State-Targeted Funding and Technical Assistance to Increase Access to Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Implementation strategies to support recovery support workers serving criminal legal involved people who use drugs

INTRODUCTION

Recovery support workers (RSWs) who provide social support interventions for people who use drugs (PWUD) often face challenges that can jeopardize the well-being, efficacy and sustainability of this essential workforce. To date, little has been reported on the types of implementation strategies used to support RSWs. We describe and evaluate a multifaceted implementation strategy package to support Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois (ROMI), a paired peer recovery coach and case manager (PRC-CM) intervention for PWUD with recent criminal-legal involvement in urban and rural settings.

METHODS

ROMI utilized a remote, hub and spoke-administered multifaceted implementation strategy package to support PRCs-CMs to deliver evidence-based services to PWUD with criminal-legal involvement. The core strategies included: (a) comprehensive training; (b) individual clinical supervision; (c) group consultation; and (d) centralized technical assistance. We evaluated the implementation strategy package using a mixed-methods design including qualitative interviews with the intervention staff to explore their experiences with each strategy component, as well as a quantitative coding of topics discussed during supervision and group consultation meetings to estimate prioritization of issues and balance of topics between strategy type.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and January 2024, the study interviewed 8 PRC-CMs and quantitatively coded 568 sessions (79 group consultations and 489 individual supervisory) for discussion themes. The hub-and-spoke model allowed for centralized access to highly skilled supervisory staff as well as knowledge sharing across geographically remote teams. The therapeutic space to process feelings and emotional support provided during individual supervision was noted to be an essential resource by PRC-CMs. Group consultation facilitated camaraderie, mutual support and continual learning through dynamic and responsive trainings. Frustrations around resource limitations and systemic barriers facing their clients remained a dominant concern for PRCs-CMs, and was incompletely addressed by the technical assistance strategy.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the practical components and individual strengths of the implementation strategies required to support the implementers of complex interventions such as social support and navigation for PWUD with criminal-legal involvement elucidates the organizational and professional capacities that may be required for real world implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04925427.

Understanding the financial barriers to treatment among individuals with opioid use disorder: a focus group study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the established effectiveness and relatively widespread availability of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, individuals seeking treatment frequently encounter various structural and social barriers, including costs of treatment. This study aimed to understand the financial barriers that affect treatment continuation in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

In this qualitative study, seven semi-structured in-depth focus group interviews were conducted among 28 participants in treatment for OUD. Basic demographic information were collected in a pre-focus group survey. Focus group interviews were conducted from December 2021 to February 2022. A moderator guide was used to facilitate the discussion. Transcripts were managed using ATLAS.ti© v7. Data collected from the focus groups underwent deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached in 7 focus groups with a total of 28 participants (17 [60.7%] women; 27 [96.4%] white; 24 [85.7%] non-Hispanic). All three medications for OUD were represented (18 [64.3%] buprenorphine and naloxone, 5 [17.9%] methadone, 3 [10.7%] naltrexone, and 2 [7.1%] buprenorphine) and the time in treatment ranged from 1 month to over 36 months. Nearly all participants (27 [96.4%]) indicated a financial barrier that led to delayed treatment initiation and treatment retention. Two themes were identified from the focus group interviews: (1) OUD treatment-related financial burden- the direct and indirect cost associated with the treatment, and (2) psychosocial effects associated with the cost of OUD treatment -the mental, emotional, and social effects of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants described the desire and need for resources to offset the unaffordable cost that inhibits treatment initiation and retention. Further work is required to help identify individuals susceptible to financial barriers that can lead to early discontinuation in treatment.

Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Services for Clients With Co-occurring Disorders: A Latent Class Approach

OBJECTIVE

Certified community behavioral health clinics (CCBHCs) are designed to provide comprehensive care for individuals with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. The authors classified outpatient mental health treatment facilities on the basis of provision of services for clients with co-occurring disorders and assessed whether CCBHCs differed from other outpatient mental health facilities in services provided.

