Literature Collection

Background: Hub and spoke systems (HSS) are increasingly promoted as a systems-level intervention to expand access to medication for opioid use disorders (MOUD), particularly in rural areas with limited treatment options. The HSS model consists of sub-systems in which "hubs" deliver specialized expertise to a regional network of office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) providers in "spokes," who together create a continuum of acute and chronic care. Yet, little is known about system-level factors (e.g., system structure, financing) that influence HSS implementation and sustainability in rural areas. Methods: For this case study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with substance use disorder treatment providers (N = 26) and system-level stakeholders (N = 16) in five rural HSS sub-systems throughout one state. We undertook iterative textual analysis of interview transcripts, identifying and coding themes related to key implementation constructs associated with the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainability (EPIS) framework. Results: California policy-makers adopted HSS to expand rural access to opioid treatment programs (OTPs, i.e., providers of methadone and other medications for opioid use disorder). However, stakeholders questioned the model's fit for rural regions featuring few established OTPs that could function as hubs and critiqued its treatment-focused approach, felt to sideline harm reduction service providers. Contracts to serve rural regions were awarded entirely to for-profit methadone providers, contributing to stigma and distrust among many buprenorphine providers whose organizations were later recruited as spokes. While hubs offered financial resources enabling some spokes to expand MOUD, the needs of spokes varied considerably. Relationships between hubs and spokes to facilitate the care continuum under HSS were restricted by limited behavioral health resources and the large distances characterizing rural California. Conclusions: This case study reveals how rural contextual factors such as geography and behavioral healthcare resource availability can dramatically influence differential HSS implementation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials provide consistent evidence for buprenorphine's efficacy in treating opioid use disorder (OUD). While the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 requires physicians to combine medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with behavioral intervention, there is no clear evidence for what form or elements of psychotherapy are most effective when coupled with MAT to treat OUD. This investigation involves focus groups designed to collect patient opinions about a specific psychotherapy, called START NOW, as well as general beliefs about various elements of psychotherapy for treating OUD. Our analysis reveals trends about patient preferences and strategies for improving OUD treatment. METHODS: Subjects included patients enrolled in buprenorphine/naloxone MAT at our institution's office-based opioid treatment program. All subjects participated in a single START NOW group session, which was led by a provider (physician or nurse practitioner trained and standardized in delivering START NOW). Consented subjects participated in satisfaction surveys and audio-recorded focus groups assessing individual beliefs about various elements of psychotherapy for treating OUD. RESULTS: Overall, 38 different focus groups, 92 participation events, and 44 unique subjects participated in 1-to-6 different START NOW session/audio-recorded focus group sessions led by a certified moderator. Demographic data from 36/44 subjects was collected. Seventy-five percent (33/44) completed the START NOW Assessment Protocol, which revealed self-reported behavioral trends. Analysis of all 92 START NOW Satisfaction Questionnaire results suggests that subjects' opinions about START NOW improved with increased participation. Our analysis of audio-recorded focus groups is divided into three subsections: content strategies for new psychotherapies, implementation strategies, and other observations. For example, participants request psychotherapies to target impulsivity and to teach future planning and build positive relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may guide implementation of psychotherapy and improve the treatment of OUD, especially as it relates to improving the modified START NOW program for treating OUD. Our study also reveals a favorable outlook of START NOW with increased participation, suggesting that any initial reticence to this program can be overcome to allow for effective implementation.

IMPORTANCE: In response to the increase in opioid overdose deaths in the United States, many states recently have implemented supply-controlling and harm-reduction policy measures. To date, an updated policy evaluation that considers the full policy landscape has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 6 US state-level drug policies to ascertain whether they are associated with a reduction in indicators of prescription opioid abuse, the prevalence of opioid use disorder and overdose, the prescription of medication-assisted treatment (MAT), and drug overdose deaths. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used drug overdose mortality data from 50 states obtained from the National Vital Statistics System and claims data from 23 million commercially insured patients in the US between 2007 and 2018. Difference-in-differences analysis using panel matching was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of indicators of prescription opioid abuse, opioid use disorder and overdose diagnosis, the prescription of MAT, and drug overdose deaths before and after implementation of 6 state-level policies targeting the opioid epidemic. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to summarize associations over time for each policy and outcome pair. The data analysis was conducted July 12, 2020. EXPOSURES: State-level drug policy changes to address the increase of opioid-related overdose deaths included prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) access, mandatory PDMPs, pain clinic laws, prescription limit laws, naloxone access laws, and Good Samaritan laws. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes of interests were quarterly state-level mortality from drug overdoses, known indicators for prescription opioid abuse and doctor shopping, MAT, and prevalence of drug overdose and opioid use disorder. RESULTS: This cross-sectional study of drug overdose mortality data and insurance claims data from 23 million commercially insured patients (12 582 378 female patients [55.1%]; mean [SD] age, 45.9 [19.9] years) in the US between 2007 and 2018 found that mandatory PDMPs were associated with decreases in the proportion of patients taking opioids (-0.729%; 95% CI, -1.011% to -0.447%), with overlapping opioid claims (-0.027%; 95% CI, -0.038% to -0.017%), with daily morphine milligram equivalent greater than 90 (-0.095%; 95% CI, -0.150% to -0.041%), and who engaged in drug seeking (-0.002%; 95% CI, -0.003% to -0.001%). The proportion of patients receiving MAT increased after the enactment of mandatory PDMPs (0.015%; 95% CI, 0.002% to 0.028%), pain clinic laws (0.013%, 95% CI, 0.005%-0.021%), and prescription limit laws (0.034%, 95% CI, 0.020% to 0.049%). Mandatory PDMPs were associated with a decrease in the number of overdose deaths due to natural opioids (-518.5 [95% CI, -728.5 to -308.5] per 300 million people) and methadone (-122.7 [95% CI, -207.5 to -37.8] per 300 million people). Prescription drug monitoring program access policies showed similar results, although these policies were also associated with increases in overdose deaths due to synthetic opioids (380.3 [95% CI, 149.6-610.8] per 300 million people) and cocaine (103.7 [95% CI, 28.0-179.5] per 300 million people). Except for the negative association between prescription limit laws and synthetic opioid deaths (-723.9 [95% CI, -1419.7 to -28.1] per 300 million people), other policies were associated with increasing overdose deaths, especially those attributed to non-prescription opioids such as synthetic opioids and heroin. This includes a positive association between naloxone access laws and the number of deaths attributed to synthetic opioids (1338.2 [95% CI, 662.5 to 2014.0] per 300 million people). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although this study found that existing state policies were associated with reduced misuse of prescription opioids, they may have the unintended consequence of motivating those with opioid use disorders to access the illicit drug market, potentially increasing overdose mortality. This finding suggests that there is no easy policy solution to reverse the epidemic of opioid dependence and mortality in the US.