Disorder Treatment Providers Research Articles

Study finds many eating disorder clients kept treatment gains

More than 50% of individuals in an eating disorder program entered treatment at or above a normal weight, dispelling myths that people who are underweight will require intervention, according to a new eating disorder treatment outcomes study released by one of the country's leading eating disorder treatment providers.

Influences of the criminal justice system on use of medications for opioid use disorder: a qualitative study

BackgroundLegal-involved veterans with opioid use disorder (OUD) have lower receipt of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) than other veterans served at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This qualitative study examined the influence of the criminal justice system on access to MOUD for legal-involved veterans in the U.S.MethodsVHA facilities (n = 14) that varied in their provision of MOUD to legal-involved veterans were selected for qualitative interviews. Interviewees included legal-involved veterans (n = 18), VHA Veterans Justice Programs Specialists (n = 15), substance use disorder treatment providers (n = 5), and criminal justice staff (n = 12). Team members applied codes to meaningful units of analysis (quotations) in the transcribed interviews. Using a matrix approach, team members created a spreadsheet matrix with codes, facility rate of MOUD, and relevant quotations summarized for each participant. Themes and connections between individual participants and cross-interview concepts were explored. Participants were not asked to provide feedback on the findings.ResultsThemes identified were as follows: (1) Veterans Treatment Court policies both enhanced and limited MOUD treatment access and utilization among participants; (2) cross-system collaboration strengths and challenges existed; and (3) criminal justice system treatment preferences and policies both enhanced and limited MOUD in jails and prisons.ConclusionsThe influence of the criminal justice system on MOUD has led to variable access to MOUD for legal-involved veterans. Our findings can help inform recommendations to enhance access to MOUD for veterans within the criminal justice system, including the development of a national database of MOUD education materials for Veterans Treatment Courts, strengthening community-court relationships, allowing individuals to use their own healthcare coverage within jails and prisons and extend Medicaid coverage into criminal justice settings, and applying national quality measures for MOUD to criminal justice settings and develop a national system for tracking these quality measures.

SAMHSA CoE offers Part 2 medical emergency exception tool

The Center of Excellence for Protected Health Information (CoE‐PHI), funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has released a new tool to help substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers learn about the Medical Emergency Exception to 42 CFR Part 2, the federal regulation that protects the confidentiality of treatment records. The tool is designed to help SUD service providers identify what constitutes a medical emergency and who may receive SUD treatment records pursuant to this exception. Specifically, the tool's objectives are to describe what constitutes a medical emergency, identify when the medical emergency exception applies, and explain who may perceive records pursuant to this exception. This is an on‐demand module that can be accessed at any time. For more information, go to Part 2's Medical Emergency Exception.

Drive Time to Addiction Treatment Facilities Providing Contingency Management across Rural and Urban Census Tracts in 6 US States.

We examined drive times to outpatient substance use disorder treatment providers that provide contingency management (CM) and those that integrate CM with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services in 6 US states. We completed cross-sectional geospatial analysis among census tracts in Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and West Virginia. We excluded census tracts with a population of zero. Using data from the 2020 Shatterproof substance use treatment facility survey, our outcome was the minimum drive time in minutes from the census tract mean center of population to the nearest outpatient CM provider, outpatient CM provider with MOUD services, and federally qualified health centers (FQHC). We stratified census tracts by 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes and by state. The population was greater than zero in 11,719 of 11,899 census tracts. The median drive time to the nearest CM provider was 12.2 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.0-23.5) minutes and the median drive time to the nearest CM provider increased from 9.7 (IQR, 6.0-15.0) minutes in urban census tracts to 38.8 (IQR, 25.4-53.0) minutes in rural ( H = 3683, P < 0.001). The median drive time increased to the nearest CM provider with MOUD services [14.2 (IQR, 7.9-29.5) minutes, W = 18,877, P < 0.001] and decreased to the nearest FQHC [7.9 (IQR, 4.3-13.6) minutes, W = 11,555,894, P < 0.001]. These results suggest limited availability of CM, particularly within rural communities and for patients needing concurrent CM and MOUD treatment. Our results suggest greater adoption of CM within FQHCs could reduce urban-rural disparities in CM availability.

Perioperative Management of Extended-Release Buprenorphine: A Narrative Review and Case Series.

