costs. First, the PDMP 
can reduce the volume of opioids accessible. A 30% reduction in the rate of 
Schedule II opioid prescriptions was observed in a review of 24 states that 
implemented statewide use of their PDMPs (Gugelmann and Perrone 2011). 
Second, the PDMP can increase early intervention strategies and/or referral 
of persons with possible opioid use disorder to treatment. A survey of Rhode 
Island and Connecticut prescribers revealed that prescribers who conducted 
PDMP queries were more likely to follow up with patients suspected of harm-
ful prescription drug use with drug screens or referrals to treatment (Green et 
al. 2012). Third, PDMPs are associated with reduced overdose deaths. A 2016 
national survey analyzed statistics for a one-y ear period, in which 49 states 
(all states but Missouri) had implemented PDMPs. State implementation of 
PDMP programs was associated with an average reduction of 1.12 opioid- 
related overdose deaths per 100,000 in the year after implementation of the 
PDMP (Patrick et al. 2016).

As hopeful as these results are, Hawk et al. caution physicians against 
relying too much on the PDMP when making crucial decisions about patient 
care. They say, “despite a small body of work suggesting a positive benefit 
of PDMPs, multiple challenges limit the ability of PDMPs to exert their full 
potential including robustness, ease of navigation and integration of elec-
tronic medical records, further research into how data associated with PDMPs 
should influence clinical care, and changing physician attitudes regarding 
PDMP utilization” (2017).

In Pennsylvania, analysis of overdose death data from 2014 to 2016 indi-
cated that prescription opioids were present in approximately 25% of over-
dose deaths during those years. In 2016, over half of all overdose deaths were 
attributed to fentanyl and fentanyl- related substances, which experienced a 
130% increase from 2015 to 2016. It is important to note that fentanyl can 



142 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

be prescribed, but it is often synthesized and obtained illicitly. Further-
more, deaths related to prescription opioids experienced the smallest percent 
increase (3% from 2015 to 2016) compared to other drug categories. In fact, in 
2016, the percentage of overdose deaths that were attributed to prescription 
opioids remained relatively stable throughout the year.

In the first quarter of 2016, prescription opioids were present in 31.3% of 
toxicology reports. In the second quarter of 2016, the percentage of prescrip-
tion opioids fell to 27.4% of toxicology reports, followed by 27.5% in the third 
quarter of 2016. In the last quarter of 2016, prescription opioids were present 
in 22.5% of toxicology reports. The PDMP was introduced in August 2016, 
which may have contributed to the decrease in prescription opioid- related 
deaths in Q4 of 2016. It is important to note that these data are preliminary, 
and future studies should be conducted as more data becomes available.

One year into implementation of the updated PDMP, about 97,000 
users have registered as of January 2018. The program’s database has aver-
aged approximately 53,000 searches on a weekday, and 9,000 searches on a 
weekend. As of September 2017, this utilization has decreased the number 
of patients who went to 5+ prescribers and 5+ dispenser/pharmacies in three 
months for Schedule II drugs by 89%. The number of youth that received pre-
scriptions for painkillers with a morphine milligram equivalent greater than 
100 mg per day has been reduced to 46% as of September 2017 (Communica-
tion with PA DOH PDMP office). 

Facilitating Effective Use of the PDMP  
to Improve Patient Care

A provider can use the PDMP to improve patient care by discussing a patient’s 
prescriptions to make sure he/she is aware of how opioids are used in pain 
management and the risks and harms associated with therapy; engaging a 
patient in a discussion about when it would be appropriate to taper off of opi-
oids or move to a lower dosage; monitoring total morphine milligram equiva-
lents/day dosage of all current opioids; monitoring for signs and evidence of 
misuse and/or risky behavior for an early intervention; referring a patient to 
substance or opioid use disorder treatment, if necessary; avoiding any poten-
tially harmful drug-d rug interactions (e.g., benzodiazepines); and discussing 
alternative pain management strategies before referring a patient to substance 
use disorder treatment.

The PDMP provides an infrastructure to improve patient care; however, 
ongoing training and technical assistance are crucial to its use in the pre-
scriber/dispenser workflow. To address this, the Department of Health (DOH) 



The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 143

has developed a state- of- the- art educational system to support practitioner 
use of the Pennsylvania PDMP to promote optimal participation and use by 
all providers and prescribers within the state. The educational system con-
tains seven different modalities that touch on various aspects of the PDMP, 
including: importance to population health, workflow and clinical decisions, 
optimizing pain management, appropriate opioid prescribing, SUD treat-
ment, Screening–Brief Intervention–Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), and opi-
oid tapering.

