Effects of regulation on methadone and buprenorphine provision in the wake of Hurricane Sandy

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs during a Health Crisis: Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Future Implications

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services are delivered. In this qualitative study, we examined what changes SUD treatment programs in Arkansas implemented in response to the pandemic, what factors influenced their ability to implement these changes, and their reflections, outlook, and future recommendations. Methods: Between May and August 2020, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 29 leaders at 21 SUD programs throughout Arkansas. Interview questions focused on what changes programs implemented in response to the pandemic, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and future outlook. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: Programs implemented similar infection control practices, including COVID-19 screening at entry, masks, hand hygiene, and social distancing. Residential programs discontinued outside visitations and capped admissions, and outpatient programs implemented telehealth services. Clients generally responded well to the changes, however many experienced difficulties (e.g., anxiety, lack of access to telehealth). While programs welcomed additional financial support (e.g., CARES act) and looser regulatory restrictions (e.g., telehealth use), many struggled economically due to lower demand and insufficient reimbursement. Programs varied in leadership and staff responses to the pandemic, and in their capacity to implement the changes (e.g., facilities, staffing). Finally, interviewees acknowledged they were unprepared for the pandemic and were uncertain about the future. Conclusions: The insights from the COVID-19 pandemic and SUD programs' responses helps researchers, policymakers and practitioners understand what has happened during the pandemic, how to prepare for future crises, and how to build more resilient SUD and public health systems.

Bridge clinic implementation of "72-hour rule" methadone for opioid withdrawal management: Impact on opioid treatment program linkage and retention in care

BACKGROUND

Methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment is restricted to licensed opioid treatment programs (OTPs) with substantial barriers to entry. Underutilized regulations allow non-OTP providers to administer methadone for opioid withdrawal for up to 72 h while arranging ongoing care. Our low-barrier bridge clinic implemented a new pathway to treat opioid withdrawal and facilitate OTP linkage utilizing the "72-hour rule."

METHODS

Patients presenting to a hospital-based bridge clinic were evaluated for OUD, opioid withdrawal, and treatment goals. Eligible patients were offered methadone opioid withdrawal management with rapid OTP referral. OTPs accepted patients as direct admissions. We described bridge clinic patients who received at least one dose of methadone between March-August 2021 and key clinical outcomes including OTP referral completion within 72 h. For the subset of patients referred to our two primary OTP partners, we described OTP linkage (i.e., attended at least one OTP visit within one month) and OTP retention at one month.

RESULTS

Methadone was administered during 150 episodes of care for 142 unique patients, the majority of whom were male (73%), white (67%), and used fentanyl (85%). In 92% of episodes (138/150), a plan for ongoing care was in place within 72 h. Among 121 referrals to two primary OTP partners, 87% (105/121) linked and 58% (70/121) were retained at one month.

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone administration for opioid withdrawal with direct OTP admission under the "72-hour rule" is feasible in an outpatient bridge clinic and resulted in high OTP linkage and 1-month retention rates. This model has the potential to improve methadone access.

Opioid treatment program safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statewide survey

Background

Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) serve as daily essential services for people with opioid use disorder. This study seeks to identify modifications to operations and adoption of safety measures at Pennsylvania OTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A 25-min online survey to clinical and administrative directors at all 103 state-licensed OTPs in Pennsylvania was fielded from September to November 2020. Survey domains included: 1) changes to services, client volume, hours and staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic 2) types of services modifications 3) safety protocols to reduce COVID-19 transmission 4) challenges to operations during the pandemic.

Results

Forty-seven directors responded, for a response rate of 45%. Almost all respondents reported making some service modification (96%, n = 43). Almost half (47%, n = 21) of respondents reported reductions in the number of clients served. OTPs were more likely to adopt safety protocols that did not require significant funding, such as limiting the number of people entering the site (100%, n = 44), posting COVID-safety information (100%, n = 44), enforcing social distancing (98%, n = 43), and increasing sanitation (100%, n = 44). Only 34% (n = 14) of OTPS provided N95 masks to most or all staff. Respondents reported that staff’s stress and negative mental health (86%, n = 38) and staff caregiving responsibilities (84%, n = 37) during the pandemic were challenges to maintaining OTP operations.