Perioperative management of formulations of buprenorphine used for the treatment of opioid use disorder and/or pain are common clinical challenges. Care strategies are increasingly recommending continuation of buprenorphine while administering multimodal analgesia including full agonist opioids. While this "simultaneous strategy" is relatively simple for the shorter-acting sublingual buprenorphine formulation, best practices are needed for the increasingly prescribed extended-release buprenorphine (ER-buprenorphine). To our knowledge there are no prospective data to guide perioperative management of patients on ER-buprenorphine. Herein we provide a narrative review, report on the perioperative experiences of a series of patients maintained on ER-buprenorphine, and propose recommendations for perioperative ER-buprenorphine management based on best evidence, clinical experience, and our judgments. Here we present clinical data describing the perioperative experiences of patients maintained on extended-release buprenorphine who recently underwent a variety of surgeries ranging from outpatient inguinal hernia repair to multiple inpatient surgeries for source control in sepsis, at different medical centers throughout the United States. These patients were identified via an email solicitation to substance use disorder treatment providers throughout a nationwide healthcare system, requesting cases of patients maintained on extended-release buprenorphine who had recently undergone surgery. We report here on all of the cases received. Extrapolating from these and recently published case reports, we describe an approach to perioperative management of extended-release buprenorphine.

Findings From Implementing a Patient Experience Survey in a Quality Measurement System for Substance Abuse Disorder Treatment Facilities in 6 States.

Patient experience surveys (PESs) are an important component of determining the quality of health care. There is an absence of PES data available to people seeking to identify higher quality substance use disorder treatment providers. Our project aimed to correct this by implementing a PES for substance use disorder treatment providers and publicly disseminating PES information. We created a population frame of all addiction providers in 6 states. Providers were asked to disseminate a survey invitation letter directing patients to a survey Web site. No personally identifiable information was exchanged. We developed a 10-question survey, reflecting characteristics National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have identified as reflecting higher-quality addiction treatment. Nineteen percent of facilities participated; among participating facilities, 9627 patients completed the survey. Patient experience varied significantly by facility with the percentage of a facility's patients who chose the most positive answer varying widely. We calculated that between-facility reliability will meet or exceed 0.80 for facilities with 20 or more responding patients. We searched for but did not find evidence of data falsification. This cost-efficient survey protocol is low burden for providers and patients. Results suggest significant differences in quality of care among facilities, and facility-level results are important to provide to consumers when they evaluate the relative patient-reported quality of facilities. The data are not designed to provide population-based statistics. As more facilities and patients per facility participate, public-facing PES data will be increasingly useful to consumers seeking to compare and choose facilities.

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Providers' Knowledge and Opinions Toward Testing and Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C in Rural North Carolina.

Poor access to care has made western North Carolina vulnerable to an outbreak of hepatitis C viral infection (HCV), particularly among persons who inject drugs (PWID). As substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers could potentially improve linkage to HCV testing and treatment, we sought to understand SUD providers, clinic and client characteristics; referral patterns; HCV knowledge; willingness to participate in additional trainings; and local linkage-to-care pathways for treatment of substance use and HCV. Online survey data were collected from 78 SUD providers serving PWID in eight western rural North Carolina counties. Providers' attitudes toward working with HCV+ clients were very positive. One-third of providers reported a low fund of knowledge regarding HCV, HCV treatment, and financial assistance opportunities. Non-prescribing providers rarely initiated discussions about HCV testing/treatment, but were receptive to training. Respondents indicated that HCV testing and treatment were best delivered at local health departments or primary care clinics but were open to other venues where PWID access care. The vast majority of prescribing and non-prescribing providers expressed interest in obtaining training in HCV treatments, how to obtain HCV medications and topics on advanced liver disease. Data from prescribing and non-prescribing SUD providers suggest opportunities to develop or expand integrated care models for HCV testing/treatment in PWID in rural Appalachian North Carolina.

Impact of COVID-19 on substance use disorder treatment services in Kenya: Qualitative findings from healthcare providers.

BackgroundPeople who inject drugs are at an increased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have experienced barriers to accessing harm reduction services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how to best provide these services is essential for COVID-19 mitigation. The goal of this study was to ascertain challenges and successes for caring for people who inject drugs in Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted focus group discussions and one-on-one key informant interviews with healthcare providers who work with people who inject drugs in Kenya. Interviews explored how COVID-19 and social distancing measures impacted service provision, as well as what strategies were used to overcome these barriers. We used thematic analysis to analyze transcribed interviews.ResultsParticipants included 29 service providers from 11 healthcare professions at three medication assisted treatment (MAT) and four drop-in center (DIC) sites (N=15 males and N=14 females, with an average age of 35 years). Four overarching themes emerged in our thematic analysis in which providers described both barriers to providing care and solutions to overcome them: (1) COVID-19-related misconceptions; (2) Limited COVID-19 testing and screening; (3) Structural changes related to service provision; and (4) Access to material resources such as meals, needle and syringe program kits, and personal protective equipment.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the COVID-19 pandemic-imposed challenges for substance use disorder treatment providers and patients, however with ingenuity many of these challenges were able to be overcome.

