Abstract
The 2022 revision of the CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids acknowledged that recent opioid governance has produced chronic pain patient dismissal and abandonment, yet the institutional mechanisms that generate such outcomes remain insufficiently theorized within health communication scholarship. This paper examines how the textual infrastructure of risk governance restructures the conditions under which chronic pain is believed in clinical settings. Drawing on a text-based institutional ethnography of Georgia's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and the NarxCare risk-scoring system, the analysis traces how legal, technical, and interface-level texts coordinate clinical action across regulatory, administrative, and algorithmic sites. Three findings follow. First, PDMP texts reorganize the cognitive starting point of the clinical encounter by placing algorithmic risk representations at its visual apex. Second, an intertextual chain tethers prescribing legitimacy to documentary procedures unrelated to the patient's medical condition. Third, this reconfiguration redistributes the burden of credibility work along gendered lines through a policy framework that collects gender as data while declining to analyze it, an algorithm that encodes gender as a weighted risk input, and an interface whose threshold logic is more likely to be triggered by the diagnostic trajectories that gendered patterns of pain recognition themselves produce. The paper theorizes the distinction between narrative credibility and documentable credibility as infrastructural determinants of communicative conditions.