Methadone Take-home Research Articles

Payment and billing strategies to support methadone take-home medication: Perspectives of financial leaders of opioid treatment program organizations in New York State

IntroductionRecent federal regulatory changes governing the delivery of methadone treatment for opioid use disorder at Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) support continued practice changes towards greater and flexible methadone take-home medication. Existing payment models for OTPs were closely tied with onsite medication administration and thus misaligned with the need to conduct more and flexible take-homes. This study aims to understand OTP organizations' experience with the newly created OTP bundled payment model in New York State as an alternative to the pre-existing per-service payment model during 2020–2023 to inform financing strategies to support and sustain practice changes. MethodsThe study conducted semi-structured interviews with financial leaders and staff from OTP organizations in New York State. Purposeful sampling of OTP organizations based on their billing practices was supplemented by snowball sampling. Qualitative data from 12 interviews (with 11 OTP organizations and 1 trade organization) were analyzed with an integrated (inductive and deductive) approach to derive themes. ResultsStudy informants recognized that the bundled payment model served to protect revenue in a time when OTPs had to pivot quickly to increase take-home medication to patients. Informants described a wide spectrum of practices to operationalize billing in the alternative payment systems, revealing confusion with the billing rules and significant logistical and technical challenges. Informants expressed concerns regarding the substantial difference between the full bundled rate, paid in weeks with one or more qualifying services, and the medication-only rate, reporting that extended (2 weeks or more) take-homes might not be sustainable under the two-tiered model with the low medication-only rate and advocating for a single bundled rate. Informants believed that increased take-home medication and federal regulatory changes had profound implications for the delivery of counseling services, the counselor workforce, and financial viability for OTPs. ConclusionsOur study of OTP organization experience in New York State provided data on OTP organization perspectives regarding the potential revenue-protecting effects of bundled payments and generated insights to inform future research and policy experimentation to support flexible take-home medication. Future implementation studies are needed to better understand the roles of financing strategies at large in supporting clinical practice changes in substance use disorder treatment.

U.S. Healthcare Workers' Perspective of Outpatient Provision of Methadone: A Scoping Review.

A recent National Institute on Drug Addiction Call to Action focused on expanding methadone treatment access for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). One research priority identified was optimal educational and support structures, including training to provide methadone across multiple healthcare settings (e.g., primary care, opioid treatment programs [OTPs], pharmacies) and healthcare workers (HCWs) (e.g., providers, pharmacists). This scoping review sought to better understand HCWs' knowledge, attitudes, and stigma as it relates to methadone provision. Four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science) were searched for publications between 2010 and 2022 using keywords-methadone, HCW, outpatient setting, knowledge, attitudes, and stigma, focusing on HCWs in general and pharmacists specifically. A total of 2,747 articles were identified and 14 met inclusion criteria for review. Settings included OTPs (n = 4), specialty addiction treatment clinics (n = 3), community pharmacies (n = 2), and multiple settings (n = 5). All articles (n = 14) examined methadone-related attitudes. Despite approval of methadone in 1972 to treat OUD, four articles illustrated continued methadone-related stigma held by HCWs. In response to COVID-19-related policy changes allowing methadone take-home flexibility, OTP clinicians expressed a range of attitudes concerning patient risk and potential program liability around diversion and misuse. One article assessing knowledge suggested that, even when most pharmacists correctly answered knowledge questions, a significant minority had misunderstandings that could undermine effective treatment. Given the current imbalance between methadone treatment demand and availability, there is a critical need to expand outpatient methadone services. Pharmacists partnering with OTPs represent a logical but underutilized access point. We identified key areas to improve HCWs methadone-related knowledge, attitudes, and stigma. Future research should explore the impact of outpatient pharmacy-OTP and other expansion services, and systematic training, education, and evaluation of methadone-related understanding, including assessment tools to measure knowledge, attitudes, and stigma.