Conclusion

OTPs faced numerous challenges to operations and adoption of safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding mechanisms and interventions to improve adoption of safety protocols, staff mental health as well as research on patient experiences and preferences can inform further OTP adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergency planning.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07832-7.

Lessons from the First Wave of COVID-19 for Improved Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Treatment: Benefits of Easier Access, Extended Take Homes, and New Delivery Modalities

Background Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are associated with important public health benefits. Program changes implemented in response to COVID-19 hold promise as ongoing strategies to improve MOUD treatment. Methods: MOUD patients on buprenorphine or methadone, providers, government regulators, and persons who use drugs not in MOUD were recruited in the Northeast region of the United States between June and October of 2020 via advertisements, fliers, and word of mouth. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Interviews were professionally transcribed and thematically coded by two independent coders. Results: We conducted interviews with 13 people currently on buprenorphine, 11 currently on methadone, 3 previously on buprenorphine, 4 previously on methadone, and 6 who used drugs but had never been on MOUD. In addition, we interviewed MOUD providers, clinic staff, and government officials at agencies that regulate MOUD. Most participants found increased take-home doses, home medication delivery, and telehealth implemented during COVID-19 to be favorable, reporting that these program changes reduced travel time to clinics, facilitated retention in care, and reduced stigma associated with clinic attendance. However, some participants reported negative consequences of COVID-19, most notably, decreased access to basic resources, such as food, clothing, and harm reduction materials that had previously been distributed at some MOUD clinics. Conclusion: Access to and retention in MOUD can be lifesaving for persons using drugs. COVID-19-impelled program changes, including increased take-home doses, home medication delivery, and telehealth generally improved participants' experiences with MOUD. Making these permanent could improve retention in care.

Studying how state health services delivery policies can mitigate the effects of disasters on drug addiction treatment and overdose: Protocol for a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The United States is experiencing a drug addiction and overdose crisis, made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relative to other types of health services, addiction treatment and overdose prevention services are particularly vulnerable to disaster-related disruptions for multiple reasons including fragmentation from the general medical system and stigma, which may lead decisionmakers and providers to de-prioritize these services during disasters. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. states implemented multiple policies designed to mitigate disruptions to addiction treatment and overdose prevention services, for example policies expanding access to addiction treatment delivered via telehealth and policies designed to support continuity of naloxone distribution programs. There is limited evidence on the effects of these policies on addiction treatment and overdose. This evidence is needed to inform state policy design in future disasters, as well as to inform decisions regarding whether to sustain these policies post-pandemic.

METHODS

The overall study uses a concurrent-embedded design. Aims 1-2 use difference-in-differences analyses of large-scale observational databases to examine how state policies designed to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health services delivery influenced addiction treatment delivery and overdose during the pandemic. Aim 3 uses a qualitative embedded multiple case study approach, in which we characterize local implementation of the state policies of interest; most public health disaster policies are enacted at the state level but implemented at the local level by healthcare systems and local public health authorities.

DISCUSSION

Triangulation of results across methods will yield robust understanding of whether and how state disaster-response policies influenced drug addiction treatment and overdose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results will inform policy enactment and implementation in future public health disasters. Results will also inform decisions about whether to sustain COVID-19 pandemic-related changes to policies governing delivery addiction and overdose prevention services long-term.

Mal/adaptations: A qualitative evidence synthesis of opioid agonist therapy during major disruptions

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an urgent need to adapt OAT to best support people who use drugs (PWUD). This review examines the views and experiences of PWUD, health care providers, and health system administrators on OAT during major disruptions to medical care to inform appropriate health system responses during the current pandemic and beyond.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. We searched three comprehensive datasets for qualitative and mixed-methods studies that examined OAT in the context of major disruptions such as natural disasters, and analyzed included studies using thematic analysis and the constant comparative method. We used conceptual frameworks of health systems resilience and adaptive systems to interpret our findings.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies published between 2002 and 2020 that examined OAT in the context of hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. We organized our results into three themes: uncertainty, inconsistency, and vulnerability; regulatory inflexibility; and lack of coordination. The highly regulated but poorly coordinated systems of OAT provision lacked flexibility to adapt to major disruptions, thereby manufacturing vulnerability for both PWUD and health workers.

