Literature Collection

Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) is underutilized, despite research demonstrating its effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder (OUD). The UNC Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes for Rural Primary Care Medication Assisted Treatment (UNC ECHO for MAT) project was designed to evaluate interventions for reducing barriers to delivery of M-OUD by rural primary care providers in North Carolina. A key element was tele-conferenced sessions based on the University of New Mexico Project ECHO model, comprised of case discussions and didactic presentations using a "hub and spoke" model, with expert team members at the hub site and community-based providers participating from their offices (i.e., spoke sites). Although federal funders have promoted use of the model, barriers for providers to participate in ECHO sessions are not well documented. Methods: UNC ECHO for MAT included ECHO sessions, provider-to-provider consultations, and practice coaching. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews to assess perceived usefulness of the UNC ECHO for MAT intervention, barriers to participation in the intervention, and persistent barriers to prescribing M-OUD. Results: Participants were generally satisfied with ECHO sessions and provider-to-provider consultations; however, perceived value of practice support was less clear. Primary barriers to participating in ECHO sessions were timing and length of sessions. Participants recommended recording ECHO sessions for viewing later, and some thought incentives for either the practice or provider could facilitate participation. Providers who had participated in ECHO sessions valued the expertise on the expert team; the team's ability to develop a supportive, collegial environment; and the value of a community of providers interested in learning from each other, particularly through case discussions. Conclusions: Despite the perceived value of ECHO, barriers may prevent consistent participation. Also, barriers to M-OUD delivery remain, including some that ECHO alone cannot address, such as Medicaid and private-insurer policies and availability of psychosocial resources.

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.