Pilot investigation of an electronic pillbox at a community opioid treatment program

ABSTRACT Background: Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) permit patients to ingest daily methadone doses unsupervised and away from the clinic, a strategy that enhances treatment access and convenience but has the potential for mismanagement. Objective: This retrospective review, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (5/2020–1/2022), evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of a commercially available electronic pillbox to safely administer methadone take-home tablets in a large community-based OTP (census >500 people). Methods: Study participants (n = 24; 54% male, 46% female; M age = 63 years) had recently received more take-homes per visit to support national social distancing directives, and were instructed that they could maintain these privileges by agreeing to use the pillbox. Results: Results demonstrate good demand feasibility as most participants (71%) agreed to use the pillbox. Good implementation feasibility was observed through safe and reliable delivery of most take-home tablets, with a staff support line to resolve technical issues. Acceptability was modest as six participants (25%) requested to return the pillbox despite losing some take-home privileges. Conclusion: Results support continued use and study of the electronic pillbox to safely deliver and increase access to methadone take-home doses.

Methadone Take-Home Policies and Associated Mortality: Permitting versus Non-Permitting States.

To mitigate COVID-19 exposure risks in methadone clinics, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued a temporary modification of regulations in March 2020 to permit, with state concurrence, extended take-home methadone doses. The modification allowed for up to 28 days of take-home methadone for stable patients and 14 days for those less stable. Using both interrupted time series and difference-in-differences methods, this study examined the association between the policy change and fatal methadone overdoses, comparing states that permitted the expansion of take-home doses with states that did not. The findings suggest the pandemic emergency take-home policy did not increase methadone-involved mortality.

COVID-19-related flexibility in methadone take-home doses associated with decreased attrition: Report from an opioid treatment program in central Pennsylvania

IntroductionPennsylvania saw a dramatic increase in take-home doses of methadone after the COVID-19 pandemic-related relaxation in regulations. We evaluated whether pandemic-initiated relaxation in take-home methadone dose regulations was associated with changes in attrition and urine drug test (UDT) results at one outpatient opioid treatment program (OTP) among adult patients treated with methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD). MethodsWe analyzed aggregated, retrospective clinical practice data, using data abstracted from the OTP's electronic health record (EHR) on the number of patients treated with methadone, those allowed take-home doses, the number of take-home methadone doses dispensed, and the number and type of patient discharge (“attrition”) from treatments for 12 months before (March 2019–February 2020; “pre-pandemic”) and 12 months after (March 2020–February 2021; “pandemic”) the regulatory changes took place. We also examined monthly aggregate data on the number of urine samples testing positive for amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines or illicit opioids, and compared these findings between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. ResultsPre-pandemic, 229 patients were treated with methadone, compared to 278 patients during the pandemic period. They received 11,047 and 28,563 take-home daily-doses of methadone (p < 0.0001) during each assessment period, respectively. All-cause treatment attrition (discharge from the program for any reason) decreased from 27.1 % in the pre-pandemic to 15.5 % in the pandemic period (p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, during the pandemic period the urine toxicology testing showed reduced positivity rates for cocaine (26.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.001), and oxycodone and morphine (1.8 % vs 1.1 %, p < 0.019), and increased for fentanyl (24.0 % vs 30.5 %, p < 0.007), without statistically significant changes for benzodiazepines or amphetamines. ConclusionsThe relaxation of regulations guiding take-home methadone doses accompanied reduced treatment attrition and favorable changes in urine toxicology results in one OTP. Allowing OTPs to apply flexible decisions regarding take-home methadone doses could improve treatment retention, outcomes, and, in turn, save lives.

Workload, Usability, and Engagement with a Mobile App Supporting Video Observation of Methadone Take-Home Dosing: Usability Study.