CONCLUSIONS

OAT programs must be resilient and adaptable to face major disruptions while maintaining quality care. Our findings provide guidance to develop and implement innovative strategies that increase the adaptive potential of OAT programs while focusing on the needs of PWUD.

The impact of COVID-19 on people who inject drugs in New York City: increased risk and decreased access to services

Background

While people who inject drugs (PWID) are vulnerable to the adverse outcomes of events like COVID-19, little is known regarding the impact of the current pandemic on PWID. We examine how COVID-19 has affected PWID in New York City across four domains: substance use, risk behaviors, mental health, and service utilization.

Methods

As part of a randomized trial to improve access to HCV treatment for PWID, we recruited 165 participants. Eligibility criteria included detectable HCV RNA and recent drug injection. The present cross-sectional analysis is based on a subsample of 106 participants. We compared responses between two separate samples: 60 participants interviewed prior to the pandemic (pre-COVID-19 sample) and 46 participants interviewed during the pandemic (COVID-19 sample). We also assessed differences by study group [accessible care (AC) and usual care (UC)].

Results

Compared to the pre-COVID-19 sample, those interviewed during COVID-19 reported higher levels of mental health issues, syringe reuse, and alcohol consumption and greater reductions in syringe-service programs and buprenorphine utilization. In the analysis conducted by study group, the UC group reported significantly higher injection risk behaviors and lower access to buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19, while during the same period, the AC group reported lower levels of substance use and injection risk behaviors.

Conclusion

The current study provides insight on how COVID-19 has negatively affected PWID. Placing dispensing machines of harm-reduction supplies in communities where PWID live and increasing secondary exchange, mobile services, and mail delivery of supplies may help maintain access to lifesaving supplies during big events, such as COVID-19.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03214679. Registered July 11 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03214679.

The impact of COVID-19 on opioid treatment programs in the United States

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had the potential to severely disrupt the delivery of methadone and buprenorphine, as social distancing and other public health regulations made in-person services difficult to maintain. Federal and state regulators changed requirements regarding the dispensing of medication and in-person counseling at opioid treatment programs. Understanding staff and patient reactions to these changes can help determine whether they should be maintained.

METHODS

We interviewed 25 directors of OTP programs located throughout the United States. Note takers wrote summaries of each interview which were coded for topics and themes covered in the interview guide, including changes to clinic practices, take-home medications, telehealth, patient and staff reactions to new COVID-related protocols, and financial concerns for programs.

RESULTS

Most programs rapidly incorporated new regulatory requirements, and directors were generally positive about the impact of increased take-home doses of medication and increased reliance on telehealth. Some directors voiced concerns about these changes, and some reported that patients missed the daily clinical contact with staff. Directors also suggested that more time was needed to assess the full impact of these changes. Financial impacts varied, although many directors were quick to point out that the ongoing opioid epidemic has delivered a steady stream of new patients, thus offsetting potential financial losses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study demonstrated the generally positive view of OTP directors to the regulatory changes necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. More time is needed to fully evaluate the impact of these changes on clinical outcomes.

Did drug use increase following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-out regulations? 2020 was a complicated year

Background

Relaxation of federal regulations for methadone take-out dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The impact of this change on drug use is unknown. This study explores the impact of the federal take-out variance on drug use in one urban opioid treatment program as measured by drug testing.

Methods

This study collected drug test results from 613 patients receiving methadone from July 2020, following COVID-19-related take-out dose adjustments, and July 2019 for comparison. Using a generalized linear mixed model, we computed the average estimated probability of a positive drug test for each year for each take-out phase. To isolate the effect of changing take-out, we removed the main effect of year, while retaining the main effect of take-out phase and the interaction between year and phase.

Results

The percent of drug tests positive for opiates, benzodiazepines, and methamphetamine was greater in July 2020 than in July 2019 (p < 0.001 for each), while the percent of tests negative for methadone increased (p < 0.001). Oxycodone, barbiturate, and cocaine positive tests remained stable. In a separate analysis of opioid and non-opioid test results, take-out phase was associated with both opioid and non-opioid positive results (p < 0.001, each outcome). The association of take-out phase with opioid and non-opioid positive results differed in the two years (year-by-phase interaction p < 0.025, each outcome). After removing the year main effect, the rate of positive tests was lower in 2020 for the smallest number of take-out doses, higher for a moderate number of take-out doses, and about the same for the highest number of take-out doses.

