Specialty Substance Use Disorder Research Articles

Changes in legal referrals to specialty substance use disorder treatment from 2015–2019

BackgroundThe policy landscape around substance use has changed dramatically in the past decade, which may have affected the number and characteristics of treatment episodes for substance use disorder (SUD). In this study, we examine changes in the volume of SUD treatment referrals from the legal system and compare changes in the composition of substances used by referral source. We used publicly available discharge data on specialty SUD treatment episodes in the U.S. from 2015–2019 and included episodes involving adults that are discharged from specialty SUD treatment facilities during the study. We calculated descriptive statistics of specialty SUD treatment discharges in each year and aggregated across all years by referral source and substance(s) reported upon admission. To test differences by year and referral source, we conducted z-tests of proportions.ResultsThe proportion of referrals to specialty SUD treatment from the legal system declined between 2015 and 2019 (p < 0.001). However, referrals from probation/parole and diversionary programs grew over time (p < 0.001) in number and proportion over time. Legal referrals were most often associated with alcohol or cannabis use, though referrals for these substances declined from 2015–2019.ConclusionsThis research lays the groundwork for future investigations to evaluate the effect of important policy changes on referral sources to specialty SUD treatment and the quality and outcomes associated with referrals to treatment from the legal system.

Provision of Digital Health Technologies for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment by US Health Care Organizations

Digital health technologies may expand organizational capacity to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). However, it remains unclear whether these technologies serve as substitutes for or complements to traditional substance use disorder (SUD) treatment resources in health care organizations. To characterize the use of patient-facing digital health technologies for OUD by US organizations with accountable care organization (ACO) contracts. This cross-sectional study analyzed responses to the 2022 National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations (NSACO), collected between October 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, from US organizations with Medicare and Medicaid ACO contracts. Data analysis was performed between December 15, 2022, and January 6, 2023. Treatment resources for SUD (eg, an addiction medicine specialist, sufficient staff to treat SUD, medications for OUD, a specialty SUD treatment facility, a registry to identify patients with OUD, or a registry to track mental health for patients with OUD) and organizational characteristics (eg, organization type, Medicaid ACO contract). The main outcomes included survey-reported use of 3 categories of digital health technologies for OUD: remote mental health therapy and tracking, virtual peer recovery support programs, and digital recovery support for adjuvant cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Statistical analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models. Overall, 276 of 505 organizations responded to the NSACO (54.7% response rate), with a total of 304 respondents. Of these, 161 (53.1%) were from a hospital or health system, 74 (24.2%) were from a physician- or medical group-led organization, and 23 (7.8%) were from a safety-net organization. One-third of respondents (101 [33.5%]) reported that their organization used at least 1 of the 3 digital health technology categories, including remote mental health therapy and tracking (80 [26.5%]), virtual peer recovery support programs (46 [15.1%]), and digital recovery support for adjuvant CBT (27 [9.0%]). In an adjusted analysis, organizations with an addiction medicine specialist (average marginal effect [SE], 32.3 [4.7] percentage points; P < .001) or a registry to track mental health (average marginal effect [SE], 27.2 [3.8] percentage points; P < .001) were more likely to use at least 1 category of technology compared with otherwise similar organizations lacking these capabilities. In this cross-sectional study of 276 organizations with ACO contracts, organizations used patient-facing digital health technologies for OUD as complements to available SUD treatment capabilities rather than as substitutes for unavailable resources. Future studies should examine implementation facilitators to realize the potential of emerging technologies to support organizations facing health care practitioner shortages and other barriers to OUD treatment delivery.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings

BackgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population.MethodsWe interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsParticipants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors.ConclusionsEfforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

Gaps and barriers in drug and alcohol treatment following implementation of the affordable care act

BackgroundThis study examines changes in the substance use disorder (SUD) treatment gap and barriers to treatment for low-income adults following Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation. MethodsNational Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data were pooled to assess pre-ACA (2009–2013) and post-ACA (2015–2019) implementation. The sample (n = 44,622) included respondents 18–64 years old, income <200% federal poverty level, and meeting SUD criteria for abuse or dependence of heroin, powdered cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol. The primary outcome was NSDUH-defined past-year illicit drug or alcohol treatment gap (needing but not receiving SUD specialty treatment). A secondary analysis assessed barriers to SUD treatment including insurance-related barriers, stigma, barriers to access, priority of treatment, and no interest in stopping substance use. ResultsNinety-three percent of respondents reported a drug or alcohol treatment gap before and after ACA implementation. No interest in stopping use was the greatest barrier (40%), followed by insurance-related barriers (39%) and stigma (20%). After adjusting for covariates, results did not show a significant change in SUD treatment gap post-ACA compared to pre-ACA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.97, 1.28, p = 0.13). Compared to pre-ACA, odds of reporting stigma-related barriers (aOR=1.66, 95% CI=1.17, 2.37, p = 0.01) and access-related barriers (aOR=1.79, 95% CI=1.34, 2.38, p < 0.001) increased post-ACA. ConclusionsThere was no significant change in the prevalence of SUD treatment gap after ACA implementation. Increasing access to SUD treatment for low-income individuals will require intervening at multiple socioecological levels beyond reforming treatment financing.

