Literature Collection

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.

IMPORTANCE: Thousands of pregnant people with opioid use disorder (OUD) enter US jails annually, yet their access to medications for OUD (MOUD) that meet the standard of care (methadone and/or buprenorphine) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability of MOUD for the treatment of pregnant individuals with OUD in US jails. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional study, electronic and paper surveys were sent to all 2885 identifiable US jails verified in the National Jails Compendium between August 19 and November 7, 2019. Respondents were medical and custody leaders within the jails. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the availability of MOUD (methadone and/or buprenorphine) for the treatment of pregnant people with OUD in US jails. Availability of MOUD was assessed based on (1) continuation of MOUD for pregnant incarcerated individuals (if the individual was receiving MOUD before incarceration), with or without initiation of MOUD; (2) both initiation and continuation of MOUD for pregnant individuals; (3) only continuation of MOUD for pregnant individuals; and (4) management of opioid withdrawal for pregnant individuals. Secondary outcomes included MOUD availability during the postpartum period and logistical factors associated with the provision of MOUD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with MOUD availability during pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 2885 total surveys sent, 1139 (39.5%) were returned; of those, 836 surveys (73.4%; 29.0% of all surveys sent) could be analyzed, with similar proportions from metropolitan (399 jails [47.7%]) and rural (381 jails [45.6%]) settings. Overall, 504 jails (60.3%) reported that MOUD was available for medication continuation, with or without medication initiation, during pregnancy. Of those, 267 jails (53.0%; 31.9% of surveys included in the analysis) both initiated and continued MOUD, and 237 jails (47.0%; 28.3% of surveys included in the analysis) only continued MOUD; 190 of 577 jails (32.9%; 22.7% of surveys included in the analysis) reported opioid withdrawal as the only management for pregnant people with OUD. Among the 504 medication-providing jails, only 120 (23.8%) continued to provide MOUD during the postpartum period. Methadone was more commonly available at jails that only continued MOUD (84 of 123 jails [68.3%]), whereas buprenorphine was more commonly available at jails that both initiated and continued MOUD (73 of 119 jails [61.3%]). In an adjusted model, jails with higher odds of MOUD availability were located in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 10.72; 95% CI, 2.43-47.36) or metropolitan areas (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.31-2.83), had private health care contracts (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.14) and a higher number of women (≥70) reported in the female census (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.02-2.80), and provided pregnancy testing within 2 weeks of arrival at the jail (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.69-4.17). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of US jails did not provide access to MOUD to pregnant people with OUD. Although most jails reported continuing to provide MOUD to individuals who were receiving medication before incarceration, few jails initiated MOUD, and most medication-providing jails discontinued MOUD during the postpartum period. These results suggest that many pregnant and postpartum people with OUD in US jails do not receive medication that is the standard of care and are required to endure opioid withdrawal, signaling an opportunity for intervention to improve care for pregnant people who are incarcerated.

Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) is underutilized, despite research demonstrating its effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder (OUD). The UNC Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes for Rural Primary Care Medication Assisted Treatment (UNC ECHO for MAT) project was designed to evaluate interventions for reducing barriers to delivery of M-OUD by rural primary care providers in North Carolina. A key element was tele-conferenced sessions based on the University of New Mexico Project ECHO model, comprised of case discussions and didactic presentations using a "hub and spoke" model, with expert team members at the hub site and community-based providers participating from their offices (i.e., spoke sites). Although federal funders have promoted use of the model, barriers for providers to participate in ECHO sessions are not well documented. Methods: UNC ECHO for MAT included ECHO sessions, provider-to-provider consultations, and practice coaching. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews to assess perceived usefulness of the UNC ECHO for MAT intervention, barriers to participation in the intervention, and persistent barriers to prescribing M-OUD. Results: Participants were generally satisfied with ECHO sessions and provider-to-provider consultations; however, perceived value of practice support was less clear. Primary barriers to participating in ECHO sessions were timing and length of sessions. Participants recommended recording ECHO sessions for viewing later, and some thought incentives for either the practice or provider could facilitate participation. Providers who had participated in ECHO sessions valued the expertise on the expert team; the team's ability to develop a supportive, collegial environment; and the value of a community of providers interested in learning from each other, particularly through case discussions. Conclusions: Despite the perceived value of ECHO, barriers may prevent consistent participation. Also, barriers to M-OUD delivery remain, including some that ECHO alone cannot address, such as Medicaid and private-insurer policies and availability of psychosocial resources.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid agonist therapies (OATs) are highly effective treatments for opioid use disorders (OUDs), especially for pregnant women; thus, improving access to OAT is an urgent public policy goal. Our objective was to determine if insurance and pregnancy status were barriers to obtaining access to OAT in 4 Appalachian states disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic. METHODS: Between April and May 2017, we conducted phone surveys of OAT providers, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), and outpatient buprenorphine providers, in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Survey response rates were 59%. Logistic models for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., patient acceptance) and negative binomial models were created for count variables (e.g., wait time), overall and for pregnant women. RESULTS: The majority of OAT providers were accepting new patients; however, providers were less likely to treat pregnant women (91% vs. 75%; p < .01). OTPs were more likely to accept new patients than waivered buprenorphine providers (97% vs. 83%; p = .01); rates of accepting pregnant patients were lower in both (91% and 53%; p < .01). OTPs and buprenorphine providers accepted cash payments for services at high rates (OTP: 100%; buprenorphine: 89.4%; p < .01); Medicaid and private insurance were accepted at lower rates. In adjusted models, providers were less likely to accept pregnant women if they took any insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.68) or were a buprenorphine provider (aOR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: We found that OAT providers frequently did not accept any insurance and frequently did not treat pregnant women in an area of the country disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic. Policymakers could prioritize improvements in provider training (e.g., training of obstetricians to become buprenorphine prescribers) as a means to enhance access to pregnant women or enhancing reimbursement rates as a means of improving insurance acceptance for OAT.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for treatment of opioid use disorder stipulate for mental health assessment and the option for treatment alongside medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Yet efforts to expand MOUD treatment capacity have focused on expanding the workforce of buprenorphine providers. This article aims to describe the processes facilitating and impeding integrated care for rural patients with co-occurring opioid use disorder and mental health conditions. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care and specialty providers (N=26) involved in integrated care through the state's hub-and-spoke system and with system-level stakeholders (N=16) responsible for expanding access to MOUD in rural California. RESULTS: Rural primary care providers struggled to offer adequate mental health resources to patients with co-occurring conditions because of personnel shortages and inadequate availability of telehealth. Efforts to intensify care through referral to county mental health systems and private community providers were thwarted by access barriers. The bifurcated nature of treatment systems resulted in inadequate training in integrated care and the deprioritization of mental health in patient evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant system-level barriers undermine the implementation of integrated MOUD in rural areas, potentially increasing the suffering of residents with co-occurring conditions and intensifying burnout among providers.