Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Office-based opiate agonist therapy has dramatically expanded access to medication-assisted treatment over the past decade but has also led to increased buprenorphine diversion. OBJECTIVE: Our study sought to characterize physicians who participate in office-based therapy (OBT) to assess patient access to OBT in Ohio 10 years after its introduction. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional telephone survey of Drug Addiction Treatment Act-waivered physicians in Ohio listed by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). MAIN OUTCOMES: This study sought to determine what proportion of eligible physicians are actively prescribing buprenorphine, whether they accept insurance for OBT, and whether they accept insurance for non-OBT services. In addition, we evaluated what physician characteristics predicted those primary outcomes. We hypothesized that a significant minority of eligible physicians are not active prescribers of buprenorphine. In addition, we expected that a significant minority of OBT prescribers do not accept insurance, further restricting patient access. We further hypothesized that a large subset of OBT prescribers accept insurance in their regular practices but do not take insurance for OBT. RESULTS: Of the 466 listed physicians, 327 (70.2%) practice representatives were reached for interview. Thirty-three physicians were excluded, with a true response rate of 75.5%. In total, 80.7% of providers reached were active OBT prescribers. Of these, 52.7% accepted insurance for OBT, 20.8% accepted insurance for non-OBT services but not for OBT, and 26.5% did not accept insurance for any services. Practices who did not accept insurance were more likely among dedicated addiction clinics located outside of Ohio's 6 major cities. Practices who normally accepted insurance but did not for OBT services were more likely in urban locations and were not associated with dedicated addiction practices. Neither business practice was associated with physician specialty. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Access to OBT in Ohio is far lower than what the 466 listed physicians suggests. Nearly 1 in 5 of those physicians are not active OBT prescribers, and 1 in 2 active prescribers do not accept insurance for OBT. Further research is needed to determine whether practices who do not accept insurance provide care consistent with CSAT guidelines and whether such practice patterns contribute to buprenorphine diversion.

INTRODUCTION: Access to medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the United States is a significant challenge for many individuals attempting to recover and improve their lives. Access to treatment is especially challenging in rural areas characterized by lack of programs, few prescribers, and transportation barriers. This study aims to better understand the roles that transportation, Medicaid-funded non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT), and telehealth play in facilitating access to MAT in West Virginia (WV). METHODS: We developed this survey using an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach following a review of current peer-reviewed literature plus information gained from 3 semi-structured interviews and follow-up discussions with 5 individuals with lived experience in MAT. Survey results from 225 individuals provided rich context on the influence of transportation in enrolling and remaining in treatment, use of NEMT, and experiences using telehealth. Data were collected from February through August 2021. RESULTS: We found that transportation is a significant factor in entering into and remaining in treatment, with 170 (75.9%) respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that having transportation was a factor in deciding to go into a MAT program, and 176 (71.1%) agreeing or strongly agreeing that having transportation helps them stay in treatment. NEMT was used by one-quarter (n = 52, 25.7%) of respondents. Only 13 (27.1%) noted that they were picked up on time and only 14 (29.2%) noted that it got them to their appointment on time. Two thirds of respondents (n = 134, 66.3%) had participated in MAT services via telehealth video or telephone visits. More preferred in-person visits to telehealth visits but a substantial number either preferred telehealth or reported no preference. However, 18 (13.6%) reported various challenges in using telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that transportation plays a significant role in many people's decisions to enter and remain in treatment for OUD in WV. Additionally, for those who rely on NEMT, services can be unreliable. Finally, findings demonstrate the need for individualized care and options for accessing treatment for OUD in both in-person and telehealth-based modalities. Programs and payers should examine all possible options to ensure access to care and recovery.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to treatment for opioid use disorder is a national priority, but little is known about the barriers encountered by patients seeking buprenorphine-naloxone ("buprenorphine") treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world access to buprenorphine treatment for uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients reporting current heroin use. DESIGN: Audit survey ("secret shopper" study). SETTING: 6 U.S. jurisdictions with a high burden of opioid-related mortality (Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia). PARTICIPANTS: From July to November 2018, callers contacted 546 publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers twice, posing as uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients seeking buprenorphine treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of new appointments offered, whether buprenorphine prescription was possible at the first visit, and wait times. RESULTS: Among 1092 contacts with 546 clinicians, schedulers were reached for 849 calls (78% response rate). Clinicians offered new appointments to 54% of Medicaid contacts and 62% of uninsured-self-pay contacts, whereas 27% of Medicaid and 41% of uninsured-self-pay contacts were offered an appointment with the possibility of buprenorphine prescription at the first visit. The median wait time to the first appointment was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 10 days) for Medicaid contacts and 5 days (IQR, 1 to 9 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. These wait times were similar regardless of clinician type or payer status. The median wait time from first contact to possible buprenorphine induction was 8 days (IQR, 4 to 15 days) for Medicaid and 7 days (IQR, 3 to 14 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. LIMITATION: The survey sample included only publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers. CONCLUSION: Many buprenorphine prescribers did not offer new appointments or rapid buprenorphine access to callers reporting active heroin use, particularly those with Medicaid coverage. Nevertheless, wait times were not long, implying that opportunities may exist to increase access by using the existing prescriber workforce.

IMPORTANCE: Many states have moved from models that carve out to those that carve in or integrate behavioral health in their Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs), but little evidence exists about the effect of this change. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the transition to integrated managed care (IMC) in Washington Medicaid with health services use, quality, health-related outcomes, and measures associated with social determinants of health. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used difference-in-differences analyses of Washington State's 2014 to 2019 staggered rollout of IMC on claims-based measures for enrollees in Washington's Medicaid MCO. It was supplemented with interviews of 24 behavioral health agency leaders, managed care administrators, and individuals who were participating in the IMC transition. The data were analyzed between February 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Claims-based measures of utilization (including specialty mental health visits and primary care visits); health-related outcomes (including self-harm events); rates of arrests, employment, and homelessness; and additional quality measures. RESULTS: This cohort study included 1 454 185 individuals ages 13 to 64 years (743 668 female [51.1%]; 14 306 American Indian and Alaska Native [1.0%], 132 804 Asian American and Pacific Islander [9.1%], 112 442 Black [7.7%], 258 389 Hispanic [17.8%], and 810 304 White [55.7%] individuals). Financial integration was not associated with changes in claims-based measures of utilization and quality. Most claims-based measures of outcomes were also unchanged, although enrollees with mild or moderate mental illness experienced a slight decrease in cardiac events (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2), while enrollees with serious mental illness experienced small decreases in employment (-1.2%; 95% CI -1.9 to -0.5) and small increases in arrests (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.0). Interviews with key informants suggested that financial integration was perceived as an administrative change and did not have substantial implications for how practices delivered care; behavioral health agencies lacked guidance on how to integrate care in behavioral health settings and struggled with new contracts and regulatory policies that may have inhibited the ability to provide integrated care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study suggest that financial integration at the MCO level was not associated with significant changes in most measures of utilization, quality, outcomes, and social determinants of health. Additional support, including monitoring, training, and funding, may be necessary to drive delivery system changes to improve access, quality, and outcomes.