Laws Forbidding Pregnancy Discrimination in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Are Not Associated With Treatment Access.

To determine if state laws that forbid substance use disorder treatment providers from refusing services based on pregnancy are associated with improved ability to secure an initial appointment for opioid use disorder treatment with methadone and buprenorphine. Ten states in which a "secret shopper" study was conducted were stratified based on whether they have a law that forbids substance use disorder treatment providers from refusing to treat individuals because of pregnancy. We tested for differences in percent of pregnant versus nonpregnant callers offered an initial appointment for medication for opioid use disorder treatment between states with a law and those without. We also tested for differences in acceptance based on caller insurance type. Four states with 1461 callers had relevant laws; 6 states with 2495 callers did not. None of the laws apply to all providers. In both groups of states, nonpregnant callers were significantly more likely to obtain a buprenorphine appointment (75.1% vs 60.1% in states with a law, P < 0.01; 73.1% vs 62.3% in states without, P < 0.01). No significant differences were found in methadone appointment access either between pregnant and nonpregnant callers or between pregnant callers in states with a law compared to those without. Laws that forbid providers from refusing to treat potential patients because they are pregnant were not associated with success in obtaining an initial appointment for medication for opioid use disorder treatment. States should consider expanding those laws to apply to all treatment providers and ensure that currently covered providers are in compliance.

Insurance barriers to substance use disorder treatment after passage of mental health and addiction parity laws and the affordable care act: A qualitative analysis

IntroductionPeople who use drugs (PWUDs) in the United States historically have had a higher probability of being uninsured. Passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Health Parity and Addiction Equity was expected to increase access to treatment for substance use disorder. Few studies to date have conducted qualitative research with substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers regarding Medicaid and other insurance coverage of SUD treatment following passage of the ACA and parity laws. The present paper fills this gap by reporting data from in-depth interviews with treatment providers from three states, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, that differ in implementation of the ACA. MethodsStudy teams in each state conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants who provided SUD treatment, including providers of behavioral health residential or outpatient programs, office-based buprenorphine providers and opioid treatment programs [OTP, i.e. methadone clinics] (n = 24 in Connecticut, n = 63 in Kentucky and n = 63 in Wisconsin). Key informants were asked for their perceptions on how Medicaid and private insurance facilitates or limits access to drug treatment. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for key themes using MAXQDA software using a collaborative approach. ResultsResults from this study suggest that the promise of the ACA and parity laws to increase access to SUD treatment has only partially been realized. There is wide variation among the three states’ Medicaid programs and among private insurance in the types of SUD treatment that is covered. Neither Kentucky's nor Connecticut's Medicaid covered methadone. Wisconsin Medicaid did not cover residential or intensive outpatient treatment. Thus, none of the states studied here provided all levels of care that the ASAM recommends for treating SUD. Further, there were several quantitative limits placed on SUD treatment such as number of urine drug screens or visits allowed. Providers complained that many treatments required prior authorizations, including MOUD like buprenorphine ConclusionsMore reform is needed to make SUD treatment accessible to all who need it. Such reforms should consider defining standards for opioid use disorder treatment with reference to evidence-based practices, not be attempting parity with an arbitrarily defined medical standard.

Barriers to drug treatment in police diversion programs and drug courts: A qualitative analysis.