Factors associated with clinician treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder

BackgroundThis study examined factors associated with treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD), comparing recommendations for patients with clear signs of OUD versus those with lower likelihood of OUD. MethodsThe study conducted a retrospective medical chart review in a randomly selected national sample of 520 Veteran Health Administration patients with a new opioid-related electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis from 2012 to 2017. The study categorized patients as having “high likelihood” or “lower likelihood of OUD” based on the presence or absence of clinician documentation in medical records of specific qualifying criteria (e.g., clinician documentation of patient meeting diagnostic criteria for OUD, etc). Analyses examined the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with recommendations for medication and other treatments for OUD. ResultsAmong patients with a new diagnosis of OUD, 28.7 % (n = 149) were recommended medication treatment, 52.5 % (n = 273) were recommended specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and 41.9 % (n = 218) were recommended treatment in non-SUD mental health settings. In adjusted models, high likelihood of OUD (AOR 8.31, 95 % CI 4.81–15.03) was strongly associated with the clinician recommending medications for OUD, while age 56–75 (compared to <35, AOR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.18–0.69), stimulant use disorder (AOR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.15–0.53), and rural residence (AOR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.30–0.85) were associated with lower likelihood of being recommended medication treatment. ConclusionsDifferentiating among patients with EHR diagnoses of OUD to identify the subset with higher likelihood of underlying OUD is important to accurately understand OUD treatment rates and disparities. However, even among patients with a clear diagnosis of OUD, medication treatment is still recommended less often than other treatments, suggesting interventions are needed to encourage clinicians to prioritize medication treatment as a first-line treatment, especially for older, rural patients and those with polysubstance use.

Clinical Recognition of Substance Use Disorders in Medicaid Primary Care Associated With Universal Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs have been effective for moderate reductions of alcohol use among participants in universal settings. However, there has been limited evidence of effectiveness in referring individuals to specialty care, and the literature now often refers to screening and brief intervention (SBI). This study examines documentation of substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses in a low-income Medicaid population to evaluate the effect of universal SBIRT on healthcare system recognition of SUDs, a first step to obtaining a referral to treatment (RT) for individuals with SUDs. SBI patient data from Wisconsin's Initiative to Promote Healthy Lifestyles (WIPHL) were linked to Wisconsin Medicaid claims data. A comparison group of Medicaid beneficiaries was identified from a matched sample of non-SBIRT clinics (total study N = 14,856). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling was used to assess rates of SUD diagnosis in the 12 months following receipt of SBIRT in WIPHL clinics compared with rates in non-SBIRT clinics. Analysis controlled for clinic, individual patient's health status, demographics, and baseline substance use diagnoses. SBIRT was associated with greater odds of being diagnosed with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), alcohol abuse or dependence as well as drug abuse or dependence over the 12 months subsequent to receipt of the screen. The overall diagnostic rate for any DSM-IV substance abuse or dependence was 9.9% at baseline and 12.2% during the follow-up year. SBIRT patients had 42% (p = .003) greater odds of being diagnosed with a substance use disorder within 12 months relative to comparison clinic patients. However, there were very few claims for specialty SUD services. The presence of SBIRT in a primary care clinic appears to increase the awareness and recognition of patients with SUDs and a greater willingness of healthcare providers to diagnose patients with an alcohol or drug use disorder on Medicaid claims. Further research is needed to determine if this increase in diagnosis reflects integrated care for SUDs or if it leads to improved access to specialty care, in which case abandonment of the RT component of SBIRT may be premature.

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.

Insurance expansions and adolescent use of substance use disorder treatment.

To provide evidence on the effects of expansions to private and public insurance programs on adolescent specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment use. The Treatment Episodes Data Set (TEDS), 1996 to 2017. A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design using observational data. The TEDS provides administrative data on admissions to specialty SUD treatment. Expansions of laws that compel private insurers to cover SUD treatment services at parity with general health care increase adolescent admissions by 26% (P<.05). These increases are driven by nonintensive outpatient admissions, the most common treatment episodes, which rise by 30% (P<.05) postparity law. In contrast, increases in income eligibility for public insurance targeting those 6-18years old are not statistically associated with SUD treatment. Private insurance expansions allow more adolescents to receive SUD treatment, while public insurance income eligibility expansions do not appear to influence adolescent SUD treatment.

