Literature Collection

The COVID-19 pandemic struck in the midst of an ongoing opioid epidemic. To offset disruption to life-saving treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), several federal agencies granted exemptions to existing federal regulations. This included loosening restrictions on medications for OUD (MOUD), including methadone and buprenorphine. In this commentary, we briefly review policy and practice guidelines for treating OUD prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline specific MOUD treatment policy and practice exemptions that went into effect in February and March 2020, and discuss the ways in which these unprecedented changes have dramatically changed MOUD treatment. Given the unprecedented nature of these changes, and unknown outcomes to date, we advocate for a data-driven approach to guide future policy and practice recommendations regarding MOUD. We outline several critical clinical, research, and policy questions that can inform MOUD treatment in a post-COVID-19 era.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a marked increase in telehealth for the provision of primary care-based opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This mixed methods study examines characteristics associated with having the majority of OUD-related visits via telehealth versus in-person, and changes in mode of delivery (in-person, telephone, video) over time. Methods: Logistic regression was performed using electronic health record data from patients with ≥1 visit with an OUD diagnosis to ≥1 of the two study clinics (Rural Health Clinic; urban Federally Qualified Health Center) and ≥1 OUD medication ordered from 3/8/2020-9/1/2021, with >50% of OUD visits via telehealth (vs. >50% in-person) as the dependent variable and patient characteristics as independent variables. Changes in visit type over time were also examined. Inductive coding was used to analyze data from interviews with clinical team members (n = 10) who provide OUD care to understand decision-making around visit type. Results: New patients (vs. returning; OR = 0.47;95%CI:0.27-0.83), those with ≥1 psychiatric diagnosis (vs. none; OR = 0.49,95%CI:0.29-0.82), and rural clinic patients (vs. urban; OR = 0.05; 95%CI:0.03-0.08) had lower odds of having the majority of visits via telehealth than in-person. Patterns of visit type varied over time by clinic, with the majority of telehealth visits delivered via telephone. Team members described flexibility for patients as a key telehealth benefit, but described in-person visits as more conducive to building rapport with new patients and those with increased psychological burden. Conclusion: Understanding how and why telehealth is used for OUD treatment is critical for ensuring access to care and informing OUD-related policy decisions.