Drug treatment courts and police diversion programs are designed to divert people away from incarceration and into drug treatment. This article explores barriers in linking people who use drugs (PWUD) into drug treatment facilities in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Between December 2018 and March 2020, study teams in the three states conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants involved in programs to divert PWUD from criminal justice involvement including police, lawyers, judges, and others who work in drug treatment courts, and substance use disorder treatment providers who received referrals from and worked with police diversion programs or drug courts. Police diversion programs and drug treatment courts showed intraprogram variation in the structure of their programs in the three states and in different counties within the states. Structural barriers to successfully linking PWUD to treatment included a lack of resources, for example, a limited number of treatment facilities available, difficulties in funding mandated treatment, particularly in Wisconsin where Medicaid expansion has not occurred, and PWUDs' need for additional services such as housing. Many police officers, judges, and others within drug treatment court, including drug treatment specialists, hold stigmatizing attitudes toward medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) and are unlikely to recommend or actively refer to MOUD treatment. Drug courts and police diversion programs offer a welcome shift from prior emphases on criminalization of drug use. However, for such programs to be effective, more resources must be dedicated to their success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

System-level factors shaping the implementation of “hub and spoke” systems to expand MOUD in rural areas

Background: Hub and spoke systems (HSS) are increasingly promoted as a systems-level intervention to expand access to medication for opioid use disorders (MOUD), particularly in rural areas with limited treatment options. The HSS model consists of sub-systems in which “hubs” deliver specialized expertise to a regional network of office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) providers in “spokes,” who together create a continuum of acute and chronic care. Yet, little is known about system-level factors (e.g., system structure, financing) that influence HSS implementation and sustainability in rural areas. Methods: For this case study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with substance use disorder treatment providers (N = 26) and system-level stakeholders (N = 16) in five rural HSS sub-systems throughout one state. We undertook iterative textual analysis of interview transcripts, identifying and coding themes related to key implementation constructs associated with the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainability (EPIS) framework. Results: California policy-makers adopted HSS to expand rural access to opioid treatment programs (OTPs, i.e., providers of methadone and other medications for opioid use disorder). However, stakeholders questioned the model’s fit for rural regions featuring few established OTPs that could function as hubs and critiqued its treatment-focused approach, felt to sideline harm reduction service providers. Contracts to serve rural regions were awarded entirely to for-profit methadone providers, contributing to stigma and distrust among many buprenorphine providers whose organizations were later recruited as spokes. While hubs offered financial resources enabling some spokes to expand MOUD, the needs of spokes varied considerably. Relationships between hubs and spokes to facilitate the care continuum under HSS were restricted by limited behavioral health resources and the large distances characterizing rural California. Conclusions: This case study reveals how rural contextual factors such as geography and behavioral healthcare resource availability can dramatically influence differential HSS implementation.

Robustness of estimated access to opioid use disorder treatment providers in rural vs. urban areas of the United States

BackgroundEffective, evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder are not equally accessible to Americans. Recent studies have found urban/rural disparities in the driving times to the nearest opioid treatment providers. These disparities may be even worse than currently reported in the literature because patients may not be able to obtain appointments with their nearest provider. We examine the robustness of the opioid treatment infrastructure by estimating how driving times to treatment change as provider availability decreases. MethodsWe used public data from the federal government to estimate the driving time from each census tract centroid to the nearest 15 treatment providers. We summarized the median and interquartile range of driving times to increasingly distant providers (i.e., nearest, second nearest, etc.), stratified by urban/rural classification. ResultsThe median driving time to the nearest provider was greater in rural areas than urban areas for both opioid treatment programs (12 min vs 61 min) and buprenorphine-waivered prescribers (5 min vs 21 min). Importantly, driving times in rural areas increased more steeply as nearer providers became unavailable. For example, the increase in driving time between the nearest provider and the fifth nearest provider was much greater in rural areas than in urban areas for both buprenorphine-waivered prescribers (23 min vs 4 min) and for opioid treatment programs (54 min vs 22 min). ConclusionsAccess to treatment for opioid use disorder is more robust in urban areas compared with rural areas. This disparity must be eliminated if the opioid overdose crisis is to be resolved.

A national survey of barriers and facilitators to medications for opioid use disorder among legal-involved veterans in the Veterans Health Administration

