Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities Research Articles

Examining facilitative services for entry into substance use disorder treatment: A cluster analysis of treatment facilities.

We examined services to facilitate access to entering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment among a national sample of SUD treatment facilities. We analyzed data from the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) 2020. Facilities were included in the sample based on criteria such as SUD treatment provision and being in the U.S. Cluster analysis was conducted using variables including ownership, levels of care, and whether facilities provide services or accept payment options aimed at reducing treatment barriers. National and state-level data on the percentage of facilities in each cluster were presented. Among N = 15,788 SUD treatment facilities four distinct clusters were identified: Cluster 1 consisted of for-profit and government outpatient facilities with high proportions of services to reduce barriers (22.2%). Cluster 2, comprised of non-profit outpatient facilities, offered the most comprehensive array of services to minimize barriers to treatment among all four clusters (25.2%). Cluster 3 included facilities with diverse ownership and care levels and provided a moderate to high degree of services aimed at reducing entry barriers to treatment (26.0%). Cluster 4 was primarily for-profit outpatient facilities with a low proportion of these services (26.6%). This study revealed facility-level groupings with different services to reduce barriers to SUD treatment across various clusters of SUD treatment facilities. While some facilities offered extensive services, others provided fewer. Differences in cluster distributions point to possible facilitators to treatment access for some persons seeking admission to specific treatment facilities. Efforts should be made to ensure that individuals seeking SUD treatment can access these services, and facilities should be adequately equipped to meet their diverse needs.

The effect of Certificate‐of‐Need laws on substance use disorder care for vulnerable populations

AbstractSubstance use disorders are a prevalent and growing problem across the United States, especially for households that rely on publicly funded healthcare insurance plans. State Certificate‐of‐Need (CON) laws for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities can worsen outcomes for these patients by restricting the supply of facilities and beds, leading to spillovers into the general hospital system. We present a choice theory for treatment facility patient admission and model the outcome as a function of the patient's insurance type. We then combine two datasets on state CON laws for SUD treatment facilities with Medicaid patient data from 2017 to 2020 to test the model using a three‐stage least squares design and provide some of the first evidence on Medicaid patient outcomes under CON laws for SUD treatment facilities. We find significant evidence that state CON laws for SUD treatment facilities are associated with higher rates of hospital bed utilization, increases in the number of infants born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, and higher rates of emergency department visits. Our findings are robust to several specification tests, including a model of conditional mixed method endogeneity and incorporating timing of the Affordable Care Act.

Examining Utilization of Family-Based Treatment in Substance Use Treatment Centers

AbstractThe multiple benefits of family-based treatment (FBT) used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment include increased treatment engagement, better treatment outcomes, and cost-effectiveness compared to other behavioral health treatment modalities. However, the prevalence and types of FBTs offered among SUD treatment facilities are largely unknown. The present study used data collected during 2009–2010 from 325 treatment centers in the United States to (1) explore the prevalence in the utilization of FBT in SUD treatment, and (2) identify differences between treatment facilities that do and do not offer FBT. Results indicated that the adoption of FBT was negatively associated with the percentage of clients who were unemployed or involved in the criminal justice system at time of intake, and positively related to the number of hours of individual therapy and treatment center emphasis on utilizing the 12 Steps. Additionally, the majority of treatment centers that followed the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) clinical guidelines offered FBT. Lastly, the percentage of families involvement was negatively associated with centers’ proportion of revenues from Medicaid (i.e., health insurance for those with limited income) and positively associated with treatment center revenues from private insurance. The impact of having FBT in SUD treatment centers is discussed.

