Literature Collection

Nurse practitioner (NP) and physician assistant (PA) prescribing can increase access to buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. In this cross-sectional study, we used deidentified claims from approximately 90% of U.S. retail pharmacies (2017-2018) to examine the association of state policies with the odds of receiving buprenorphine treatment from an NP/PA versus a physician, overall and stratified by urban/rural status. From 2017 to 2018, the percentage of buprenorphine treatment episodes prescribed by NPs/PAs varied widely across states, from 0.4% in Alabama to 57.2% in Montana. Policies associated with greater odds of buprenorphine treatment from an NP/PA included full scope of practice (SOP) for NPs, full SOP for PAs, Medicaid pay parity for NPs (reimbursement at 100% of the fee-for-service physician rate), and Medicaid expansion. Although most findings with respect to policies were similar in urban and rural settings, the association of Medicaid expansion with NP/PA buprenorphine treatment was driven by rural counties.

This Viewpoint discusses state policies that could impede access to medications for opioid use disorder via telemedicine.; eng

Provider networks in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) play a crucial role in ensuring access to buprenorphine, a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder. Using a difference-in-differences approach that compares network breadth across provider specialties and market segments within the same state, we investigated the association between three Medicaid policies and the breadth of MMC networks for buprenorphine prescribers: Medicaid expansion, substance use disorder (SUD) network adequacy criteria, and SUD carveouts. We found that both Medicaid expansion and SUD network adequacy criteria were associated with substantially increased breadth in buprenorphine-prescriber networks in MMC. In both cases, we found that the associations were largely driven by increases in the network breadth of primary care physician prescribers. Our findings suggest that Medicaid expansion and SUD network adequacy criteria may be effective strategies at states' disposal to improve access to buprenorphine.

Drawing on a review of the literature and interviews with consumers, providers, payers, and policymakers, this report explores strategies states are deploying to address or eliminate system-level barriers to integrated care for a medically complex and high-cost Medicaid population.

This matrix outlines key program design features from draft health home State Plan Amendments (SPAs) submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This document captures what states have proposed in draft or final SPAs submitted as of January 2012.

OBJECTIVE: As the United States grapples with an opioid epidemic, expanding access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder is a major public health priority. Identifying effective policy tools that can be used to expand access to care is critically important. This article examines the relationship between state-targeted funding and technical assistance and adoption of three medications for treating opioid use disorder: oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine. METHODS: This study draws from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment programs. The sample includes data from 695 treatment programs (85.5% response rate) and representatives from single-state agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C. (98% response rate). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships of single-state agency targeted funding and technical assistance to availability of opioid use disorder medications among treatment programs. RESULTS: State-targeted funding was associated with increased program-level adoption of oral naltrexone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.49-6.60, p=.004) and buprenorphine (AOR=2.47, 95% CI=1.31-4.67, p=.006). Buprenorphine adoption was also correlated with state technical assistance to support medication provision (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.00-1.39, p=.049). CONCLUSIONS: State-targeted funding for medications may be a viable policy lever for increasing access to opioid use disorder medications. Given the historically low rates of opioid use disorder medication adoption in treatment programs, single-state agency targeted funding is a potentially important tool to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with opioid disorders and misuse.