Factors Associated With Use of ASAM Criteria and Service Provision in a National Sample of Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment Units

Alcohol use disorder in alcohol-associated liver disease: Two sides of the same coin

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) has emerged as the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide, with 40% of LTs in the United States performed for ALD in 2019. The ALD-related health care burden accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in young individuals. Alcohol use disorder (AUD), which focuses on the negative effects of alcohol on psychosocial, physical, and mental health, is present in the majority of patients with ALD, with moderate to severe AUD in 75%-80%. During the last decade, early liver transplantation (eLT) has emerged as a lifesaving treatment for selected patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis; these patients may have a higher risk of using alcohol after LT. The risk of alcohol use recurrence may be reduced during the pretransplant or post-transplant period with AUD treatment using behavioral and/or pharmacological therapies and with regular monitoring for alcohol use (self-reported and complemented with biomarkers like phosphatidylethanol). However, AUD treatment in patients with ALD is challenging due to patient, clinician, and system barriers. An integrated model to provide AUD and ALD care by hepatologists and addiction experts in a colocated clinic starting from LT evaluation and selection to monitoring listed candidates and then to following up on recipients of LT should be promoted. However, the integration of addiction and hepatology teams in an LT program in the real world is often present only during evaluation and candidate selection for LT. Data are emerging to show that a multidisciplinary integrated AUD treatment within an LT program reduces recurrent alcohol use after LT. If we want to continue using early liver transplantation for patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis, LT programs should focus on building integrated multidisciplinary care teams for the integrated treatment of both AUD and ALD.

Integrated Multidisciplinary Management of Alcohol-associated Liver Disease

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is one of the most common liver diseases and indications for liver transplantation (LT). Alcohol use disorder (AUD), a frequent accompaniment in ALD patients, may also be associated with psychiatric comorbidities such as depression and anxiety. Identification of ALD at an earlier stage, and treatment of AUD may help prevent progression to advanced stage of ALD such as cirrhosis and alcoholic hepatitis. Screening for alcohol use and AUD treatment in ALD patients is often not performed due to several barriers at the level of patients, clinicians, and administrative levels. This review details the integrated multidisciplinary care model especially on the specific role of the hepatologist, psychiatrist, addiction counselor, and social worker in providing complete management for the dual pathology of liver disease and of AUD. Laboratory assessment, pharmacological and behavioral therapies, and recommended assessments for follow-up care by the respective specialists is outlined. We provide perspective along with the literature support, with the goal of providing team based comprehensive care of patients with ALD.

Insurance barriers to substance use disorder treatment after passage of mental health and addiction parity laws and the affordable care act: A qualitative analysis

Introduction

People who use drugs (PWUDs) in the United States historically have had a higher probability of being uninsured. Passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Health Parity and Addiction Equity was expected to increase access to treatment for substance use disorder. Few studies to date have conducted qualitative research with substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers regarding Medicaid and other insurance coverage of SUD treatment following passage of the ACA and parity laws. The present paper fills this gap by reporting data from in-depth interviews with treatment providers from three states, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, that differ in implementation of the ACA.

Methods

Study teams in each state conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants who provided SUD treatment, including providers of behavioral health residential or outpatient programs, office-based buprenorphine providers and opioid treatment programs [OTP, i.e. methadone clinics] (n = 24 in Connecticut, n = 63 in Kentucky and n = 63 in Wisconsin). Key informants were asked for their perceptions on how Medicaid and private insurance facilitates or limits access to drug treatment. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for key themes using MAXQDA software using a collaborative approach.

Results

Results from this study suggest that the promise of the ACA and parity laws to increase access to SUD treatment has only partially been realized. There is wide variation among the three states' Medicaid programs and among private insurance in the types of SUD treatment that is covered. Neither Kentucky's nor Connecticut's Medicaid covered methadone. Wisconsin Medicaid did not cover residential or intensive outpatient treatment. Thus, none of the states studied here provided all levels of care that the ASAM recommends for treating SUD. Further, there were several quantitative limits placed on SUD treatment such as number of urine drug screens or visits allowed. Providers complained that many treatments required prior authorizations, including MOUD like buprenorphine.

Conclusions

More reform is needed to make SUD treatment accessible to all who need it. Such reforms should consider defining standards for opioid use disorder treatment with reference to evidence-based practices, not be attempting parity with an arbitrarily defined medical standard.