Treatment setting and buprenorphine discontinuation: an analysis of multi-state insurance claims

BackgroundPotential differences in buprenorphine treatment outcomes across various treatment settings are poorly characterized in multi-state administrative data. We thus evaluated the association of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment setting and insurance type with risk of buprenorphine discontinuation among commercial insurance and Medicaid enrollees initiated on buprenorphine.MethodsIn this observational, retrospective cohort study using the Merative MarketScan databases (2006–2016), we analyzed buprenorphine retention in 58,200 US adults with OUD. Predictor variables included insurance status (Medicaid vs commercial) and treatment setting, operationalized as substance use disorder (SUD) specialty treatment facility versus outpatient primary care physicians (PCPs) versus outpatient psychiatry, ascertained by linking physician visit codes to buprenorphine prescriptions. Treatment setting was inferred based on timing of prescriber visit claims preceding prescription fills. We estimated time to buprenorphine discontinuation using multivariable cox regression.ResultsAmong enrollees with OUD receiving buprenorphine, 26,168 (45.0%) had prescriptions from SUD facilities without outpatient buprenorphine treatment, with the remaining treated by outpatient PCPs (n = 23,899, 41.1%) and psychiatrists (n = 8133, 13.9%). Overall, 50.6% and 73.3% discontinued treatment at 180 and 365 days respectively. Buprenorphine discontinuation was higher among enrollees receiving prescriptions from SUD facilities (aHR = 1.03[1.01–1.06]) and PCPs (aHR = 1.07[1.05–1.10]). Medicaid enrollees had lower buprenorphine retention than those with commercial insurance, particularly those receiving buprenorphine from SUD facilities and PCPs (aHR = 1.24[1.20–1.29] and aHR = 1.39[1.34–1.45] respectively, relative to comparator group of commercial insurance enrollees receiving buprenorphine from outpatient psychiatry).ConclusionBuprenorphine discontinuation is high across outpatient PCP, psychiatry, and SUD treatment facility settings, with potentially lower treatment retention among Medicaid enrollees receiving care from SUD facilities and PCPs.

Availability of substance use disorder treatment in Spanish: Associations with state-level proportions of Spanish speakers and treatment facility characteristics in the United States.

Spanish is the second most spoken language in the United States. Not all substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities provide treatment in Spanish. This study examined factors associated with SUD treatment facilities having counselors that provide treatment in Spanish. State-level estimates of Spanish-speaking individuals were derived from the American Community Survey 2019. SUD treatment facility characteristics were captured from the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 2020. We examined a sample of 15,246 facilities which included 12,798 outpatient, 3554 nonhospital residential, and 1106 with both outpatient and residential programs. Binary logistic regression models were used to observe state-level proportions of Spanish speakers and facility-level characteristics as factors associated with a facility having counselors that provide treatment in Spanish. Approximately 23.3% of facilities had counselors able to provide treatment in Spanish. Among outpatient or nonhospital residential SUD facilities, those in a state with a larger proportion of Spanish-speaking individuals, facilities with pay assistance, facilities that accept Medicaid, and facilities that engage in community outreach had higher odds of having counselors that provide treatment in Spanish. Considering that less than a quarter of facilities provide treatment in Spanish, increasing the availability of linguistically appropriate and culturally responsive services for SUD is imperative. This national study is the first of its kind to examine associations between estimates of Spanish speakers and treatment facility characteristics associated with counselors that provide treatment in Spanish in outpatient and nonhospital residential SUD treatment.