METHODS

The authors used latent class analysis to identify distinct services for clients with co-occurring disorders in 5,692 outpatient mental health facilities in the 2021 National Substance Use and Mental Health Services Survey. Nine indicators were included: treatment for clients with substance or alcohol use disorder co-occurring with serious mental illness or serious emotional disturbance, specialized programs or groups for such clients, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for alcohol use disorder, MAT for opioid use disorder, detoxification, individual counseling, group counseling, case management, and 12-step groups. A multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate whether CCBHCs were associated with any identified classes after analyses controlled for facility characteristics.

RESULTS

A four-class solution provided a model with the best fit, comprising comprehensive services (23.4%), case management services (17.7%), counseling and self-help services (58.6%), and professional services (4.3%). Regressing class membership on facility type and covariates, the authors found that compared with community mental health clinics (CMHCs), CCBHCs were more likely to belong to the comprehensive services class than to the case management services, counseling and self-help services, and professional services classes.

CONCLUSIONS

CCBHCs were more likely than other outpatient programs to offer comprehensive care, and CCBHC status of a CMHC facilitated enhanced service provisions.

The Role of Cooperative Extension in Delivering Training and Technical Assistance to Support Evidence-Based Behavioral Health Practices in Rural Communities

The opioid epidemic in the United States continues to disproportionately affect those in rural, compared to urban, areas due to a variety of treatment and recovery barriers. One mechanism to increase capacity of rural-serving providers is through delivery of training and technical assistance (TTA) for evidence-based programs by leveraging the Cooperative Extension System. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, the current study evaluates TTA delivered by the Northwest Rural Opioid Technical Assistance Collabroative to opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery providers on short- (satisfaction, anticipated benefit), medium-, (behavioral intention to change current practice), and long-term goals (changes toward adoption of evidence-based practices). We also evaluated differences in short- and medium-term goals by intensity of TTA event and rurality of provider. Surveys of 351 providers who received TTA indicated high levels of satisfaction with TTA events attended, expressed strong agreement that they would benefit from the event, intended to make a professional practice change, and preparation toward implementing changes. Compared to urban-based providers, rural providers reported higher intention to use TTA information to change current practice. We conclude with a review of remaining gaps in the research to practice pipeline and recommendations for moving forward.

Pandemic telehealth flexibilities for buprenorphine treatment: a synthesis of evidence and policy implications for expanding opioid use disorder care in the United States

Buprenorphine is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and a critical tool for addressing the worsening US overdose crisis. However, multiple barriers to treatment-including stringent federal regulations-have historically made this medication hard to reach for many who need it. In 2020, under the COVID-19 public health emergency, federal regulators substantially changed access to buprenorphine by allowing prescribers to initiate patients on buprenorphine via telehealth without first evaluating them in person. As the public health emergency has been set to expire in May of 2023, Congress and federal agencies can leverage extensive evidence from studies conducted during the wake of the pandemic to make evidence-based decisions on the regulation of buprenorphine going forward. To aid policy makers, this narrative review synthesizes and interprets peer-reviewed research on the effect of buprenorphine flexibilities on the uptake and implementation of telehealth, and its impact on OUD patient and prescriber experiences, access to treatment, and health outcomes. Overall, our review finds that many prescribers and patients took advantage of telehealth, including the audio-only option, with a wide range of benefits and few downsides. As a result, federal regulators-including agencies and Congress-should continue nonrestricted use of telehealth for buprenorphine initiation.