Background Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are clinically effective at treating OUD among legal-involved populations. However, research shows that legal-involved veterans who receive care through the VHA have lower rates of MOUD use compared to non-legal-involved veterans. Education may be a key factor in intervention strategies to improve MOUD access. This study was a national survey of VHA staff to identify barriers to and facilitators of MOUD, as well as MOUD-related education needs for VHA staff, community partners, criminal justice partners, and legal-involved veterans. Method: A 98-item online survey was conducted to examine VHA staff perspectives (N = 218) around needed education, barriers to, and facilitators of MOUD for legal-involved veterans. Descriptive statistics were conducted and linear regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in perceptions by respondents’ current position at the VHA and their VHA facility’s rate of provision of MOUD among legal-involved veterans. Results: Respondents endorsed a need for education in all areas of MOUD (e.g., existing medications for the treatment of OUD) for VHA staff and providers, community partners, criminal justice partners, and legal-involved veterans. VHA staff perceived barriers to MOUD for legal-involved veterans to include stigma and complicated guidelines around MOUD and OUD treatment. Facilities with low rates of MOUD use highlighted barriers including MOUD conflicting with the philosophy of the local VHA facility and provider stigma toward patients with OUD. Perceptions of efficacy of MOUD differed by respondents’ current position at the VHA such that substance use disorder treatment providers perceived buprenorphine and methadone as more effective compared to Veterans Justice Specialists. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a need for an educational intervention emphasizing the evidence supporting use of MOUD as a lack of knowledge about these medications was considered a barrier to access, whereas gaining education about MOUD was a facilitator to access. Education strategies specifically tailored to address VHA facility-level differences may help address barriers to MOUD experienced by legal-involved veterans.

Assessing Assessments: Substance use disorder treatment providers’ perceptions of intake assessments

Background: Assessments to determine patients’ treatment needs and preferences when they begin substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are essential. The objectives of this paper are to identify the perspectives of providers who conduct assessments on (1) assessments’ utility in determining the level of care where patients will receive treatment, (2) strategies to engage patients in treatment during assessments, and (3) assessment strengths and shortcomings. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 California treatment providers who routinely perform SUD assessments for Medicaid beneficiaries. Interviews asked about the utility of assessment tools in determining appropriate levels of care, patient engagement during assessments, and strengths and shortcomings of intake assessment processes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by multiple researchers using template analysis. Results: Providers reported that assessments linked to level-of-care decision rules sometimes generate recommendations inconsistent with their clinical judgment, and that the timing of assessments can influence the quality of the information collected. Providers described engagement strategies that help patients feel more comfortable during assessments and that encourage more thoughtful and accurate responses. Providers valued assessments that helped ensure comprehensive collection of patient information, that allowed flexibility to probe for additional information and context, and that facilitated treatment planning. Providers did not like assessments that were long and repetitive or those that did not collect detailed information about patients’ mental health and recovery environments. Conclusions: Assessments can be improved if providers conduct them in a manner that makes patients feel comfortable while building trust and rapport. Ensuring that assessments are not long or repetitive and giving comprehensive assessments once patients have developed trusting relationships with treatment programs can improve assessment processes. Further research is needed to optimize SUD assessments.

Perspectives of opioid use disorder treatment providers during COVID-19: Adapting to flexibilities and sustaining reforms

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented temporary federal and state regulatory flexibilities that rapidly transformed medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment delivery. This study aimed to understand changes in treatment providers' care during COVID-19, provider experiences with the adaptations, and perceptions of which changes should be sustained long-term. MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 New Jersey MOUD providers, purposively sampled to reflect diversity in provider setting, specialty, and other characteristics. Using a rapid analysis approach, we summarized content within interview domains and analyzed domains across participants for recurring concepts and themes. ResultsMOUD treatment practice changes taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic included a rapid shift from in-person care to telehealth, reduction in frequency of toxicology testing and psychosocial/counseling services, and modifications to prescription durations and take-home methadone supplies. Modifications to practice were positively received and reinforced a sense of autonomy for providers as well as enhancing the ability to provide patient-centered care. All respondents expressed support for making temporary regulatory flexibilities permanent, but differed in their implementation of the flexibilities and the extent to which they planned to modify their own practices long-term. ConclusionFindings support sustaining temporary regulatory and payment changes to MOUD practice, which may have improved treatment access and allowed for more flexible, individually tailored patient care. Few negative, unintended consequences were reported by providers, but more research is needed to evaluate the patient experience with changes to practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beliefs related to health care incentives: Comparison of substance use disorder treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample

This study surveyed substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample about beliefs regarding health care incentives to explore differences among the groups and across health disorders for which research has demonstrated incentives improve outcomes. Six hundred participants (n = 200/group) completed the Provider Survey of Incentives. The study found between group differences for positive and negative beliefs. The public sample was highest on the positive beliefs subscale (M = 3.81), followed by SUD (M = 3.63) and medical treatment providers (M = 3.48; F(2, 597) = 20.09, p < .001). The medical treatment providers were highest on the negative beliefs subscale (M = 2.91), compared to the public sample (M = 2.77) and SUD treatment providers (M = 2.65; F(2, 597) = 7.521, p < .001). Endorsement of incentives to treat medical disorders was similar across the groups, with obesity the most endorsed disorder. In contrast, endorsement of incentives to treat SUDs differed across groups, except for smoking. The SUD treatment providers were almost twice as likely as the public sample (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.27–2.59) and the public sample almost twice as likely as the medical treatment providers (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.24–2.47) to endorse the use of incentives to treat more SUDs. Medical treatment providers were also the least likely to endorse incentives to treat both legal and illicit substance use. These findings suggest that incentive programs have good acceptability among SUD treatment providers and the public, but medical treatment providers are less accepting of incentive programs. This study provides evidence that incentive-based interventions are acceptable to the public and is the first to document specific objections that individuals disseminating incentive interventions will most likely face when introducing them in medical settings.

