Literature Collection

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.

The aim of this study was to assess the availability of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other services for pregnant people in jails in counties heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the United States. Counties were selected based on absolute number and population rate of opioid-overdose fatalities. Structured interviews were completed with representatives from 174 jails that house pregnant women. Descriptive statistics examine MOUD availability and differences in service provision and community-level characteristics based on MOUD availability. Most jails in the study sample (84.5%) had MOUD available for pregnant people; however, less than half of these jails ensured continuity of care. Jails without MOUD available are more likely to provide non-MOUD substance use services. These jails are more often located in smaller, rural counties in the Midwest and have higher rates of White residents and lower rates of Hispanic and African American residents. Gaps in MOUD availability in jails and continuity of care violate medical guidelines for treatment of pregnant patients with opioid use disorder and increase their risk of overdose. In addition, there are disparities across communities in access to MOUD for pregnant people in jails.

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.

IMPORTANCE: With increasing rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths in the US, increased access to medications for OUD (MOUD) is paramount. Rigorous effectiveness evaluations of large-scale implementation initiatives using quasi-experimental designs are needed to inform expansion efforts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to increase MOUD use in nonaddiction clinics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement initiative used interrupted time series design to compare trends in MOUD receipt. Primary care, pain, and mental health clinics in the VA health care system (n = 35) located at 18 intervention facilities and nonintervention comparison clinics (n = 35) were matched on preimplementation MOUD prescribing trends, clinic size, and facility complexity. The cohort of patients with OUD who received care in intervention or comparison clinics in the year after September 1, 2018, were evaluated. The preimplementation period extended from September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018, and the postimplementation period from September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019. EXPOSURES: The multifaceted implementation intervention included education, external facilitation, and quarterly reports. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients receiving MOUD and the number of patients per clinician prescribing MOUD. Segmented logistic regression evaluated monthly proportions of MOUD receipt 1 year before and after initiative launch, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Poisson regression models examined yearly changes in clinician prescribing over the same time frame. RESULTS: Overall, 7488 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [14.2] years; 6858 [91.6%] male; 1476 [19.7%] Black, 417 [5.6%] Hispanic; 5162 [68.9%] White; 239 [3.2%] other race [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races]; and 194 [2.6%] unknown) and 7558 in comparison clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [14.0] years; 6943 [91.9%] male; 1463 [19.4%] Black; 405 [5.4%] Hispanic; 5196 [68.9%] White; 244 [3.2%] other race; 250 [3.3%] unknown). During the preimplementation year, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD in intervention clinics increased monthly by 5.0% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07). Accounting for this preimplementation trend, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased monthly by an additional 2.3% (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) during the implementation year. Comparison clinics increased by 2.6% monthly before implementation (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), with no changes detected after implementation. Although preimplementation-year trends in monthly MOUD receipt were similar in intervention and comparison clinics, greater increases were seen in intervention clinics after implementation (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Patients treated with MOUD per clinician in intervention clinics saw greater increases from before to after implementation compared with comparison clinics (incidence rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28-1.77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A multifaceted implementation initiative in nonaddiction clinics was associated with increased MOUD prescribing. Findings suggest that engagement of clinicians in general clinical settings may increase MOUD access.