How Patient Centered Are Addiction Treatment Intake Processes?

The substance use disorder (SUD) treatment field has conducted significant research on creating intake tools and processes that best match patients to the most appropriate treatment setting, but less research has been conducted on how those tools impact the patient experience. The study took advantage of a natural experiment in California to evaluate whether the implementation of American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) assessment criteria and a computer-facilitated intake assessment based on the ASAM criteria affects patient experiences and patient-centeredness during intake relative to patients receiving intake assessments not based on ASAM criteria. We analyzed surveys completed by 851 patients covered by Medi-Cal who were receiving specialty SUD treatment at 33 providers across 10 California counties about their experiences and perceptions of the intake assessment process. To account for differences in patient mix, we used inverse-probability weighting and computed differences in the weighted means for patients across non-ASAM, ASAM, and computerized-ASAM patients. We have found that patients who underwent intake based on ASAM assessment criteria or computerized ASAM assessment experienced a more patient-centered intake. We also found that patients who received ASAM-based assessments were more satisfied with their choice of treatment setting. This evidence is encouraging for the SUD treatment field, especially considering that many Medicaid programs are adopting ASAM or similar patient placement criteria and multidimensional assessments. Future research should consider whether increases in the patient-centeredness of assessments are associated with increased retention in SUD treatment and other positive treatment outcomes.

Referral to Treatment After Positive Screens for Unhealthy Drug Use in an Outpatient Veterans Administration Setting.

To measure the rates and predictors of clinician recommendation for follow-up after a positive screen for unhealthy drug use, in a context of mandatory routine screening. To measure response to clinician recommendations and identification of new drug use diagnoses. Data are from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center that introduced mandatory routine screening for unhealthy drug use in outpatient primary care and mental health settings, using a validated single question. This study analyzed VHA electronic health records data for patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use (n = 570) and estimated logistic regression models to identify the predictors of receiving a recommendation for any follow-up and for specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Bivariate tests were used for other analyses. Among patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use, 66% received no recommendation to return to primary care or another setting from the screening clinician. Further, among the 23% of patients who received a recommendation to visit specialty SUD treatment, only 25% completed the visit within 60 days. Six percent of all positive screens both received a referral to specialty SUD treatment and acted upon it. In the context of mandatory drug use screening using a single item, rates of clinician action and patient receipt of care appeared low. Improved follow-up will require health systems to provide more supports for clinicians and patients at each of the stages from positive screen to attending the follow-up appointment.

Pharmacotherapy, Resource Needs, and Physician Recruitment Practices in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs.

Effective pharmacological treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) continue to be underutilized, particularly within specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment organizations. Few studies have examined whether specific practices to recruit prescribers, financial needs, and human resource needs facilitate or impede the implementation of pharmacotherapy. Surveys were completed by administrators from 160 treatment programs in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Respondents described availability of five pharmacotherapies for treating OUD, organizational resource needs, current use of physician recruitment practices, and buprenorphine treatment slots. The mostly commonly available medications were injectable naltrexone (65.4%; n = 102), buprenorphine-naloxone (55.7%; n = 88), and tablet naltrexone (50.0%; n = 78). Adopters of each of the 5 pharmacotherapies reported significantly greater physician outreach than organizations that did not provide these medications. The mean number of buprenorphine slots was 94.1 (SD 205.9). There were unique correlates of adoption (ie, any slots) and availability (number of slots) of buprenorphine. Physician outreach activities were correlated with the likelihood of nonadoption, whereas medical resource needs (ie, needing more physicians to prescribe pharmacotherapy) and dedicated resources for physician recruitment were associated with the number of slots. Physician recruitment activities differentiated those organizations that had existing pharmacotherapy treatment capacity (ie, any slots) from those that had no capacity. Efforts to address the medical resource needs of treatment organizations, and also strategies that encourage organizations to devote resources to recruiting prescribers may hold promise for increasing access to these lifesaving treatments.