Association Between Online Reviews of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities and Drug-Induced Mortality Rates: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background Drug-induced mortality across the United States has continued to rise. To date, there are limited measures to evaluate patient preferences and priorities regarding substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and many patients do not have access to evidence-based treatment options. Patients and their families seeking SUD treatment may begin their search for an SUD treatment facility online, where they can find information about individual facilities, as well as a summary of patient-generated web-based reviews via popular platforms such as Google or Yelp. Web-based reviews of health care facilities may reflect information about factors associated with positive or negative patient satisfaction. The association between patient satisfaction with SUD treatment and drug-induced mortality is not well understood. Objective The objective of this study was to examine the association between online review content of SUD treatment facilities and drug-induced state mortality. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of online reviews and ratings of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)–designated SUD treatment facilities listed between September 2005 and October 2021 was conducted. The primary outcomes were (1) mean online rating of SUD treatment facilities from 1 star (worst) to 5 stars (best) and (2) average drug-induced mortality rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WONDER Database (2006-2019). Clusters of words with differential frequencies within reviews were identified. A 3-level linear model was used to estimate the association between online review ratings and drug-induced mortality. Results A total of 589 SAMHSA-designated facilities (n=9597 reviews) were included in this study. Drug-induced mortality was compared with the average. Approximately half (24/47, 51%) of states had below average (“low”) mortality rates (mean 13.40, SD 2.45 deaths per 100,000 people), and half (23/47, 49%) had above average (“high”) drug-induced mortality rates (mean 21.92, SD 3.69 deaths per 100,000 people). The top 5 themes associated with low drug-induced mortality included detoxification and addiction rehabilitation services (r=0.26), gratitude for recovery (r=–0.25), thankful for treatment (r=–0.32), caring staff and amazing experience (r=–0.23), and individualized recovery programs (r=–0.20). The top 5 themes associated with high mortality were care from doctors or providers (r=0.24), rude and insensitive care (r=0.23), medication and prescriptions (r=0.22), front desk and reception experience (r=0.22), and dissatisfaction with communication (r=0.21). In the multilevel linear model, a state with a 10 deaths per 100,000 people increase in mortality was associated with a 0.30 lower average Yelp rating (P=.005). Conclusions Lower online ratings of SUD treatment facilities were associated with higher drug-induced mortality at the state level. Elements of patient experience may be associated with state-level mortality. Identified themes from online, organically derived patient content can inform efforts to improve high-quality and patient-centered SUD care.

Organizational Facilitation of Latino Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Impact of COVID-19.

Continued high opioid overdose death rates in the United States and increasing New York State (NYS) Latino opioid overdoses make the facilitation of Latino access to NYS substance use disorder (SUD) treatment essential. SUD treatment facilities in NYS sustained an estimated 37% decrease in Latino enrollment during phase one of the pandemic. This study invited NYS SUD service providers to describe ways in which SUD organizations facilitated Latino SUD treatment prior to and during phase one of the pandemic. Using an individual and community interaction framework of vulnerability and a description of organizational enabling resources in four domains, this study used a cross-sectional descriptive design to investigate the levels of organizational facilitators for Latino SUD treatment access and the impact of the pandemic on these organizational facilitators. A convenience sample of 470 NYS SUD clinicians participated in the study. The outcomes suggest an overall erosion of organizational enabling resources during the pandemic. Erosion was greatest in areas with a higher Latino population density in the domains of insured/immigration/legal information and culture. A pattern of strengthening resources in areas with lower Latino population density in the domains of language and telehealth access has defied the overall pattern of deterioration. The increase in telehealth did not cross the digital divide to stop the decrease in Latino enrollment and did not compensate for the overall erosion of access facilitators. The overall outcomes suggest opportunities to explore local variations in resource health. Recommendations to improve health equity include the use of participatory research to assess community needs and the implementation of community partnerships to address systemic barriers and rebuild equitable addiction services.

Operationalizing person-centered care in residential substance use disorder treatment

Introduction Person-centered care (PCC) is an ethical imperative with eight domains, but operation of some PCC domains in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment has been underexplored. Objective We sought to identify strategies for operationalizing eight PCC domains in SUD treatment facilities and themes across these strategies. Methods We recruited 36 clients and staff from a large publicly funded behavioral health system for individual, semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interviews explored preferences and care experiences for each PCC domain. We analyzed data using iterative categorization, identifying specific operationalization strategies and themes across operationalization strategies within each domain. Results PCC operationalization themes for residential SUD treatment included addressing social vulnerability of clients (e.g., through assistance with housing and navigation of criminal/legal systems), involving peer support specialists (e.g., to provide emotional support and aid transition out of care), supporting the client’s family throughout treatment (e.g., providing progress updates; increasing visitation opportunities in residential treatment), and facilitating patient choice within each domain (e.g., treatment type; housing type; roommate preferences in residential treatment.) Discussion & Conclusion Some PCC operationalization strategies are unique to SUD treatment. Several PCC operationalization strategies applied to multiple domains, suggesting conceptual overlap between domains.