Pandemic telehealth flexibilities for buprenorphine treatment: A synthesis of evidence and policy implications for expanding opioid use disorder care in the U.S

Buprenorphine is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder and a critical tool for addressing the worsening U.S. overdose crisis. However, multiple barriers to treatment - including stringent federal regulations - have historically made this medication hard to reach for many who need it. In 2020, under the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, federal regulators substantially changed access to buprenorphine by allowing prescribers to initiate patients on buprenorphine via telehealth without first evaluating them in person. As the Public Health Emergency is set to expire in May of 2023, Congress and federal agencies can leverage extensive evidence from studies conducted during the wake of the pandemic to make evidence-based decisions on the regulation of buprenorphine going forward. To aid policy makers, this review synthesizes and interprets peer-reviewed research on the effect of buprenorphine flexibilities on uptake and implementation of telehealth, and its impact on OUD patient and prescriber experiences, access to treatment and health outcomes. Overall, our review finds that many prescribers and patients took advantage of telehealth, including the audio-only option, with a wide range of benefits and few downsides. As a result, federal regulators-including agencies and Congress-should continue non-restricted use of telehealth for buprenorphine initiation.

Provider Continuity in the Prescribing of Buprenorphine/Naloxone Within Medicare Part D

OBJECTIVES

Efforts to improve buprenorphine access for opioid use disorder have focused on increasing the number of waivered providers. However, it is unknown how efforts to increase initial prescribing result in a sustained pool of prescribers. We examine the prevalence of year-to-year provider-level buprenorphine prescribing, and provider- and state-level factors associated with provider continuity.

METHODS

Providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone within the Medicare Part D claims database were evaluated from 2013 to 2017 with prescriber continuity measured as prescriptions made in consecutive years from the same provider (N = 14,222 unique providers; 6670 in 2013).

RESULTS

The number of providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone within Medicare Part D increased from 2013 to 2017. The majority of providers prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone to 10 or fewer beneficiaries. Approximately 84% of providers prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone in 1 year prescribed it in the following year. Continuous prescribing from 2013 to 2017 was 59.4%, which was 86% the rate of a comparator chronic health medication (ie, lisinopril). Survival analyses indicated that female providers (adjusted hazard ratios [AHR] = 1.30, P < 0.001) and clinical neuroscience specialties such as psychiatry (AHR = 1.21, P < 0.001) exhibited greater discontinuation rates, whereas those with higher buprenorphine/naloxone beneficiary loads (AHR = 0.50, P < 0.001) and in states with a greater increase in overdose mortality rates (AHR = 0.88, P < 0.05) showed lower discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support evidence that providers who begin prescribing buprenorphine continue prescribing, although short of maximum capacity. Efforts to help providers become waivered, understand the impact of overdose fatalities in their area, and prescribe to multiple patients are likely to generate an enduring positive contribution to the number of treated patients.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2018

This paper is the forty-first consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2018 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (2), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (3) and humans (4), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (5), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (6), stress and social status (7), learning and memory (8), eating and drinking (9), drug abuse and alcohol (10), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (11), mental illness and mood (12), seizures and neurologic disorders (13), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (14), general activity and locomotion (15), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (16), cardiovascular responses (17), respiration and thermoregulation (18), and immunological responses (19).

The state of the science in opioid policy research

OBJECTIVE

Characterize the state of the science in opioid policy research based on a literature review of opioid policy studies.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of studies evaluating the impact of U.S. state-level and federal-level policies on opioid-related outcomes published in 2005-2018. We characterized: 1) state and federal policies evaluated, 2) opioid-related outcomes examined, and 3) study design and analytic methods (summarized overall and by policy category).

RESULTS

In total, 145 studies were reviewed (79 % state-level policies, 21 % federal-level policies) and classified with respect to 8 distinct policy categories and 7 outcome categories. The majority of studies evaluated policies related to prescription opioids (prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid prescribing policies, federal regulation of prescription opioids, pain clinic laws) and considered policy impacts with respect to proximal outcomes (e.g., opioid prescribing behaviors). In total, only 29 (20 % of studies) met each of three key criteria for rigorous design: analysis of longitudinal data with a comparison group design, adjustment for difference between policy-enacting and comparison states, and adjustment for potentially confounding co-occurring policies. These more rigorous studies were predominately published in 2017-2018 and primarily evaluated PDMPs, marijuana laws, treatment-related policies, and overdose prevention policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that study design rigor varied notably across policy categories, highlighting the need for broader adoption of rigorous methods in the opioid policy field. More evaluation studies are needed regarding overdose prevention policies and policies related to treatment access. Greater examination of distal outcomes and potential unintended consequences are also warranted.