Addressing substance use disorder in primary care: The role, integration, and impact of recovery coaches

ABSTRACTBackground: Only 10% of people with substance use disorder (SUD) receive treatment, partially due to inadequate access to specialty SUD care and limited management within primary care. “Recovery coaches” (RCs), peers sharing the lived experience of addiction and recovery, are increasingly being integrated into primary care to help reach and treat people experiencing SUD, yet little is known about how their role should be defined or about their clinical integration and impact. Methods: Semistructured interviews with RCs (n = 5) and their patients (n = 16) were used to explore patient and RC perspectives on the RC role. Maximum variation sampling was employed to select patients who displayed diversity across gender, RC, housing status, and number of contacts with an RC. Patients were sampled until no new concepts emerged from additional interviews, and a semistructured interview guide was used for data collection. To analyze interview transcripts, the constant comparative method was used to develop and assign inductively developed codes. Two coders separately coded all transcripts and reconciled code assignments. Results: Four core RC activities were identified: system navigation, supporting behavior change, harm reduction, and relationship building. Across these activities, benefits of the RC role emerged, including accessibility, shared experiences, motivation of behavior change, and links to social services. Challenges of the RC model were also evident: patient discomfort with asking for help, lack of clarity in RC role, and tension within the care team. Conclusions: These findings shed light on RCs in primary care. Many patients and coaches perceived that RCs play a valuable role within primary care, providing both tangible system navigation and intangible, social support that promote recovery and might not otherwise be available. Enhanced communication between RCs and health center leadership in defining the RC role may help resolve ambiguity and related tensions between RCs and care team members.

Group Psychotherapy in Specialty Clinics for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: The Challenge of Ethnoracially Diverse Clients

ABSTRACTMinimal research has explored how clinicians address race and ethnicity considerations in the context of group psychotherapy within substance use disorder (SUD) specialty treatment settings. This article is an exploratory qualitative study in an effort to narrow this gap, using data from semistructured interviews with 13 group clinicians at three outpatient SUD specialty clinics in the United States. Results are drawn from the portion of coded material pertaining to ethnoracial considerations. A predominant theme from the interviews was the importance of individualized care in terms of “meeting clients where they are at.” However, minimal attention appears to have been given to addressing clients’ demographic diversity. Overall, ethnoracial considerations were minimally addressed in groups, with clinicians framing such primarily in terms of “cultural” factors relevant to clinics’ treatment philosophies. Moreover, limited attention was reportedly given to acknowledgment of social inequities faced by ethnoracial minority clients (e.g., racial discrimination), even though a few clinicians reported concern that minority clients were less engaged in treatment. Clinical implications of these findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.

A Shared Decision-Making Tool to Prevent Substance Abuse: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundSubstance use disorder (SUD) affects over 20 million adults and costs over $700 billion annually in the United States. It is one the greatest health care challenges we face.ObjectiveThis research project seeks to enhance the standard practice of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) through a mobile solution easily incorporated into primary care that will promote shared decision making and increase referral and adherence to specialty care through continued follow-up care.MethodsThis research will conduct an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)–approved randomized controlled trial (RCT) in primary care and SUD specialty service providers. The RCT will recruit a total of 500 SUD patients. Recruited patients will be randomized into control and intervention arms. Both arms will take initial baseline and exit (30 days) surveys to evaluate self-reported substance use and specialty service utilization. The control arm patients will receive usual care. The intervention group patients will receive technology-enhanced SBIRT and a mobile follow-up program to track goals and substance use at home. The RCT tracks participants for 30 days after the primary care encounter. We will collect feedback from the patients during the 30 days and count the number of patients who use specialty care services in specialty care programs for tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse (both from self-reporting and from the service providers).ResultsRCT and data collection are underway. We expect to report the data results in 2018.ConclusionsWe expect that significantly more intervention group patients will receive specialty SUD care within 30 days following the SBIRT encounter at the primary care clinic compared to the control group. We also expect that the intervention group patients will report a greater reduction in substance use and a greater drop in Drug Abuse Screening Test and Addition Severity Index scores within 30 days.

The response of substance use disorder treatment providers to changes in macroeconomic conditions

ObjectiveTo study how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers respond to changes in economic conditions. Data sources2000–2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) which contains detailed information on specialty SUD facilities in the United States. Study designWe use fixed-effects regression to study how changes in economic conditions, proxied by state unemployment rates, impact treatment setting, accepted payment forms, charity care, offered services, special programs, and use of pharmacotherapies by specialty SUD treatment providers. Data collectionSecondary data analysis in the N-SSATS. Principal findingsOur findings suggest a one percentage point increase in the state unemployment rate is associated with a 2.5% reduction in outpatient clients by non-profit providers and a 1.8% increase in the acceptance of private insurance as a form of payment overall. We find no evidence that inpatient treatment, the provision of charity care, offered services, or special programs are impacted by changes in the state unemployment rate. However, a one percentage point increase in the state unemployment rate leads to a 2.5% increase in the probability that a provider uses pharmacotherapies to treat addiction. ConclusionsDeteriorating economic conditions may increase financial pressures on treatment providers, prompting them to seek new sources of revenue or to change their care delivery models.