Conclusions

Positive opioid and non-opioid drug tests increased following the federal variance allowing more methadone take-out doses, but these findings cannot fully be attributed to alterations in the take-out schedule.

Where Do We Go From Here? The Delivery of Addiction Treatment in a Post-COVID World

Many healthcare institutions across the nation experienced significant disruptions in addiction treatment services as a result of COVID-19. As restrictions now begin to loosen, there is an opportunity to transition towards a new treatment structure informed by the experience from both the current public health crisis and precrisis operations. However, there is currently limited information on how best to do so, leaving many providers and specialty programs searching for answers. The permanent integration of recent regulatory changes into routine clinical practice, specifically regarding prescribing flexibility and use of telehealth, is yet to be determined, but implementation experience highlights the adaptability within this field of medicine. Providing patients with a spectrum of care that is both clinically informed and technologically supported should be at the forefront as we settle into a postcrisis world.

A rapid review of the impacts of "Big Events " on risks, harms, and service delivery among people who use drugs: Implications for responding to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

"Big Events" are major disruptions to physical, political, and economic environments that can influence vulnerability to drug-related harms. We reviewed the impacts of Big Events with relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic on drug-related risk and harms and access to drug treatment and harm reduction services.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods literature relating to the following Big Events: respiratory infection pandemics, natural disasters, financial crises, and heroin shortages. Included studies reported data on changes to risks, harms, and/or service provisioning for people who use illicit drugs (other than cannabis) in the context of these Big Events. Searches were conducted in PubMed in May 2020, and two reviewers screened studies for inclusion. Peer-reviewed studies published in English or French were included. We used a narrative synthesis approach and mapped risk pathways identified in the literature.

RESULTS

No studies reporting on respiratory infection pandemics were identified. Twelve studies reporting on natural disaster outcomes noted marked disruption to drug markets, increased violence and risk of drug-related harm, and significant barriers to service provision caused by infrastructure damage. Five studies of the 2008 global financial crisis indicated increases in the frequency of drug use and associated harms as incomes and service funding declined. Finally, 17 studies of heroin shortages noted increases in heroin price and adulteration, potentiating drug substitutions and risk behaviors, as well as growing demand for drug treatment.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence reveals numerous risk pathways and service impacts emanating from Big Events. Risk pathway maps derived from this literature provide groundwork for future research and policy analyses, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the findings, we recommend responding to the pandemic with legislative and financial support for the flexible delivery of harm reduction services, opioid agonist treatment, and mental health care.

Exposure to Hurricane Sandy and Risk of Opioid Abuse

BACKGROUND

Given both the increased prevalence of natural disasters in recent years and the crippling opioid epidemic, identifying at-risk groups for substance abuse post-disaster is imperative to survivor mental health. The objective of this study was to examine the association between exposure to Hurricane Sandy and risk of opioid abusive behavior.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from two cross-sectional studies that examined the impact of Hurricane Sandy on mental health from October 2013- August 2016. Patient demographics, hurricane exposure and mental health history were obtained via self-report questionnaires. Opioid abuse risk was determined and categorized using adaptations from the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT). Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between hurricane exposure and opioid abuse risk.

RESULTS

Data was available on 1,687 Hurricane Sandy survivors, the majority being female (59.3%), white (52.0%) and an average age of 46.1 years (std. 19.2). Approximately 9.0% of survivors were classified as being 'High' risk for opioid abuse. For every increase in total exposure reported, the odds of being classified as high risk was 1.09 greater (95% CI 1.05, 1.14) compared to low risk, after adjusting for covariates. Among personal exposures only (i.e. injury to self or family member), for every increase in reported exposure the adjusted odds of being classified as high risk was 1.25 times greater (95% CI 1.15, 1.37) compared to low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that exposure to a natural disaster, specifically personal exposures, are associated with increased risk for opioid abusive behavior.