In addition, materials and delivery of training for health care systems that 
address practices to build a culture of change around prescriber use of the 
PDMP have been created. The training consists of a cultural change assess-
ment to aid health care systems in identifying and overcoming organiza-
tional barriers to effective implementation of the PDMP, followed by ongoing 
technical assistance to implement the PDMP after the assessment for PDMP 
implementation readiness. Finally, some hospital systems within Pennsylva-
nia have created peer- to- peer physician mentoring programs to improve opi-
oid prescribing patterns.

The PDMP also provides valuable information to raise community aware-
ness and to increase motivation to change prescribing practices. Leveraging 
local opioid overdose prevention coalitions, efforts are underway to engage 
the prescribers/dispensers as well as the persons receiving prescriptions. 
Prescriber/dispenser engagement is useful in disseminating the resources 
described in the paragraph above. At the public level, education revolves 
around teaching the basics of the PDMP, how and why it is used, how doctor’s 
appointments may change from the patient perspective, how pharmacy visits 
may change from the patient perspective, and other key information to ensure 
a smooth transition for patients.

Role of the PDMP in Law Enforcement

Law enforcement’s effective use of PDMP data facilitates identification and 
remediation of prescribers operating outside the scope of medical practice, 
as well as “doctor- shopping” patients; as such, PDMP use by law enforce-
ment can have a significant impact on the availability of diverted prescription 
drugs subsequently funneled into the illicit drug market. Law enforcement 
analysis of PDMP data occurs during an active investigation of a suspected 
rogue practitioner. Identifying patterns of prescribing outside the norm of a 
physician’s specialty, geographic area, or patient population base can be used 
in conjunction with traditional law enforcement techniques and other sources 
of information to determine the nature of criminal activity, if present.



144 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

Analysis of PDMP data at the macro, de- identified level by law enforce-
ment allows for geospatial analysis regionally to identify prescribing levels 
based on population density, drug type, etc. Also, combining data sources, 
such as prescription opioid prescribing rates, with prescription opioid–related 
overdose deaths, contributes to a greater understanding of the impact of 
diverted pharmaceutical availability that can then be leveraged into decisions 
regarding law enforcement strategies, multidisciplinary resource allocation, 
and implementation of public health interventions.

Future Directions

With the enactment of Pennsylvania’s Medical Cannabis Law (Act 16), the 
PDMP program faces another challenge—namely, whether a query of the 
PDMP should also provide medical cannabis products being used by the 
patient. It would be beneficial to the purpose of the PDMP (improved patient 
care and aiding law enforcement) for practitioners and law enforcement to 
obtain data not only on CII–CV substances, but also on cannabis products 
when querying the PDMP. Several obstacles exist to integration of the data-
bases. The PDMP legislation in Pennsylvania requires submission of data on 
controlled drugs classified as CII, CIII, CIV, and CV. Despite passage of medi-
cal cannabis legislation in 29 states, dry leaf products and dosage forms pro-
duced from cannabis remain classified by the DEA as CI drugs (no accepted 
medical use). Therefore, according to Pennsylvania legislation, the Depart-
ment of Health cannot directly include dispensing of cannabis products in 
the PDMP, since its classification is excluded from the legislation. The PDMP 
database and process already exist, and those for the medical cannabis regis-
try are still being written.

At the current time, there are no plans to directly integrate these data-
bases so that an inquiry into either registry will produce data from both. As a 
partial solution, the medical cannabis legislation does require prescribers in 
Pennsylvania to query the PDMP prior to recommending medical cannabis to 
a patient. Interestingly, Pennsylvania is not alone in this emerging dilemma. 
Of currently operational medical cannabis programs, only two (Connecticut 
and New York) provide medical cannabis information upon a query of the 
PDMP. They have done this by providing each dispensary and each cannabis 
product with unique identification numbers (similar to DEA numbers and 
NDC product identification numbers) that can be entered into the appropriate 
fields of a PDMP submission. When cannabis products are dispensed, dispen-
saries submit these identification numbers and patient information directly to 
the PDMP, and these products then appear on the PDMP report. In addition, 



The Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 145

according to available information, the relatively new medical cannabis pro-
gram in Ohio plans to integrate information from cannabis dispensaries and 
pharmacies directly into one report when the program begins. Of the remain-
ing states permitting medical cannabis, only five have some partial integra-
tion like Pennsylvania. In all others, there is no linkage of the databases, nor 
requirements for prescribers to query the cannabis registry when prescribing 
controlled substances.

