Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19

Recruiting opioid treatment program administrators for a national survey: Outcomes and lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Globally, access to opioid use disorder treatment remains insufficient. In the US, recent policy changes for opioid use disorder treatment present opportunities to improve patient access to evidence-based methadone treatment. To evaluate the adoption and sustained implementation of these changes, access to a national, representative sample of opioid treatment programs (OTPs, 'methadone clinics') is essential. This study reports the outcomes of a recruitment effort for a national sample of OTP administrators.

METHODS

A stratified random sample of 1000 OTPs was drawn from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Opioid Treatment Program Directory. Stratification was based on state-level OTP regulations and county-level opioid overdose rates. OTPs identified as tribal serving, located in jails or prisons, or requiring corporate approval for research participation were deemed ineligible and excluded from the sample. A team of trained researchers called OTP clinics seeking to speak with administrators and obtain their email addresses for study recruitment.

RESULTS

In the sample, 885 OTPs were eligible for study recruitment. We contacted a live person by phone at 73 % of OTPs and an administrator at 23 %. Of the administrators reached, 77 % agreed to receive study information and 22 % completed the survey. Total caller time was 276.5 hours at a cost of $5530.

CONCLUSION

Despite a rigorous sampling frame, and a costly and considerable effort, US OTP recruitment outcomes were suboptimal. Innovative strategies are needed to improve administrator recruitment. Recommendations include updating the SAMHSA directory to include administrator contact information (name, phone, email), using diverse outreach methods, and refining call scripts to improve engagement.

Implementing contingency management in family medicine: A qualitative inquiry on provider and patient preferences for a low magnitude reward program compatible with buprenorphine treatment

Background

Contingency management (CM) is an effective yet underutilized behavioral intervention that uses rewards to improve outcomes in medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. Prior implementation attempts have focused on specialized addiction clinics, using intensive daily treatment with methadone and high reward values (e.g. >$200 total). However, many people get MOUD from less specialized, more accessible, family medicine clinics. These clinics could also benefit from CM, yet present unique challenges for CM. Family medicine clinics typically use buprenorphine as their primary medication, which requires less intensive dosing schedules and thus provides fewer CM opportunities. They may also have lower institutional willingness to use high-value rewards. As an initial step in user-centered design of a low value reward (<$75 total) CM program for the family medicine context, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients and staff in the buprenorphine treatment program of a family medicine department. We gathered and analyzed qualitative data on CM knowledge, preferred program parameters, and implementation considerations.

Method

Participants (N = 24) were buprenorphine treatment staff (n = 12) and patients (n = 12). Participants completed 30-50-minute semi-structured interviews, analyzed using rapid matrix analysis.

Results

Participants had little experience with CM, but generally viewed CM as acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Interviewees coalesced around having staff who were not providers with prescription privileges conduct CM, consistent rather than escalating payments, and physical rewards delivered in-person. Potential challenges included medical record integration, demands on staff time, and confirmation of patients' goal completion.

Conclusions

Patient and staff feedback was well-aligned, especially regarding rewards as an opportunity for staff-patient connection and the need for simplicity. Some consensus suggestions (e.g. non-escalating rewards) conflict with extant CM literature. Implications for implementation of CM in this setting are presented. These findings inform user-centered design and iteration of a CM program for this accessible, non-specialized family medicine setting.

Methadone Patient Access to Collaborative Treatment: Protocol for a Pilot and a Randomized Controlled Trial to Establish Feasibility of Adoption and Impact on Methadone Treatment Delivery and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Access to methadone treatment can reduce opioid overdose death by up to 60%, but US patient outcomes are suboptimal. Federally allowed methadone treatment accommodations during the COVID-19 public health emergency were not widely adopted. It is likely that staff-level characteristics such as trauma symptoms influence the adoption of treatment innovation.

OBJECTIVE

Methadone Patient Access to Collaborative Treatment (MPACT) is a 2-phased project (pilot and field trial) to develop and test a staff-level, multimodal intervention to increase staff adoption of low-barrier, patient-centered methadone treatment practices and ultimately improve treatment retention and patient outcomes.

