Literature Collection

The integrated behavioral health care model in primary care has the potential to reduce barriers to care experienced by children and families from ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status. Limited access to pediatric behavioral health care is a significant problem, with up to 40% of children and adolescents with identified mental disorders and only 30% of them receiving care. Barriers include transportation, insurance, and shortage of specialists. Primary care provider bias, decreased knowledge and feelings of competence, and cultural beliefs and stigma also affect earlier diagnosis and treatment, particularly for Hispanic families with low English proficiency and African Americans.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid agonist therapies (OATs) are highly effective treatments for opioid use disorders (OUDs), especially for pregnant women; thus, improving access to OAT is an urgent public policy goal. Our objective was to determine if insurance and pregnancy status were barriers to obtaining access to OAT in 4 Appalachian states disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic. METHODS: Between April and May 2017, we conducted phone surveys of OAT providers, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), and outpatient buprenorphine providers, in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Survey response rates were 59%. Logistic models for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., patient acceptance) and negative binomial models were created for count variables (e.g., wait time), overall and for pregnant women. RESULTS: The majority of OAT providers were accepting new patients; however, providers were less likely to treat pregnant women (91% vs. 75%; p < .01). OTPs were more likely to accept new patients than waivered buprenorphine providers (97% vs. 83%; p = .01); rates of accepting pregnant patients were lower in both (91% and 53%; p < .01). OTPs and buprenorphine providers accepted cash payments for services at high rates (OTP: 100%; buprenorphine: 89.4%; p < .01); Medicaid and private insurance were accepted at lower rates. In adjusted models, providers were less likely to accept pregnant women if they took any insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.68) or were a buprenorphine provider (aOR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: We found that OAT providers frequently did not accept any insurance and frequently did not treat pregnant women in an area of the country disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic. Policymakers could prioritize improvements in provider training (e.g., training of obstetricians to become buprenorphine prescribers) as a means to enhance access to pregnant women or enhancing reimbursement rates as a means of improving insurance acceptance for OAT.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone is a safe and effective medication to help reverse opioid overdose. Providing take-home naloxone to patients in opioid treatment settings is a critical step to reducing opioid overdose deaths. In New Mexico, a US state with one of the highest rates of opioid overdose deaths, legislation was passed in 2017 (House Bill 370) to support take-home naloxone, and followed by naloxone training of Opioid Treatment Program staff to increase distribution. METHODS: Naloxone training was offered to all New Mexico Opioid Treatment Programs along with a baseline survey to assess current practices and barriers to take-home naloxone distribution. Focus groups were conducted approximately 1 year post-training with staff at a subset of the trained Opioid Treatment Programs to assess the impact of the legislation and training provided. RESULTS: Baseline survey results show most Opioid Treatment Program staff were unfamiliar with House Bill 370, reported conflicting understandings of their agency's current take-home naloxone practices, and reported a number of barriers at the patient, agency, and policy level. Follow-up focus groups revealed support for House Bill 370 but persistent barriers to its implementation at the patient, agency, and policy level including patient receptivity, cost of naloxone, staff time, and prohibitive pharmacy board regulations. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of targeted legislation and training, provision of take-home naloxone at remained low. This is alarming given the need for this lifesaving medication among the Opioid Treatment Program patient population, and high opioid death rate in New Mexico. Locally, important next steps include clarifying regulatory guidelines and supporting policy/billing changes to offset costs to Opioid Treatment Programs. Globally, additional research is needed to identify the prevalence of take-home naloxone distribution in similar settings, common barriers, and best practices that can be shared to increase access to this vital lifesaving medication in this critical context.

Background: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) is a best practice for treating individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), and primary care-based MOUD management can reduce treatment barriers among OUD patients. Individuals with OUD experience disproportionately high rates of trauma and violence, highlighting the importance of addressing trauma, mental health, and substance use concurrently. However, clear guidelines for trauma-informed treatment in a primary care setting remain poorly established. Methods: A qualitative approach was engaged to explore primary care providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to assessing and treating trauma among MOUD patients. Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted in 2021 with Baltimore-based MOUD prescribers, including primary care physicians and nurse practitioners. Interview questions assessed experiences with identifying and treating trauma among MOUD patients, including challenges and opportunities. Results: Providers reported extensive histories of trauma experienced by MOUD patients. Barriers to addressing trauma include a lack of standardized protocols/procedures for identifying trauma, insufficient training/time to assess and treat trauma, and the limited availability of external mental health providers and specialty services. Opportunities included building strong, mutually respectful patient-provider relationships, providing individualized, person-centered care, and establishing connections to coordinated multidisciplinary treatment networks. Conclusions: MOUD treatment within primary care is an important way to increase OUD treatment access, but clearer standards are needed for the treatment of trauma within this patient population. These findings demonstrate opportunities to improve standards and systems such that primary care providers are better equipped to assess and treat the complex histories of trauma experienced by individuals with OUD.