Conclusion

The PDMP continues to grow to meet the needs surrounding opioid prescrib-
ing and dispensing. First, the PDMP office is currently sharing data with 16 
other states and D.C. for prescribers and dispensers to get a more complete 
picture of a patient’s controlled substance use. Second, the PDMP office has 
begun to integrate the data system with electronic medical records, stream-
lining the data entry and checking processes. Third, with the data obtained, 
it may be possible to identify potential risk factors based on number of pre-
scribers or pharmacies, overlapping prescriptions, morphine equivalency, and 
other patient health history information. As stated earlier, further research is 
needed to determine the effectiveness of PDMPs in evaluating patient histo-
ries and preventing death by overdose, and challenges still remain in the effec-
tive use of PDMPs. Hawk et al. stress “the importance of using screening, good 
history taking, clinician impression, and electronic medical records, in addi-
tion to using the PDMP to identify patients with opioid use disorder” (2017).

REFERENCES

Bose, J., S. Hedden, R. Lipari, E. Park- Lee, J. Porter, and M. Pemberton. 2016. Key Sub-
stance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2015 
National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral 
Health Statistics and Quality. 

Green, T., M. Mann, S. Bowman, N Zaller, X. Soto, J. Gadea, C. Cordy, P. Kelly, and P. 
Friedmann. 2012. “How Does Use of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 
Change Medical Practice?” Pain Medicine 13 (October): 1314–1323. 

Gugelmann, H., and J. Perrone. 2011. “Can Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Help 
Limit Opioid Abuse?” Journal of the American Medical Association 306 (November): 
2258–2259.

Hawk, K., G. D’Onofrio, D. Fiellin, M. Chawarski, P. O’Connor, P. Owens, M. Pantalon, 
and S. Bernstein. 2017. “Past- Year Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Opioid 
Prescriptions and Self- Reported Opioid Use in an Emergency Department Population 
with Opioid Use Disorder.” Academic Emergency Medicine.

Patrick, S. W., C. E. Fry, T. F. Jones, and M. B. Buntin. 2016. “Implementation Of Pre-
scription Drug Monitoring Programs Associated With Reductions In Opioid-R elated 
Death Rates.” Health Affairs (Millwood) 35 (July): 1324–1332. 



146 Lynn S. Mirigian, Laura a. Hendrick, Janice L. PringLe, and MicHaeL a. ZeMaitiS

Pennsylvania Department of Health. Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Pro-
gram. Accessed January 22, 2018, from http://www.health.pa.gov/Your- Department 
-of-Health/Offices%20and%20Bureaus/PaPrescriptionDrugMonitoringProgram/
Pages/home.aspx#.WuHSwVMvyLc. 

Rudd, R. A., P. Seth, F. David, and L. Scholl. 2016. “Increases in Drug and Opioid- Involved 
Overdose Deaths—United States, 2010–2015.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 
65 (December): 1445–1452.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy. 
2017. Analysis of Overdose Deaths in Pennsylvania, 2016. Philadelphia: DEA Philadel-
phia Division and the University of Pittsburgh.

U.S. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America. 2011. Epidemic: 
Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis. Washington DC: Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.

  

Lynn S. Mirigian is the project director for the Pennsylvania Opioid Overdose Reduction 
Technical Assistance Center (TAC) at the Program Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) 
of the University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy. She manages a dedicated team to fight 
the increasing issue of drug overdose deaths in the Commonwealth. She earned her doc-
toral degree at the National Institutes of Health, where she researched biochemistry and 
cell biology. Previously, Dr. Mirigian worked as a science policy manager in Washington, 
D.C., where she conducted science policy research, marketing and administration of a 
peer- reviewed journal, and scientific task force management.

Laura a. Hendrick currently serves as the field intelligence manager for the Drug Enforce-
ment Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice, Philadelphia Field Division. In 
this capacity, Ms. Hendrick oversees the development of tactical intelligence related to 
narcotics investigations, as well as the collection, analysis, and reporting of strategic intel-
ligence related to drug trafficking trends and emerging trends in drug abuse in Pennsyl-
vania and Delaware. Ms. Hendrick previously supervised the Philadelphia/Camden High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Center and served as an 
intelligence analyst working jointly with DEA Special Agents in conducting complex nar-
cotics investigations.

Janice L. Pringle is an epidemiologist by training, with extensive experience in health 
services research. She is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy, 
and the founder and director of the Program Evaluation Research Unit (PERU) within 
the University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy. Her area of expertise is health services 
research and organizational health. She has developed a framework for assessing organi-
zational health and guiding systems transformation. Dr. Pringle has secured over $140 
million in grants and has developed health care policy research that has been used to 
inform policy development at the state and federal levels.

Michael a. Zemaitis is a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pitts-
burgh School of Pharmacy. During the past several years, his research interests have 
shifted from basic pharmacology research to involvement in several policy- related issues. 
These issues include: responses to the opioid epidemic in Pennsylvania, enhanced avail-
ability of naloxone to treat opioid overdose, the establishment of a prescription drug mon-
itoring program in the state, and current legislation and research opportunities related to 
the approval of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania. The work is in conjunction with the 
University of Pittsburgh Health Policy Institute and Institute of Politics.