Availability of Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol and Opioid Use Disorder in the USA

Despite high mortality rates due to opioid overdose and excessive alcohol consumption, medications for the treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorder have not been widely used in the USA. This paper provides an overview of the literature on the availability of alcohol and opioid used disorder medications in the specialty substance use disorder treatment system, other treatment settings and systems, and among providers with a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We also present the most current data on the availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications in the USA. These estimates show steady growth in availability of opioid use disorder medications over the past decade and a decline in availability of alcohol use disorder medications. However, overall use of medications in the USA remains low. In 2017, only 16.3% of specialty treatment programs offered any single medication for alcohol use disorder treatment and 35.5% offered any single medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Availability of buprenorphine-waivered providers has increased significantly since 2002. However, geographic disparities in access to buprenorphine remain. Some of the most promising strategies to increase availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications include the following: incorporating substance use disorder training in healthcare education programs, educating the substance use disorder workforce about the benefits of medication treatment, reducing stigma surrounding the use of medications, implementing medications in primary care settings, implementing integrated care models, revising regulations on methadone and buprenorphine, improving health insurance coverage of medications, and developing novel medications for the treatment of substance use disorder.

Differential adoption of opioid agonist treatments in detoxification and outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem for which a substantial amount of treatment exists. The degree to which methadone and buprenorphine are administered in different treatment modalities is not clear but critical to understanding treatment success rates and service development strategies.

METHODS

Data from the national Treatment Episode Dataset for Admissions and Discharges (TEDS-A [N = 4,070,264] and TEDS-D [832,731], respectively) were used to determine the likelihood patients initiating detoxification and outpatient OUD treatment between 2006 and 2015 were expected to receive opioid agonist treatment. Joinpoint regression evaluated significant trends and a generalized linear model with logit link function identified characteristics associated with receiving an agonist during detoxification. TEDS-D informed the percent of patients leaving detoxification against medical advice who did/did not receive an opioid agonist.

RESULTS

Though agonist use in outpatient settings increased by 60% during 2012-2015, agonist use in detoxification was lower than outpatient treatment, decreased significantly by 26% from 2009 to 2015, and never exceeded 16% of detoxification admissions during 2006-2015. In 2015, persons who were under 25, homeless, had co-occurring psychiatric problems, utilized Medicare, Medicaid, or had no insurance, and had no prior OUD treatment or were high treatment utilizers were the least likely to receive an agonist during detoxification.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to expand opioid agonist access has been successful for outpatient but not detoxification settings. Improving detoxification outcomes is a potentially high impact way for the US to expand efficacious OUD treatment access in the US.

Changes in State Technical Assistance Priorities and Block Grant Funds for Addiction After ACA Implementation

Objectives. To assess states' provision of technical assistance and allocation of block grants for treatment, prevention, and outreach after the expansion of health insurance coverage for addiction treatment in the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Methods. We used 2 waves of survey data collected from Single State Agencies in 2014 and 2017 as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. Results. The percentage of states providing technical assistance for cross-sector collaboration and workforce development increased. States also shifted funds from outpatient to residential treatment services. However, resources for opioid use disorder medications changed little. Subanalyses indicated that technical assistance priorities and allocation of funds for treatment services differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Public Health Implications. The ACA's infusion of new public and private funds enabled states to reallocate funds to residential services, which are not as likely to be covered by health insurance. The limited allocation of block grant funds for effective opioid medications is concerning in light of the opioid crisis, especially in states that did not implement the ACA's Medicaid expansion.