Methadone, a cornerstone of opioid use disorder treatments for many decades, is an essential tool for combatting the opioid epidemic. However, requirements for observing methadone dosing in person through direct observed therapy (DOT) impose significant barriers for many patients. Digital technology can facilitate remote DOT, which could reduce barriers to methadone treatment. Currently, there are limited data on the usability of such technology among patients and counselors in methadone treatment settings. The primary objective of this study was to assess the workload, usability, and engagement of a video-based DOT mobile app for patients with opioid use disorder receiving methadone treatment. The secondary objective was to assess the workload, usability, and engagement of the provider-facing app portal used by counselors. Patients (n=12) and counselors (n=3) who previously tried video DOT for methadone through a smartphone app in an opioid treatment program participated in usability testing sessions. Participants completed essential tasks for video DOT, then provided ratings of workload (NASA Task Load Index), usability (modified System Usability Scale), and engagement (modified Engagement Scale) with the core features of the video DOT program. Patients and counselors reported low mental, physical, and temporal demands, successful performance, low effort, and low frustration associated with activities. Patients reported high usability (mean 85, SD 9.5) and engagement (mean 3.8, SD 1.1); counselors reported moderate usability (mean 43.3, SD 17.7) and engagement (mean 2.81, SD 0.63). A mobile health app that facilitates video-based DOT for methadone required a low workload for patients and counselors and was highly usable for patients in an opioid treatment program; however, there are opportunities to improve usability and engagement for the counselor-facing portal.

Opioid use and COVID-19: a secondary analysis of the impact of relaxation of methadone take-home dosing guidelines on use of illicit opioids

ABSTRACT Background: An exemption to existing U.S. regulation of methadone maintenance therapy after the onset of the COVID−19 pandemic permitted increased take-home doses beginning March 2020. Objectives: We assessed the impact of this exemption on opioid use. Methods: A pre/post study of 187 clients recruited from an OTP who completed a survey and consented to share their urine drug testing (UDT) data. Use of fentanyl, morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, and heroin was assessed via UDT. Receipt of take-home methadone doses was assessed from clinic records for 142 working days pre- and post-COVID exemption. Analysis was conducted using a linear regression model to assess the association between increased take-home doses and use of illicit opioids. Results: In the pre- vs. post-COVID−19 SAMHSA exemption periods, 26.2% vs. 36.3% of UDTs were positive for 6-acetylmorphine respectively, 32.6% vs. 40.6% positive for codeine, 34.2% vs 44.2% positive for hydromorphone, 39.5% vs. 48.1% positive for morphine, 8.0% vs. 14.4% positive for fentanyl (p-value < .001). However, in the unadjusted descriptive data, when grouped by change in substance use, those clients who experienced a decrease in the use of morphine, codeine, and heroin post-COVID−19 were given significantly more take-home doses than the groups that had no change or an increase in the use of these substances. In the adjusted model, there was no significant relationship between change in opioid use and increased receipt of take-home methadone doses. Conclusions: Although take-home doses post-COVID−19 nearly doubled, this increase was not associated with a significant change in use of illicit opioids.

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Differences in Methadone-Involved Overdose Deaths Before and After the US Federal Policy Change Expanding Take-home Methadone Doses

In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) permitted states to relax restrictions on take-home methadone doses for treatment-adherent patients to minimize COVID-19 exposures. To assess whether the methadone take-home policy change was associated with drug overdose deaths among different racial, ethnic, and sex groups. Interrupted time series analysis from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from February 18, 2023, to February 28, 2023. In this population-based cohort study of drug overdose mortality including 14 529 methadone-involved deaths, monthly counts of methadone-involved drug overdose deaths were obtained for 6 demographic groups: Hispanic men and women, non-Hispanic Black men and women, and non-Hispanic White men and women. On March 16, 2020, in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, SAMHSA issued an exemption to the states that permitted up to 28 days of take-home methadone for stable patients and 14 days for less stable patients. Monthly methadone-involved overdose deaths. From January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022 (54 months), there were 14 529 methadone-involved deaths in the United States; 14 112 (97.1%) occurred in the study's 6 demographic groups (Black men, 1234; Black women, 754; Hispanic men, 1061; Hispanic women, 520; White men, 5991; and White women, 4552). Among Black men, there was a decrease in monthly methadone deaths associated with the March 2020 policy change (change of slope from the preintervention period, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.95 to -0.15]). Hispanic men also experienced a decrease in monthly methadone deaths associated with the policy change (-0.42 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.17]). Among Black women, Hispanic women, White men, and White women, the policy change was not associated with a change in monthly methadone deaths (Black women, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.13 to 0.59]; Hispanic women, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.46 to 1.04]; White men, -0.08 [95% CI, -1.05 to 0.88]; and White women, -0.43 [95% CI, -1.26 to 0.40]). In this interrupted time series study of monthly methadone-involved overdose deaths, the take-home policy may have helped reduce deaths for Black and Hispanic men but had no association with deaths of Black or Hispanic women or White men or women.

