Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE:  Individual patient-level measures of adverse social determinants of health are associated with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), but the relative impact of community-level adverse social determinants of health remains to be defined. We examined the association between community-level social vulnerability and NOWS among pregnant individuals receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. STUDY DESIGN:  We conducted a secondary analysis of an established cohort of pregnant individuals and their infants participating in a multidisciplinary prenatal/addiction care program from 2013 to 2021. Addresses were geocoded using ArcGIS and linked at the census tract to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), incorporating 15 census variables. The primary exposure was the SVI as a composite measure of community-level social vulnerability, and secondarily, individual scores for four thematic domains (socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation). The primary outcome was a clinical diagnosis of NOWS defined as withdrawal requiring pharmacological treatment following buprenorphine exposure. RESULTS:  Among 703 pregnant individuals receiving buprenorphine, 39.8% (280/703) of infants were diagnosed with NOWS. Among our patinets, those who were nulliparous, had post-traumatic stress disorder, a term birth (≥ 37 weeks) and had a male infant were more likely to have an infant diagnosed with NOWS. Individuals with and without an infant diagnosed with NOWS had similarly high community-level social vulnerability per composite SVI scores (mean [standard deviation]: 0.6 [0.4-0.7] vs. 0.6 [0.4-0.7], p = 0.2]. In adjusted analyses, SVI, as a composite measure as well as the four domains, was not associated with NOWS diagnosis. CONCLUSION:  Among pregnant persons receiving buprenorphine enrolled in a multidisciplinary prenatal and addition care program, while individual risk factors that measure adverse social determinants of health were associated with an NOWS diagnosis in the infant, community-level social vulnerability as measured by the SVI was not associated with the outcome. KEY POINTS: · Community-level SVI was not associated with neonatal opioid use disorder.. · Certain individual risk factors were identified as being associated with NOWS.. · Homogeneity of composite SVI scores may have led to lack of significant findings..

BACKGROUND: In the US, medication assisted treatment, particularly with office-based buprenorphine, has been an important component of opioid dependence treatment among patients with iatrogenic addiction to opioid analgesics. The predictors of initiating buprenorphine for addiction among opioid analgesic patients have not been well-described. METHODS: We conducted a time-to-event analysis using data from the North Carolina (NC) Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Our outcome of interest was time-to-initiation of sublingual buprenorphine. Our study population was a prospective cohort of all state residents receiving a full-agonist opioid analgesic between 2011 and 2015. Predictors of initiation of sublingual buprenorphine examined included: age, gender, cumulative pharmacies and prescribers utilized, cumulative opioid intensity (defined as cumulative opioid exposure divided by duration of opioid exposure), and benzodiazepine dispensing. FINDINGS: Of 4.3 million patients receiving opioid analgesics in NC between 2011 and 2015 (accumulated 8.30 million person-years of follow-up), and a total of 28,904 patients initiated buprenorphine formulations intended for addiction treatment (overall rate 3.48 per 1,000 person-years). In adjusted multivariate models, the utilization of 3 or more pharmacies (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 2.82, 3.05) or 6 or more controlled substance prescribers (HR: 12.09; 95% CI: 10.76, 13.57) was associated with buprenorphine initiation. A dose-response relationship was observed for cumulative opioid intensity (HR in highest decile relative to lowest decile: 5.05; 95% CI: 4.70, 5.42). Benzodiazepine dispensing was negatively associated with buprenorphine initiation (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid analgesic patients utilizing multiple prescribers or pharmacies are more likely to initiate sublingual buprenorphine. This finding suggests that patients with multiple healthcare interactions are more likely to be treated for high-risk opioid use, or may be more likely to be identified and treated for addiction. Future research should utilize prescription monitoring program data linked to electronic health records to include diagnosis information in analytic models.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a public health crisis in the United States, but only 5% of US physicians have obtained a Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat OUD. Increasing the number of primary care physicians (PCPs) who have obtained the waiver and are able to treat patients with OUD is of utmost importance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multimodal educational intervention of PCPs is associated with an increase in the number of buprenorphine waivers obtained and patients initiated into treatment in a primary care setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement study was conducted in primary health care clinics within a large, integrated health care system. Patients included those who had received a diagnosis of OUD, and had Providence Health Plan Medicare or Medicaid insurance. Included PCPs were divided into 2 groups: those who obtained a DATA waiver after an education intervention (uptake PCPs) vs those who did not obtain a DATA waiver (nonuptake PCPs). The study took place between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Data analyses were conducted from December 2017 to August 2019. EXPOSURES: Multimodal educational intervention including video, in-person visits to clinical practitioner meetings by physician champions, and a primary care toolkit with training resources and clinic protocols. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number of new uptake clinics where at least 1 PCP obtained a DATA waiver, the number of new PCPs with DATA waivers, the number of patients receiving a buprenorphine prescription, and the number of patients who received 12 or more weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 41 invited clinics implemented the intervention, and 620 PCPs were included. The number of PCPs with DATA waivers increased from 5 PCPs (0.8%) to 44 PCPs (7.1%), and the number of clinics with at least 1 buprenorphine prescriber increased from 3 clinics (7.3%) to 17 clinics (41.5%). In total, 213 patients underwent buprenorphine treatment, and 140 patients received 12 or more weeks of treatment. A total of 646 patients had Providence Health Plan Medicare or Medicaid insurance and were eligible for the study (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [16.5] years; 410 [63.5%] women). There was a statistically significant difference in treatment with buprenorphine between patients with uptake PCPs vs patients with nonuptake PCPs (23 patients [16.4%] vs 18 patients [3.5%]; odds ratio, 4.61 [95% CI, 2.32-10.51]; P = .01) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this quality improvement study, an educational intervention was associated with an increase in the number of PCPs and clinics that could provide buprenorphine treatment for OUD and with an increase in the patients who were able to access care with medications for OUD.

IMPORTANCE: Health care spending in the United States continues to grow. Mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) are prevalent and associated with worse health outcomes and higher health care spending; alternative payment and delivery models (APMs) have the potential to facilitate higher quality, integrated, and more cost-effective MH/SUD care. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the published literature on populations and MH/SUD conditions examined by APM evaluations and the associations of APMs with MH/SUD outcomes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search of MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Business Source was conducted from January 1, 1997, to May 17, 2019, for publications examining APMs for MH/SUD services, assessing at least 1 MH/SUD outcome, and having a comparison group. A total of 27 articles met these criteria, and each was classified according to the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network's APM framework. Strength of evidence was graded using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. FINDINGS: The 27 included articles evaluated 17 APM implementations that spanned 3 Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network categories and 6 subcategories, with no single category predominating the literature. APMs varied with regard to their assessed outcomes, funding sources, target populations, and diagnostic focuses. The APMs were primarily evaluated on their associations with process-of-care measures (15 [88.2%]), followed by utilization (11 [64.7%]), spending (9 [52.9%]), and clinical outcomes (5 [29.4%]). Medicaid and publicly funded SUD programs were most common, with each representing 7 APMs (41.2%). Most APMs focused on adults (11 [64.7%]), while fewer (2 [11.8%]) targeted children or adolescents. More than half of the APMs (9 [52.9%]) targeted populations with SUD, while 4 (23.5%) targeted MH populations, and the rest targeted MH/SUD broadly defined. APMs were most commonly associated with improvements in MH/SUD process-of-care outcomes (12 of 15 [80.0%]), although they were also associated with lower spending (4 of 8 [50.0%]) and utilization (5 of 11 [45.5%]) outcomes, suggesting gains in value from APMs. However, clinical outcomes were rarely measured (5 APMs [29.4%]). A total of 8 APMs (47.1%) assessed for gaming (ie, falsification of outcomes because of APM incentives) and adverse selection, with 1 (12.5%) showing evidence of gaming and 3 (37.5%) showing evidence of adverse selection. Other than those assessing accountable care organizations, few studies included qualitative evaluations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, APMs were associated with improvements in process-of-care outcomes, reductions in MH/SUD utilization, and decreases in spending. However, these findings cannot fully substitute for assessments of clinical outcomes, which have rarely been evaluated in this context. Additionally, this systematic review identified some noteworthy evidence for gaming and adverse selection, although these outcomes have not always been duly measured or analyzed. Future research is needed to better understand the varied qualitative experiences across APMs, their successful components, and their associations with clinical outcomes among diverse populations and settings.