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.

Key person-centered care domains for residential substance use disorder treatment facilities: former clients’ perspectives

BackgroundWhile person-centered care (PCC) includes multiple domains, residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clients may value certain domains over others. We sought to identify the PCC domains most valued by former residential SUD treatment clients. We also sought to explore conceptual distinctions between potential theoretical PCC subdomains.MethodsWe distributed an online survey via social media to a national convenience sample of former residential SUD treatment clients. Respondents were presented with ten PCC domains in an online survey: (a) access to evidence-based care; (b) integration of care; (c) diversity/respect for other cultures; (d) individualization of care; (e) emotional support; (f) family involvement in treatment; (g) transitional services; (h) aftercare; (i) physical comfort; and (j) information provision. Respondents were asked to select up to two domains they deemed most important to their residential SUD treatment experience. We used descriptive statistics to identify response frequencies and logistic regression to predict relationships between selected domains and respondents’ race, gender, relationship status, parenting status, and housing stability.ResultsOur final sample included 435 former residential SUD treatment clients. Diversity and respect for different cultures was the most frequently selected domain (29%), followed by integration of care (26%), emotional support (26%), and individualization of care (26%). Provision of information was the least frequently chosen domain (3%). Race and ethnicity were not predictive of selecting respect for diversity. Also, parental status, relationship status and gender were not predictive of selecting family integration. Employment and housing status were not predictive of selecting transitional services.ConclusionsWhile residential SUD treatment facilities should seek to implement PCC across all domains, our results suggest facilities should prioritize (a) operationalizing diversity, (b) integration of care, and (c) emotional support. Significant heterogeneity exists regarding PCC domains deemed most important to clients. PCC domains valued by clients cannot be easily predicted based on client demographics.

Higher perceived stress during admission is associated with shorter retention in short-term residential substance use disorder treatment

IntroductionOver one million people in the U.S. received residential treatment for a substance use disorder (SUD) in 2020. Longer treatment retention is associated with better outcomes (e.g., reduced substance use). Entering treatment with higher stress may be associated with shorter retention. This paper examines the impact of perceived stress at admission on SUD treatment retention in short-term residential treatment. MethodsA sample of 271 treatment episodes with admissions between October 2019 and February 2020 were collected from de-identified records of an urban mid-Atlantic adult 28-day short-term residential SUD treatment facility. Treatment completion involved finishing 28 days. Sociodemographic, substance use, perceived stress, and treatment discharge variables were analyzed. Bivariate analyses examined differences between treatment completion and early discharge, and Cox regression investigated the effect of perceived stress on treatment retention with covariates. ResultsThe sample was primarily male (73.8%) and non-Hispanic Black (71.6%). A majority used heroin as their primary substance (54.6%) and reported polysubstance use (72.3%). About half (51.3%) completed treatment, and completed an average of 18.7 (SD = 10.7) days. Those who prematurely discharged from treatment stayed an average of 8.9 (SD = 7.0) days. The Cox regression model found that higher perceived stress (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.028; 95% CI = [1.005, 1.053], p =.019) and a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic Black (AHR = 1.546, 95% CI = [1.037, 2.305], p =.033) predicted premature discharge. ConclusionsPerceived stress at admission is associated with shorter treatment retention. Early stress management interventions may help increase treatment retention.