“Sign Me Up”: a qualitative study of video observed therapy (VOT) for patients receiving expedited methadone take-homes during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundFederal and state regulations require frequent direct observation of methadone ingestion at an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP)—a requirement that creates barriers to patient access. Video observed therapy (VOT) may help to address public health and safety concerns of providing take-home medications while simultaneously reducing barriers to treatment access and long-term retention. Evaluating user experiences with VOT is important for understanding the acceptability of this strategy.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of a clinical pilot program of VOT via smartphone that was rapidly implemented between April and August 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic within three opioid treatment programs. In the program, selected patients submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting methadone take-home doses, which were asynchronously reviewed by their counselor. We recruited participating patients and counselors for semi-structured, individual interviews to explore their VOT experiences after program completion. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key factors influencing acceptability and the effect of VOT on the treatment experience.ResultsWe interviewed 12 of the 60 patients who participated in the clinical pilot and 3 of the 5 counselors. Overall, patients were enthusiastic about VOT, noting multiple benefits over traditional treatment experiences, including avoiding frequent travel to the clinic. Some noted how this allowed them to better meet recovery goals by avoiding a potentially triggering environment. Most appreciated having increased time to devote to other life priorities, including maintaining consistent employment. Participants described how VOT increased their autonomy, allowed them to keep treatment private, and normalized treatment to align with other medications that do not require in-person dosing. Participants did not describe major usability issues or privacy concerns with submitting videos. Some participants reported feeling disconnected from counselors while others felt more connected. Counselors felt some discomfort in their new role confirming medication ingestion but saw VOT as a useful tool for select patients.ConclusionsVOT may be an acceptable tool to achieve equipoise between lowering barriers to treatment with methadone and protecting the health and safety of patients and their communities.

Shifting Medication Treatment Practices in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Statewide Survey of Pennsylvania Opioid Treatment Programs.

We sought to understand how opioid treatment programs (OTPs) adapted OTP operations to the COVID-19 pandemic and new federal regulations around methadone and buprenorphine. In fall 2020, we conducted an online survey of all 103 OTPs licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, including clinical directors. Survey domains included changes to methadone take-home and telehealth practices; overdose and diversion prevention tactics; perceptions regarding how such changes influence patient well-being; and financial/operational concerns related to the new policies and practices. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted Chi-square test to test for differences between not-for-profit versus for-profit and large versus small OTPs. Forty-seven percent (46%) OTPs responded to the survey. 10% and 25%, respectively, endorsed offering telephone and video-based telemedicine buprenorphine induction. Sixty-six percent endorsed extending take-home supplies of methadone, but most indicated that these extensions applied to a minority of their patients. Most respondents agreed that provision of buprenorphine via telehealth and extended take-home methadone reduced patient burden in accessing medications and prevented exposure to COVID-19, while not significantly increasing risk of overdose. We did not find major differences in COVID-19 practice modifications by nonprofit status or size of OTP. In Pennsylvania, the COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in provision of opioid treatment services. Findings on relatively low uptake of longer methadone take-home regimens and virtual buprenorphine initiation despite general support for these practices imply a need to further develop guidelines for best clinical practices and understand/address barriers to their implementation.

Nothing really changed: Arizona patient experience of methadone and buprenorphine access during COVID.

