Rationale. There is little understanding of the prescription patterns of alternatives to opioids (ALTOS). Monitoring gender and racial health disparities can help with healthcare planning, workforce training, patient education, and awareness. Objective. This study asks whether healthcare professionals, when treating patients of the same race and sex, increase their likelihood of prescribing ALTOs relative to opioids. Methods. We use national Medicare Part D data from 2013 to 2017 and a machine-learning algorithm informed by census data to define the race of prescribers. We use multivariate regression models to understand the impact of race and sex biases on the extensive margin (e.g., percentage of people receiving ALTOs) and the intensive margin (e.g., the number of ALTOs prescriptions per capita). Results. Between 2013 and 2017, there has been an 8.7% increase in the prescriptions of ALTOs. The number of beneficiaries receiving ALTOs increased by 11.4%. In 2017, the number of ALTOs prescriptions per capita written as a fraction of all painkillers was 45%, and the number of beneficiaries receiving ALTOs prescriptions as a fraction of people receiving at least one form of painkillers (ALTOs or opioids) was 49%. A male doctor is 20.4% more likely to prescribe ALTOs as the percentage of same-sex patients increases. A white doctor is 7.4% more likely to prescribe ALTOs as the percentage of same-race patients increases, even when controlling for the socioeconomic status of patients, their age and risk factor, and the state and specialty of the prescriber. Conclusion. Sex and race concordance between providers and patients are significantly associated with prescribing alternatives to opioids. These systematic differences could be addressed by supporting diversity in the workforce, training, and increasing the minimum amount of time a visit should last.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

We use publicly available data from the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File (PUF). The PUF contains prescriber-level data, which includes Prescription Drug Event (PDE) records submitted by Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plans and stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans. The data is openly accessible in CSV (comma-separated values) format from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official website.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.