Literature Collection

The COVID-19 pandemic is a particularly grave risk to the millions of Americans with opioid use disorder, who—already vulnerable and marginalized—are heavily dependent on face-to-face health care delivery. These authors propose rapid and coordinated action on the part of clinicians and policymakers to mitigate risks of disrupted care for these patients.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly prevalent among persons who are incarcerated. Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD), methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, is widely used to treat OUD in the community. Despite MOUD's well-documented effectiveness in improving health and social outcomes, its use in American jails and prisons is limited.Several factors are used to justify limited access to MOUD in jails and prisons including: "uncertainty" of MOUD's effectiveness during incarceration, security concerns, risk of overdose from MOUD, lack of resources and institutional infrastructure, and the inability of people with OUD to provide informed consent. Stigma regarding MOUD also likely plays a role. While these factors are relevant to the creation and implementation of addiction treatment policies in incarcerated settings, their ethicality remains underexplored.Using ethical principles of beneficence/non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy, in addition to public health ethics, we evaluate the ethicality of the above list of factors. There is a two-fold ethical imperative to provide MOUD in jails and prisons. Firstly, persons who are incarcerated have the right to evidence-based medical care for OUD. Secondly, because jails and prisons are government institutions, they have an obligation to provide that evidence-based treatment. Additionally, jails and prisons must address the systematic barriers that prevent them from fulfilling that responsibility. According to widely accepted ethical principles, strong evidence supporting the health benefits of MOUD cannot be subordinated to stigma or inaccurate assessments of security, cost, and feasibility. We conclude that making MOUD inaccessible in jails and prisons is ethically impermissible.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Mental Health and Primary Care Partnership (MaP) pilot program which operated in a metropolitan Melbourne setting in 2020. METHOD: Data collection included: surveys, interviews, file audits, and an evaluation of routinely collected data, with MaP consumers, their carers, GPs, Practice Managers and Nurses located in Boroondara, and MaP and Aged Person's Mental Health Service staff. RESULTS: Thirty-five consumers aged between 66 and 101 years old (of whom 63% were female) received support from the MaP program throughout its 12-month operation. Statistically significant improvements in outcome measures assessing for psychological distress and symptoms of mental illness were observed. Strengths of the program included the single referral pathway and the provision of services for those not meeting criteria to access tertiary mental health support. Consumers and clinicians made recommendations for service improvement including provision of a longer duration of care to consumers and greater integration of community and primary care. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that the learnings from the MaP pilot program can be used to guide future program development.