Trends in Geographic Proximity to Substance Use Disorder Treatment

This study aims to assess the trends in the number and characteristics of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities within the county of residence of adults aged 50+ years over time. Using retrospective longitudinal data from the 1992-2018 Health and Retirement Study merged with the county-level data on all licensed treatment facilities in the country, linear mixed models were estimated to calculate geographic accessibility to SUD treatment, adjusted for person-level demographics, state-level controls, and calendar year-fixed effects. Analysis was conducted in 2022. Overall, older adults experienced a decline in the average number of SUD treatment facilities within their counties of residence from 4.80 per 100,000 residents (95% CI=4.69, 4.92) in 1992 to 4.50 (95% CI=4.35, 4.64) in 2018. However, the number accepting Medicare increased from 0.26 (95% CI=0.21, 0.30) in 1992 to 1.88 (95% CI=1.80, 1.96) facilities per 100,000 (42% of facilities); Medicaid increased from 0.20 (95% CI=0.13, 0.26) in 1992 to 3.50 (95% CI=3.39, 3.62) facilities per 100,000 (78% of facilities) in 2018. Older adults living in more rural areas experienced the most growth in SUD treatment facilities per capita in their counties but with less significant growth in facilities offering medication for opioid use disorder than those living in more urban areas. Despite increases in the number of SUD treatment facilities in rural areas, there has been less growth in nearby facilities offering evidence-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

Ethical Dilemmas Facing Substance Use Counselors During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment settings experienced several abrupt changes, including decreased admissions, reduction in services, and modified requirements for medication for substance use disorder. While these changes were implemented to facilitate the maintenance of important treatment options, the ethical consequences of such changes remained unknown. The current study aimed to explore ethical issues related to COVID-19-related changes reported by counselors in SUD treatment facilities. From May to August 2020, we conducted 60 to 90 minutes in-depth interviews with 18 front-line staff in 1 residential and 1 outpatient treatment program, exploring issues drawn from the ethical principles of the national organization representing SUD counselors. Counselors volunteered to participate via phone or email, and participation was confidential. Interviews were conducted via videoconferencing. Topics included day-to-day experiences of ethical dilemmas in the workplace, particularly during the COVID-19 era. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy and a trained team of analysts then coded transcripts using thematic analysis. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, SUD treatment programs quickly modified procedures to adhere to public health mandates while also continuing to offer care to clients. SUD counselors reported several ways their programs adapted new and creative procedures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. SUD counselors also identified several novel ethical dilemmas that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, often resulting from the counselor balancing the needs for responding to public health mandates with providing services to clients. There were several ways that COVID-19 related changes resulted in therapeutic challenges for some clients, and the SUD counselors highlighted ways that changes resulted in more flexible services for other clients. This study highlights the quick response to COVID-19 that occurred within SUD treatment. While these changes resulted in novel ethical dilemmas, they also offered more flexible and client-centered approaches to treatment.

Patterns in Geographic Distribution of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in the US and Accepted Forms of Payment From 2010 to 2021

The drug overdose crisis is a continuing public health problem and is expected to grow substantially in older adults. Understanding the geographic accessibility to a substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facility that accepts Medicare can inform efforts to address this crisis in older adults. To assess whether geographic accessibility of services was limited for older adults despite the increasing need for SUD and opioid use disorder treatments in this population. This longitudinal cross-sectional study obtained data on all licensed SUD treatment facilities for all US counties and Census tracts listed in the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs from 2010 to 2021. Measures included the national proportion of treatment facilities accepting Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash as a form of payment; the proportion of counties with a treatment facility accepting each form of payment; and the proportion of the national population with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash payment residing within a 15-, 30-, or 60-minute driving time from an SUD treatment facility accepting their form of payment in 2021. A total of 11 709 SUD treatment facilities operated across the US per year between 2010 and 2021 (140 507 facility-year observations). Cash was the most commonly accepted form of payment (increasing slightly from 91.0% in 2010 to 91.6% by 2021), followed by private insurance (increasing from 63.5% to 75.3%), Medicaid (increasing from 54.0% to 71.8%), and Medicare (increasing from 32.1% to 41.9%). The proportion of counties with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment also increased over the same study period from 41.2% to 53.8%, whereas the proportion of counties with a facility that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment increased from 53.5% to 67.1%. The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment within a 15-minute driving time increased from 53.3% to 57.0%. The proportion of individuals with a treatment facility within a 15-minute driving time that accepted their respective form of payment was 73.2% for those with Medicaid, 69.8% for those with private insurance, and 71.4% for those with cash payment in 2021. Results of this study suggest that Medicare beneficiaries have less geographic accessibility to SUD treatment facilities given that acceptance of Medicare is low compared with other forms of payment. Policy makers need to consider increasing reimbursement rates and using additional incentives to encourage the acceptance of Medicare.