METHODS

A pilot and national trial will measure implementation feasibility, acceptability, and effects of the MPACT intervention on treatment practice change, clinic culture, patient retention, and patient posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). The pilot will be a single-arm 5.5-month pilot study of MPACT conducted in 2 Arizona methadone treatment clinics (rural and urban) among 100 patients and 22 staff. The national trial will be a 20-month cluster randomized trial conducted among 30 clinics, 600 patients (20 per clinic), and 480 staff (18 per clinic). Data will be gathered by staff and patient surveys and patient chart review. The primary study outcome is increased patient methadone treatment retention measured as (1) time to first treatment interruption from study enrollment; (2) active in treatment at enrollment, day 30, 60, 90, and 120; and (3) continuous days in treatment during the study period. Secondary study outcomes include reductions in vicarious trauma and PTSS among enrolled opioid treatment program staff and PTSS among enrolled patients.

RESULTS

The pilot study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (award R61DA059889, funded September 2023), and the field trial will be funded under the associated R33 mechanism in September 2025. The pilot study was completed in March 2025. The randomized controlled trial will begin in December 2025. Both the pilot and trial have been approved by the University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection Program and have been registered with the clinical trials network.

CONCLUSIONS

The MPACT study will provide a foundation for an evidence-based, staff-level intervention aimed at improving patient retention in methadone treatment. Future studies should examine the individual components of MPACT to determine their differential contributions to the primary outcome of patient methadone treatment retention and to secondary outcomes of staff and patient reduction in stress symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06513728; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06513728 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06556602; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06556602.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/69829.

"I still can feel the sickness": Withdrawal experiences of people on methadone maintenance treatment

INTRODUCTION

Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence for many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) involving acute physical and psychological pain. Yet, there is very little data on the withdrawal experience of people in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and almost none from the patients' experience. Learning more about patients' withdrawal experiences can help to inform policies and practices that are better suited to address withdrawal and may improve patient satisfaction as well as uptake and retention.

METHODS

This article is based on 29 semi-structured interviews with people who use illicit opioids who reported recent withdrawal experience. The study conducted interviews remotely via Zoom between April and August 2022 and later transcribed them professionally. The study team then coded data thematically using Atlas.ti, based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature and study aims.

RESULTS

Participants described withdrawal as a significant issue that negatively impacts their treatment experience and increases the likelihood of treatment cessation. Their accounts of withdrawal were complex and often involved multiple factors; however, feeling underdosed and missing clinic dosing hours were seen as important vectors that led to their withdrawal experiences. Importantly, participants framed feeling underdosed and missing clinic dosing hours as institutional problems, resulting primarily from clinic policies, practices, and culture rather than from patients' decisions or individual behavior. Specifically, they cited restricted access to take-home doses, limited hours of operation, and a punitive focus on complete abstinence as factors that made withdrawal difficult to avoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' accounts demonstrate a disconnect between providers' focus on promoting complete abstinence and patients, who were often using MMT for more pragmatic reasons that did not include complete abstinence from all drugs. These findings support growing calls for the integration of MMT into the mainstream healthcare system by making it available via prescription from office-based medical settings and dispensed through pharmacies.

Dialing for doctors: Secret shopper study of Arizona methadone and buprenorphine providers, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Methadone and buprenorphine are effective and safe treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) and also reduce overdose and all-cause mortality. Identifying and reaching providers of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has proven difficult for prospective patients and researchers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of government-maintained lists of Arizona (AZ) providers prescribing MOUD, and the extent to which these providers are accessible for treatment.

METHODS

A two-phase study used a listing of 2376 AZ MOUD providers obtained from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Phase 1 assessed the accuracy of the listing using internet confirmatory research from May-October 2022. Phase 2 used the resulting list of 838 providers to assess provider availability, type of MOUD treatment provided, and accepted payment through secret shopper calls between November 16 and 30, 2022.

RESULTS

Just over half (52.2 %, n = 1240) of providers were removed from the original listing during Phase 1. One quarter (25.9 %) were no longer in practice. Among the 833 eligible for the secret shopper Phase 2 study, 36.6 % (n = 307) were reached and identified as providing MOUD. A vast majority (88.1 %) of MOUD providers indicating treatment type were accepting new patients, however methadone was identified far more frequently than was likely permitted or provided for OUD. Providers were 5.5 times more likely to accept new patients if they accepted cash payment for services, and 4.9 times more likely if they accepted Medicaid. Rural areas remained underserved.

CONCLUSIONS

The active population of MOUD providers is far smaller than surmised. DEA and SAMHSA provider listings are not sufficiently accurate for survey research sampling. Other means of representative sampling will need to be devised, and trusted lists of providers for prospective patients should be promoted, publicly available, and regularly maintained for accuracy. Providers that offer treatment should assure that public-facing staff have basic information about the practice, the treatment offered, and conditions for taking new patients. Concerted efforts must assure rural access at the most local levels to reduce patient travel burden.