Suicide safer care in behavioral health settings: A comparative analysis of perceptions, training completion, and practice between mental health and substance use disorder treatment providers

BackgroundDespite prevention and treatment efforts, opioid overdose deaths continue to rise in the United States and totaled 46,802 in 2018. This public health crisis is closely linked with suicide, with those who misuse opioids at six times the risk of death by suicide. Suicide prevention in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment may be a critical step in saving lives and promoting recovery among those at risk for opioid overdose. MethodsWe distributed an electronic survey to clinicians in mental health and SUD treatment in nine health systems across New York State from November 2018 to January 2019. The goal of the survey was to assess attitudes, perceptions, practice, and training needs among SUD treatment providers and how they differ from those of mental health providers. ResultsA total of 633 clinicians responded to the survey (62.4% response rate). Seventy-one percent of SUD providers reported working with a client who attempted suicide. Even so, less than half of SUD providers reported routinely screening new (48.9%) or existing patients (25.6%) for suicidal thoughts/behaviors; overall, 28.4% of SUD providers reported low levels of action to address suicide risk, compared to 9.0% of mental health providers (p < 0.001). Perceived self-efficacy and effectiveness at reducing a patient's risk of suicide and training completion were strongly associated with routine delivery of suicide safer care in adjusted logistic regression models. ConclusionsThe results of this study identify key areas for targeted training and technical assistance to increase the provision of quality suicide safer care in SUD treatment.

Do expansions in adolescent access to public insurance affect the decisions of substance use disorder treatment providers?

We apply a mixed-payer economy model to study the effects of changes in the generosity of children’s public health insurance programs – measured by Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program income thresholds – on substance use disorder (SUD) treatment provider behavior. Using government data on specialty SUD treatment providers over the period 1997–2011 combined with a two-way fixed-effects model and local event study, we show that increases in the generosity of children’s public health insurance induce providers to participate in some, but not all, public markets. Our effects appear to be driven by non-profit and government providers. Non-profit providers also appear to increase treatment quantity slightly in response to coverage expansions.

Supportive alternate site provision of buprenorphine: Overcoming barriers and improving patient outcomes

BackgroundImproving access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a national priority; however, these efforts commonly focus on the provider. Access to buprenorphine through retail pharmacies and stigma associated with filling prescriptions for MOUD pose additional barriers for patients when embarking on their road to recovery. MethodsThis study performed a pre-post retrospective chart review to evaluate the potential positive impact on patient retention when providing buprenorphine at office visits instead of at pharmacies. Study staff reviewed electronic medical records to document patient retention in treatment at 6 months as the primary outcome. The study evaluated as secondary outcomes missed office visits, medication adherence, illicit drug use (that drug testing results identified), and drug-related emergency department (ED) utilization. Study staff documented outcomes for patients given their buprenorphine medication at their office visit (n = 154) compared with randomly selected patients prescribed buprenorphine from the same office-based opioid treatment clinic who had to go to retail pharmacies to fill their prescriptions (n = 154). ResultsPatients receiving buprenorphine at their office visit demonstrated a 52.2% higher retention rate after 6 months compared to the control group (p = .005). Patients were more likely to attend scheduled office visits (p = .046), less likely to test positive for nonprescribed/illicit drugs (p < .001), and less likely to utilize the ED for drug-related reasons (p = .018) when the program alleviated the need to fill buprenorphine prescriptions at retail pharmacies and began to offer the pharmacy services at office visits. ConclusionsProvision of buprenorphine to patients at their treatment visit was associated with higher patient retention rates and better health outcomes compared with patients who filled their buprenorphine at pharmacies prior to the program's integration of medication provision at patient office visits. Understanding how alleviating barriers to medication access impacts retention in care has meaningful implications for opioid use disorder patients and treatment providers.