ObjectiveTo understand patient experience of federal regulatory changes governing methadone and buprenorphine (MOUD) access in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis community-based participatory and action research study involved one-hour, audio-recorded field interviews conducted with 131 people who used methadone and/or buprenorphine to address opioid use disorder at some point during COVID (January 1, 2020- March 31, 2021) in Arizona. Transcribed data were analyzed using a priori codes focused on federally recommended flexibilities governing MOUD access. Data were quantitated to investigate associations with COVID risk and services access.ResultsTelehealth was reported by 71.0% of participants, but the majority were required to come to the clinic to attend video appointments with an offsite provider. Risk for severe COVID outcomes was reported by 40.5% of the sample. Thirty-eight percent of the sample and 39.7% of methadone patients were required to be at the clinic daily to get medication and 47.6% were at high risk for COVID severe outcomes. About half (54.2%) of methadone patients indicated that some form of multi-day take home dosing was offered at their clinic, and 45.8% were offered an extra day or two of multi-day doses; but no participants received the federally allowed 14- or 28-day methadone take-home doses for unstable and stable patients respectively. All participants expressed that daily clinic visits interrupted their work and home lives and desired more take-home dosing and home delivery options.ConclusionsMOUD patients in Arizona were not offered many of the federally allowed flexibilities for access that were designed to reduce their need to be at the clinic. To understand the impact of these recommended treatment changes in Arizona, and other states where they were not well implemented, federal and state regulators must mandate these changes and support MOUD providers to implement them.

Acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of a clinical pilot program for video observation of methadone take-home dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundMethadone is one of the most utilized treatments for opioid use disorder. However, requirements for observing methadone dosing can impose barriers to patients and increase risk for respiratory illness transmission (e.g., COVID-19). Video observation of methadone dosing at home could allow opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to offer more take-home doses while ensuring patient safety through remote observation of ingestion. MethodsBetween April and August 2020, a clinical pilot program of video observation of methadone take-home dosing via smartphone was conducted within a multisite OTP agency. Participating patients completed a COVID-19 symptom screener and submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting all methadone take-home doses. Patients who followed these procedures for a two-week trial period could continue participating in the full pilot program and potentially receive more take-home doses. This retrospective observational study characterizes patient engagement and compares clinical outcomes with matched controls. ResultsOf 44 patients who initiated the two-week trial, 33 (75 %) were successful and continued participating in the full pilot program. Twenty full pilot participants (61 %) received increased take-home doses. Full pilot participants had more days with observed dosing over a 60-day period than matched controls (mean = 53.2 vs. 16.6 days, respectively). Clinical outcomes were similar between pilot participants and matched controls. ConclusionsVideo observation of methadone take-home dosing implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic was feasible. This model has the potential to enhance safety by increasing rates of observed methadone dosing and reducing infection risks and barriers associated with relying solely on face-to-face observation of methadone dosing.

Treatment retention, return to use, and recovery support following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-home dosing in two rural opioid treatment programs: A mixed methods analysis

ObjectivesIn March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration permitted Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to relax restrictions on take-home methadone and promoted telehealth to minimize potential exposures to COVID-19. We assessed the effects of COVID-19-related changes on take-home methadone dosing in two OTPs serving five rural Oregon counties. MethodsWe used a mixed-methods convergent design. The OTPs extracted urine drug test (UDT) results, take-home methadone regimens, and treatment retention from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients (n = 377). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model assessed patient-level differences in take-home doses before and after the COVID-19 policy changes and the associations with treatment discontinuation, and UDT positivity. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 32) explored patient reactions to increased take-home dosing and reduced clinic visits to provide context for quantitative findings. ResultsThe number of take-home doses increased in the post-COVID-19 period for patients engaged in treatment for more than 180 days (median: 8 vs 13 take-home doses per month, p = 0.011). Take-homes did not increase for patients with fewer days of treatment. Each percentage point increase in take-home dosing above what would be expected without COVID-19 policy changes was negatively associated with the percent of UDT positive for opioids (B = −0.12, CI [−0.21, −0.04], p = 0.005) and the probability of treatment discontinuation (aOR = 0.97, CI [0.95, 0.99], p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes explaining how increased take-home dosing supported recovery: 1) value of feeling trusted with increased responsibility; 2) reduced travel time permitted increased employment and recreation; and 3) reduced exposure to individuals less stable in recovery and potential triggers. ConclusionsTake-home methadone dose relaxations were associated with increased methadone take-home doses, improved retention, and decreased UDT opioid positive results among clinically stable patients. Qualitative findings suggest that fewer take-home restrictions are feasible and desirable and do not pose safety or public health harms.