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services for Women in the Veterans Health Administration

PurposeThe present study used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility-level data to examine the extent of women's specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programming in the VHA. In addition, the study compared facilities with women's specialty SUD programming with facilities without to determine whether having this programming was associated with serving other special patient populations, treatment staffing, and breadth of service provision. MethodsThe study used data from the VHA Program Evaluation and Resource Center's Drug and Alcohol Program Survey, conducted in 2015 (100% response rate among VHA specialty SUD treatment programs). Program responses were calculated at the facility level (n = 140 VHA facilities). Main FindingsThe majority of VHA facilities (85%) provided women veterans with SUD-specific individual psychotherapy. However, only 30% of facilities provided SUD-specific groups for women only, and only 14% provided SUD–posttraumatic stress disorder groups for women only in specialty SUD treatment. VHA facilities with greater numbers of specialty SUD treatment staff members, a greater breadth of staff roles, and a broader scope of treatment services, activities, and practices were more likely to provide women-only groups. ConclusionsBecause the number of women veterans in specialty SUD treatment is likely to continue to grow, these data serve as a benchmark against which future administrations of the Drug and Alcohol Program Survey will document the extent to which VHA services are responsive to their needs.

Substance Use Treatment Provider Behavior and Healthcare Reform: Evidence from Massachusetts

We examine the impact of the 2006 Massachusetts healthcare reform on substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities' provision of care. We test the impact of the reform on treatment quantity and access. We couple data on the near universe of specialty SUD treatment providers in the USA with a synthetic control method approach. We find little evidence that the reform lead to changes in treatment quantity or access. Reform effects were similar among for-profit and non-profit facilities. In an extension, we show that the reform altered the setting in which treatment is received, the number of offered services, and the number of programs for special populations. These findings may be useful in predicting the implications of major health insurance expansions on the provision of SUD treatment. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Availability of tobacco cessation services in substance use disorder treatment programs: Impact of state tobacco control policy

ObjectiveGiven the high prevalence of smoking among substance use disorder (SUD) patients, the specialty SUD treatment system is an important target for adoption and implementation of tobacco cessation (TC) services. While research has addressed the impact of tobacco control on individual tobacco consumption, largely overlooked in the literature is the potential impact of state tobacco control policies on availability of services for tobacco cessation. This paper examines the association between state tobacco control policy and availability of TC services in SUD treatment programs in the United States. MethodsState tobacco control and state demographic data (n=51) were merged with treatment program data from the 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (n=10.413) to examine availability of TC screening, counseling and pharmacotherapy services in SUD treatment programs using multivariate logistic regression models clustered at the state-level. ResultsApproximately 60% of SUD treatment programs offered TC screening services, 41% offered TC counseling services and 26% offered TC pharmacotherapy services. Results of multivariate logistic regression showed the odds of offering TC services were greater for SUD treatment programs located in states with higher cigarette excise taxes and greater spending on tobacco prevention and control. ConclusionsFindings indicate cigarette excise taxes and recommended funding levels may be effective policy tools for increasing access to TC services in SUD treatment programs. Coupled with changes to insurance coverage for TC under the Affordable Care Act, state tobacco control policy tools may further reduce tobacco use in the United States.

Access to Health Insurance and Utilization of Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Provision.

The relationship between insurance coverage and use of specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is not well understood. In this study, we add to the literature by examining changes in admissions to SUD treatment following the implementation of a 2010 Affordable Care Act provision requiring health insurers to offer dependent coverage to young adult children of their beneficiaries under age 26. We use national administrative data on admissions to specialty SUD treatment and apply a difference-in-differences design to study effects of the expansion on the rate of treatment utilization among young adults and, among those in treatment, changes in insurance status and payment source. We find that admissions to treatment declined by 11% after the expansion. However, the share of young adults covered by private insurance increased by 5.4 percentage points and the share with private insurance as the payment source increased by 3.7 percentage points. This increase was largely offset by decreased payment from government sources. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Health Insurance Expansions and Provider Behavior: Evidence from Substance Use Disorder Providers

We examine how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers respond to private health insurance expansions induced by state equal coverage (‘parity’) laws for SUD treatment. We use data on the near universe of specialty SUD treatment providers in the United States between 1997 and 2010 in an event study analysis. During this period, 18 states implemented parity laws. Following the passage of a state parity law we find that providers are less likely to participate in public markets, are less likely to provide charity care, increase the quantity of healthcare provided, and become more selective of the type of patients they are willing to admit.Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.