Characterizing Self-Reports of Self-Identified Patient Experiences with Methadone Maintenance Treatment on an Online Community during COVID-19

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) through opioid treatment programs (OTPs), especially because of the unique challenges of the care delivery model. Previously, documentation of patient experiences during emergencies often comes years after the fact, in part because there is a substantial data void in real-time. Methods: We extracted 308 posts that mention COVID-19 keywords on r/methadone, an online community for patients receiving MMT to share information, on Reddit occurring between January 31, 2020 and September 30, 2020. 215 of these posts self-report an impact to their MMT. Using qualitative content analysis, we characterized the impacts described in these posts and identified four emergent themes describing patients' experience of impacts to MMT during COVID-19. Results: The themes included (1) 54.4% of posts reporting impediments to accessing their methadone, (2) 28.4% reporting impediments to accessing physicial OTPs, (3) 19.5% reporting having to self-manage their care, and (4) 4.7% reporting impediments to accessing OTP providers and staff. Conclusions: Patients described unanticipated consequences to one-size-fits-all policies that are unevenly applied resulting in suboptimal dosing, increased perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 at OTPs, and reduced interaction with OTP providers and staff. While preliminary, these results are formative for follow-up surveillance metrics for patients of OTPs as well as digitally-mediated resource needs for this online community. This study serves as a model of how social media can be employed during and after emergencies to hear the lived experiences of patients for informed emergency preparedness and response.

A chance to do it better: Methadone maintenance treatment in the age of Covid-19

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in the United States, and particularly the clinic system of distribution, is often criticized as punitive, over-regulated, and misaligned to the needs of many patients. However, changes to the regulations that COVID-19 caused may have provided an opportunity for improving service. This commentary uses literature and my own experience to provide a brief description of how MMT programs responded to the threat of Covid-19 and how such responses fit into the larger context of attempts to reform treatment. It discusses, in particular, opportunities for liberalizing “take-home” doses and implementing office-based MMT.

Response to coronavirus 2019 in Veterans Health Administration facilities participating in an implementation initiative to enhance access to medication for opioid use disorder

The actions needed to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) have forged rapid paradigm shifts across healthcare delivery. In a time of crisis, continued access to and delivery of medication for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) is essential to save lives. However, prior to COVID-19, large variability in M-OUD adoption existed across the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) and it is unknown whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this divide. For the past two years, our team worked with eight VHA facilities to enhance adoption of M-OUD through a multi-component implementation intervention. This commentary explores these providers' responses to COVID-19 and the subsequent impact on their progress toward increasing adoption of M-OUD. Briefly, the loosening of regulatory restrictions fostered accelerated adoption of M-OUD, rapid support for telehealth offered a mechanism to increase M-OUD access, and reevaluation of current practices surrounding M-OUD strengthened adoption. Overall, during the COVID-19 crisis, facilities and providers responded positively to the call for increased access to M-OUD and appropriate care of patients with OUD. The VHA providers' responses and continued progress in enhancing M-OUD amidst a crisis may, in part, be attributable to their participation in an implementation effort prior to COVID-19 that established resources, expert support, and a community of practice. We anticipate the themes presented are generalizable to other healthcare systems grappling to deliver care to patients with OUD during a crisis. We propose areas of future research and quality improvement to continue to provide access and high quality, life-saving care to patients with OUD.

Medication treatment for opioid use disorder and community pharmacy: Expanding care during a national epidemic and global pandemic

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone and buprenorphine, are effective strategies for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing overdose risk. MOUD treatment rates continue to be low across the US, and currently, some evidence suggests access to evidence-based treatment is becoming increasingly difficult for those with OUD as a result of the 2019 novel corona virus (COVID-19). A major underutilized source to address these serious challenges in the US is community pharmacy given the specialized training of pharmacists, high levels of consumer trust, and general availability for accessing these service settings. Canadian, Australian, and European pharmacists have made important contributions to the treatment and care of those with OUD over the past decades. Unfortunately, US pharmacists are not permitted to prescribe MOUD and are only currently allowed to dispense methadone for the treatment of pain, not OUD. US policymakers, regulators, and practitioners must work to facilitate this advancement of community pharmacy-based through research, education, practice, and industry. Advancing community pharmacy-based MOUD for leading clinical management of OUD and dispensation of treatment medications will afford the US a critical innovation for addressing the opioid epidemic, fallout from COVID-19, and getting individuals the care they need.