Laws for expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder: a legal analysis of 16 states & Washington D.C

ABSTRACT Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) are the gold standard for OUD treatment but are underused. To our knowledge, no published study has systematically identified and categorized state policy innovations for expanding MOUD utilization. Objective: We sought to identify and categorize state MOUD policy innovations. Methods: Within a stratified random sample of 16 U.S. states and Washington D.C. we searched for 2019 state statutes and regulations related to MOUD in Westlaw legal database. We then identified laws that appeared designed to increase MOUD utilization and categorized them using a template analysis approach. Results: We found 82 laws with one or more MOUD expansion policies. We identified six high-level MOUD expansion policy categories: 1) policies expanding the availability of waivered buprenorphine providers; 2) needs assessments and policies increasing public MOUD awareness; 3) criminal justice system policies; 4) Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and sober living facility policies; 5) insurance policies; and 6) hospital policies. SUD treatment and housing facility policies, as well as insurance policies, were most common. Conclusions: Multipronged approaches are being pursued by several states to increase MOUD access. Our results can inform policymakers of MOUD expansion approaches in other jurisdictions. Policy categories can serve as the basis for policy variables for future analyses of policy effects.

Service Profiles in Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Are Treatment Facilities Consistent In Service Mix and Service Offerings?

Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities are the specialty treatment settings for individuals with SUDs and offer a variety of services for their treatment and long-term management. Despite the recommendations from evidence-based practice guidelines, individual facilities differ in terms of the number and type of services offered, resulting in gaps in service availability. The purpose of this study was to examine whether systematic differences exist among SUD treatment facilities based on the facility's service mix. Publicly available data on SUD treatment facilities within the United States were obtained from the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) for 2015-2018. Latent class analysis was used to identify the presence of different service profiles (i.e., classes of facilities) based on service mix and bivariate analysis to determine organizational characteristics associated with each profile. SUD treatment facilities systematically differ in service mix, and we identified three distinct service profiles--broad, high-prevalence; narrow, nonmedical; and broad, intermediate-prevalence. The distribution of facilities across the three profiles varied considerably, with a majority (90%) of facilities belonging to the broad, high-prevalence service profile, whereas 9.5% belonged to the narrow, nonmedical profile and the remainder (<1% of all facilities) to the broad, intermediate-prevalence service profile. The three service profiles and the distribution of facilities within each profile identified in this study highlight challenges and opportunities for practitioners and policymakers. The findings also suggest several avenues for future research in the area of policy, organizational strategy, and service delivery within SUD treatment.

Increased Admissions of Older Adults to Substance Use Treatment Facilities and Associated Changes in Admission Characteristics, 2000-2017.

Objective: Although substance use disorder (SUD) among older adults is increasing, little has been documented about recent increases in admissions to treatment facilities and associated patient and population characteristics.Methods: We used nationwide data from the Treatment Episode Data Set: Admissions to examine annual admissions to SUD treatment facilities between 2000-2001 and 2016-2017 among adults 55 years and older compared to those aged 21 to 54. Analyses addressed the impact on admission rates of increases in the general older adult population and in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of those admitted using bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions.Results: From 2000 to 2017, the number of older adults admitted to SUD treatment facilities increased by 203.7% as compared to 13.0% among younger adults. Admissions per 1,000 adults in the general population moderated these differences to 98.4% vs 7.2%. Older adults showed greater increases relative to younger adults in proportions admitted for cocaine/crack (odds ratio [OR], 5.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.20-5.51) and cannabis (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.72-1.91) use and a relative decrease in admission for opiates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and alcohol (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.80) along with changes in some demographics. Multivariate analysis showed that the OR for admission among older adults, as compared to younger adults, was 1.73 (95% CI, 1.65-1.80) in 2016-2017 compared to 2000-2001, adjusting for other factors.Conclusions: The number and proportion of older adults admitted to SUD treatment facilities increased substantially from 2000 to 2017 and were associated with changes in both population numbers and patient characteristics, especially a relative increase among older adults in cocaine/crack and cannabis use and a relative decrease for use of alcohol and opioids.