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Background

Measuring behavioral health treatment accessibility requires timely, comprehensive and accurate data collection. Existing public sources of data have inconsistent metrics, delayed times to publication and do not measure all factors related to accessibility. This study seeks to capture this additional information and determine its importance for informing accessibility and care coordination.

Methods

The 2018 National Survey for Substance Abuse and Treatment Services (N-SSATS) data were used to identify behavioral health facilities in Indiana and gather baseline information. A telephone survey was administered to facilities with questions parallel to the N-SSATS and additional questions regarding capacity and patient intake. Quantitative analysis includes chi-square tests. A standard qualitative analysis was used for theming answers to open-ended questions.

Results

About 20% of behavioral health facilities responded to the study survey, and non-response bias was identified by geographic region. Among respondents, statistically significant differences were found in several questions asked in both the study survey and N-SSATS. Data gathered from the additional questions revealed many facilities to have wait times to intake longer than 2 weeks, inconsistency in intake assessment tools used, limited capacity for walk-ins and numerous requirements for engaging in treatment.

Conclusion

Despite the low response rate to this study survey, results demonstrate that multiple factors not currently captured in public data sources can influence coordination of care. The questions included in this study survey could serve as a framework for routinely gathering these data and can facilitate efforts for successful coordination of care and clinical decision-making.

Survey Highlights Differences In Medicaid Coverage For Substance Use Treatment And Opioid Use Disorder Medications

The Affordable Care Act requires state Medicaid programs to cover substance use disorder treatment for their Medicaid expansion population but allows states to decide which individual services are reimbursable. To examine how states have defined substance use disorder benefit packages, we used data from 2013-14 that we collected as part of an ongoing nationwide survey of state Medicaid programs. Our findings highlight important state-level differences in coverage for substance use disorder treatment and opioid use disorder medications across the United States. Many states did not cover all levels of care required for effective substance use disorder treatment or medications required for effective opioid use disorder treatment as defined by American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria, which could result in lack of access to needed services for low-income populations.

Treating Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: What Is on the Menu?

Specific treatments targeting adolescents with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been developed over the last couple of decades. Despite these developmentally tailored treatments, long-term abstinence rates remain relatively low among adolescents receiving care. Research over the last decade has increasingly focused on adolescents with comorbid substance use and psychiatric disorders, in recognition of the barriers caused by inadequate treatment of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. Treatments targeting dually diagnosed youth are now regarded as essential to improving SUD treatment outcomes, but remain underutilized. A variety of treatment modalities such as behavioral therapy, family therapy, 12-step groups, motivational interviewing, contingency management, and combinations of these interventions have been modified for adolescents. In this article, we review the research on these treatments, as they apply to dually diagnosed youth. Furthermore, we explore the evidence for various treatments targeting comorbid SUD, specific to the presence of externalizing or internalizing disorders. The current evidence base supports the importance of integrated treatment targeting both SUD and psychiatric disorders simultaneously. High-quality treatment programs offering combinations of behavioral and family therapy, particularly with motivational interviewing and contingency management, are particularly well supported. In addition, we review various psychotropic medication treatments that have also been studied in conjunction with adolescent SUD treatment. Finally, we review research on post-treatment, supportive care that has been shown to improve long-term SUD outcomes. Recently conceptualized modular treatments, which offer personalized combinations of evidence-based treatments for specific disorders, have been proposed as a means of improving outcomes. Future research on modular programs must test the efficacy of individualized treatments when applied to combinations of psychiatric and SUDs in adolescents.

Opioid detoxification and naltrexone induction strategies: recommendations for clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence is a significant public health problem associated with high risk for relapse if treatment is not ongoing. While maintenance on opioid agonists (i.e., methadone, buprenorphine) often produces favorable outcomes, detoxification followed by treatment with the μ-opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone may offer a potentially useful alternative to agonist maintenance for some patients.

METHOD

Treatment approaches for making this transition are described here based on a literature review and solicitation of opinions from several expert clinicians and scientists regarding patient selection, level of care, and detoxification strategies.

CONCLUSION

Among the current detoxification regimens, the available clinical and scientific data suggest that the best approach may be using an initial 2-4 mg dose of buprenorphine combined with clonidine, other ancillary medications, and progressively increasing doses of oral naltrexone over 3-5 days up to the target dose of naltrexone. However, more research is needed to empirically validate the best approach for making this transition.