Opioid use disorder and the COVID 19 pandemic: A call to sustain regulatory easements and further expand access to treatment

We highlight the critical roles that pharmacists have related to sustaining and advancing the changes being made in the face of the current COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that patients have more seamless and less complex access to treatment. Discussed herein is how the current COVID-19 pandemic is impacting persons with substance use disorders, barriers that persist, and the opportunities that arise as regulations around treatments for this population are eased.

A Crisis Within a Crisis: The Extended Closure of an Opioid Treatment Program After Hurricane Sandy

Disruptions in opioid treatment programs (OTPs) are common after major disasters. Highly regulated OTPs confront challenges when responding to extended closures following disaster. Following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, an OTP located at the Manhattan Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) closed for 5 months. Semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians and administrators who participated in the evacuation of the Manhattan VAMC, including the co-located OTP program. The Manhattan OTP preemptively dispensed emergency take-home methadone doses. Following closure, emergency guest-dosing arrangements were made for approximately 100 Veterans with Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA OTPs throughout New York City. Fortuitously, a retired VA OTP at another facility was reopened and accredited expeditiously. OTPs must improve contingencies for emergency response. However, disruptions in methadone delivery and threats to patient safety are likely to continue until agencies with oversight authority of OTPs describe specifications for emergency alternate care sites during long-term disaster recovery.

Challenges to Opioid Treatment Programs After Hurricane Sandy: Patient and Provider Perspectives on Preparation, Impact, and Recovery

Over 300,000 patients with an opioid use disorder (OUD) receive methadone maintenance therapy from opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the United States. Large numbers of these attend OTPs located in New York and New Jersey, areas (largely but not exclusively coastal) impacted by Hurricane Sandy (Sandy) on October 29th, 2012. Disruption of methadone dispensing and other services can have severe consequences to patients (and treatment seekers) such as relapse, dropping out of treatment and resumption or increase in HIV/HCV injection risk behaviors. To facilitate OTP preparedness and response, we developed recommendations for OTPs for future emergencies. Using both qualitative and quantitative measures, we obtained data from OTP directors, staff, patients and out-of-treatment persons to learn how OTPs prepared for the impending hurricane, whether recovery efforts were successful, and what impact the hurricane has had. We observed a wide range of preparation and recovery efforts among participating programs. Director, staff, and patient perspectives on programs' responses and storm impact often differed. Triangulated data suggest that program responses were adequate for a majority of patients. For a sizeable minority of patients, program responses were very successful; for at least 20% of the clinics, program planning and responses were inadequate to meet the needs of patients. Among the recommendations made for sustaining continuity of care in future emergencies are: a focus on improving communication, procuring transportation, guest dosing, and take home provisions.

Reducing Disaster Exacerbated Non-Communicable Diseases Through Public Health Infrastructure Resilience: Perspectives of Australian Disaster Service Providers

BACKGROUND

The exposure of people and infrastructure to flood and storm related disasters across the world is increasing faster than vulnerability is decreasing. For people with non-communicable diseases this presents a significant risk as traditionally the focus of disaster management systems has been on immediate trauma and communicable diseases. This focus must now be expanded to include the management of non-communicable diseases because these conditions are generating the bulk of ill health, disability and premature death around the globe. When public health service infrastructure is destroyed or damaged access to treatment and care is severely jeopardised, resulting in an increased risk of non-communicable disease exacerbation or even death. This research proposes disaster responders, coordinators and government officials are vital assets to mitigate and eventually prevent these problems from being exacerbated during a disaster. This is due to their role in supporting the public health service infrastructure required to maximise treatment and care for people with non-communicable diseases. By focusing on the disaster cycle as a template, and on mitigation and prevention phases in particular, these actions and activities performed by disaster service responders will lead to overall improved preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation phases.

METHODS

Data were collected via 32 interviews and one focus group (eight participants) between March 2014 and August 2015 (total of 40 participants). The research was conducted in the State of Queensland, Australia, with disaster service providers. The analysis included the phases of: organizing data; data description; data classification; and interpretation.