Opioid Use and COVID-19: The Impact of Relaxation of Methadone Take-Home Dosing Guidelines on Use of Illicit Opioids

Opioid Use and COVID-19: The Impact of Relaxation of Methadone Take-Home Dosing Guidelines on Use of Illicit Opioids

“The idea is to help people achieve greater success and liberty”: A qualitative study of expanded methadone take-home access in opioid use disorder treatment

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. Methods: We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Results: Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Conclusion: Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era

ABSTRACT Background Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. Objective To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. Methods A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. Results Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. Conclusions Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.

Treatment provider perceptions of take-home methadone regulation before and during COVID-19

BackgroundThe loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies. MethodsFifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews. ResultsTreatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an “escape hatch” for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent. ConclusionTreatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services.

Changes in methadone take-home dosing before and after COVID-19

IntroductionIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal exemption allowed stable and less stable patients greater take-home doses of methadone. We assessed the adoption of increased take-home medication during COVID-19 and whether increased take-home doses is associated with clients' characteristics. MethodologyWe completed a pre-post study of adults receiving methadone for OUD from an OTP in Spokane, Washington. Our outcome was the change in the number of take-home methadone doses three months before and three months after the March 2020 take-home medication exemption. Clients' characteristics included age, gender, ethnicity, education level, homelessness, spatial access to the clinic, and methamphetamine use. ResultsThe study included 194 clients in treatment for a median of three years. All study participants experienced an average increase in take-home medication of 41.4 in the three-month period after the COVID-19 exemption. In the final adjusted models, clients who reported using methamphetamine in the last 30 days experienced a significantly larger increase in take-home dosage (55.6 days) compare to clients who did not use methamphetamine (p ≤0.001). Most of the clients who reported using methamphetamine were also likely to be homeless. All other variables were not associated with a change in take-home doses. ConclusionThese results suggest that the Spokane OTP quickly expanded take-home medication dosing in response to the COVID-19 exemption and broadly expanded take-home dosing among established clients. Clients with concurrent methamphetamine use were allowed fewer take-home doses prior to COVID-19, but after the exemption the clinic provided them the same number of take-home doses as clients who had not used methamphetamine.

Common themes in early state policy responses to substance use disorder treatment during COVID-19

ABSTRACT Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization. Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses. Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility. Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.

Use of an electronic pillbox to increase number of methadone take-home doses during the COVID-19 pandemic

This study describes use of the commercially available Medminder electronic pillbox at a community substance use disorder treatment program to safely increase the number of methadone take-home doses administered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pillbox contains 28 cells that lock independently and can be opened only during preprogrammed time windows. This study provided patients (n = 42) deemed vulnerable to take-home mismanagement or more severe symptoms from COVID-19 infection the pillbox and observed them for 11 weeks. A telephone support line was staffed daily to manage technical issues. Overall, patients received about 14 more take-home doses per month after receiving the pillbox. Most medication was dispensed within scheduled windows. The study observed few incidents of suspected tampering, though five patients had their pillbox rescinded to allow more intensive on-site clinical monitoring. The study supports use of an electronic pillbox with a telephone support line to help vulnerable patients to better observe stay-at-home guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pillbox may offer public health and clinical benefits that extend beyond the pandemic by increasing program treatment capacity and patient satisfaction.