RESULTS

The research found a relationship between the impact of a disaster on public health service infrastructure, and increased health risks for people with non-communicable diseases. Mitigation strategies were described for all phases of the disaster cycle impacting public health service infrastructure. Specific measures include: increasing the use of telemedicine; preplanning with medical suppliers; effective town planning; health professionals visiting evacuation centers; evacuation centers having power for medical equipment; hubs for treatment and care after a disaster; evacuation of high risk people prior to disaster; mapping people at risk by non-communicable disease; and a mechanism for sharing information between agencies. A common theme from the participants was that having accurate and easily accessible data on people with non-communicable diseases would allow disaster service providers to adequately prepare for and respond to a disaster.

CONCLUSIONS

Disaster service providers can play a vital role in reducing the risk of disaster exacerbated non-communicable diseases through public health service infrastructure resilience. They are often employed in communities where disasters occur and are therefore best-placed to lead implementation of the mitigation strategies identified in this research. To sustainably implement the mitigation strategies they will need to become integrated into effective performance and monitoring of the disaster response and health sector during non-disaster periods. For this to occur, the strategies should be integrated into business and strategic plans. Achieving this will help implement the Sendia Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 and, most importantly, help protect the health of people with non-communicable diseases before, during and after a disaster.

Opioid Substitution Treatment Planning in a Disaster Context: Perspectives from Emergency Management and Health Professionals in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Opioid Substitution Treatment (OST) is a harm reduction strategy enabling opiate consumers to avoid withdrawal symptoms and maintain health and wellbeing. Some research shows that within a disaster context service disruptions and infrastructure damage affect OST services, including problems with accessibility, dosing, and scripts. Currently little is known about planning for OST in the reduction and response phases of a disaster. This study aimed to identify the views of three professional groups working in Aotearoa/New Zealand about OST provision following a disaster. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 service workers, health professionals, and emergency managers in OST and disaster planning fields. Thematic analysis of transcripts identified three key themes, namely "health and wellbeing", "developing an emergency management plan", and "stock, dose verification, and scripts" which led to an overarching concept of "service continuity in OST preparedness planning". Participants viewed service continuity as essential for reducing physical and psychological distress for OST clients, their families, and wider communities. Alcohol and drug and OST health professionals understood the specific needs of clients, while emergency managers discussed the need for sufficient preparedness planning to minimise harm. It is concluded that OST preparedness planning must be multidisciplinary, flexible, and inclusive.

Geographic Distribution of Disaster-Specific Emergency Department Use After Hurricane Sandy in New York City

Objective

We aimed to characterize the geographic distribution of post-Hurricane Sandy emergency department use in administrative flood evacuation zones of New York City.

Methods

Using emergency claims data, we identified significant deviations in emergency department use after Hurricane Sandy. Using time-series analysis, we analyzed the frequency of visits for specific conditions and comorbidities to identify medically vulnerable populations who developed acute postdisaster medical needs.

Results

We found statistically significant decreases in overall post-Sandy emergency department use in New York City but increased utilization in the most vulnerable evacuation zone. In addition to dialysis- and ventilator-dependent patients, we identified that patients who were elderly or homeless or who had diabetes, dementia, cardiac conditions, limitations in mobility, or drug dependence were more likely to visit emergency departments after Hurricane Sandy. Furthermore, patients were more likely to develop drug-resistant infections, require isolation, and present for hypothermia, environmental exposures, or administrative reasons.

Conclusions

Our study identified high-risk populations who developed acute medical and social needs in specific geographic areas after Hurricane Sandy. Our findings can inform coherent and targeted responses to disasters. Early identification of medically vulnerable populations can help to map “hot spots” requiring additional medical and social attention and prioritize resources for areas most impacted by disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:351–361)

Big Events and Risks to Global Substance Using Populations: Unique Threats and Common Challenges

In this commentary, we review a set of "Big Events" from around the world that have adversely impacted substance using populations by first identifying common thematic areas between them, and then describing the unique challenges faced by the diverse and vulnerable populations impacted. The Big Events reviewed are multifaceted and complex in nature, and include the recent global financial crisis, economic and trade sanctions, political transition and its impact on ethnic minorities, colonialism and indigenous communities, and ecological disasters. All have led to immense trauma, displacement, and disruption to critical healthcare services/treatment for people who use drugs, populations who are left underserved in the midst of these crises. It is our hope that through this comparative assessment, global policymakers will proactively identify Big Events and prioritize the development of interventions and policy that meet the unique and immediate needs of substance using population in order to mitigate the significant negative short- and long-term impacts on global public health.