Characteristics associated with the availability of therapeutic acupuncture in substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States

Background We examine the characteristics associated with the availability of therapeutic acupuncture in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities in the United States (US). Methods This study utilizes data from the 2018 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Results Only 5.5% (n = 814) of all SUD treatment facilities offered acupuncture therapy. Facilities operating an opioid treatment program (OTP) were 1.60 times more likely to offer therapeutic acupuncture than non-OTP facilities. Facilities that offered oral naltrexone pharmacotherapy or buprenorphine with naloxone pharmacotherapy were 1.63 and 1.37 times more likely to offer therapeutic acupuncture, respectively, compared to facilities that did not offer these pharmacotherapies. Federal government facilities were over four times more likely to offer acupuncture than those operated by state governments and had triple the odds of having acupuncture than private nonprofit organizations. Tribal facilities were over five times more likely than state government-operated facilities to offer acupuncture. Facilities located in the Western region of the US were 1.59, 1.39, and 1.30 times more likely than Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southern US regions, respectively, to offer acupuncture therapy. Conclusions Although complementary and holistic approaches such as acupuncture are accepted adjunct methods to treat persons with SUD, the findings suggest that their utilization in SUD treatment facilities in the US is minimal. Results, however, highlight that facilities operated by tribal and federal governments, those that are located in the Western region of the US, and non-hospital facilities have the highest odds of incorporating therapeutic acupuncture as treatment for SUD.

Factors supporting substance use improvement for Black Americans: A population health observational study

BackgroundBlack clients in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are associated with the lowest successful completion and substance use reductions. More work is needed to identify specific factors that support successful recovery of Black clients. MethodsData from U.S. outpatient SUD treatment facilities receiving public funding from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed (N = 2239,197). Primary analyses consisted of Black clients (n = 277,726) reporting admission and discharge substance use frequency. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict substance use frequency improvement from Black client demographic, recovery capital, treatment characteristics, and state. Disparities were compared between Black and non-Black clients. ResultsThe overall Black client improvement percentage was 46.95%. Mutual-help group attendance and Length of Stay demonstrated clinically meaningful effect sizes controlling for all other variables and state. Attending mutual-help groups 8–30 times per month (State aOR = 2.54, 95% CI = 2.43, 2.64) and outpatient treatment stays of 4 months or more (State aOR = 2.50, 95% CI = 2.44, 2.56) were factors supporting Black client improvement. Importantly, states are associated with disparate Black client risk differences and only South Dakota had greater Black improvement (RD = 6.35, 95% CI = 1.00, 11.71). ConclusionsBlack client factors supporting substance use improvement include ancillary mutual-help group attendance and increased treatment retention. These factors may be more critical in states with larger Black improvement disparities. In general, treatment providers increasing access to mutual-help groups, and adjusting program inclusiveness and motivational factors for retention, would make strides in increasing improvement outcomes for Black clients.

Beyond state scope of practice laws for advanced practitioners: Additional supervision requirements for buprenorphine prescribing

BackgroundBuprenorphine is a life-saving medication for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). U.S. federal law allows advanced practice clinicians (APCs), such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in office-based practices. However, states regulate APCs' scope of practice (SOP) variously, including requirements for physician supervision. States may also have laws entirely banning NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing or requiring that supervising physicians have a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We sought to identify prevalence of state laws other than SOP laws that either 1) prohibit NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing entirely, or 2) require supervision by a federally waivered physician. MethodsWe searched for state statutes and regulations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. regulating prescribing of buprenorphine for OUD by APCs during summer 2021. We excluded general scope of practice laws, laws only applicable to Medicaid-funded clinicians, laws not applicable to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and laws only applicable to NPs/PAs serving licensed SUD treatment facilities. We then conducted content analysis. ResultsOne state prohibits all APCs from prescribing buprenorphine for OUD, even though the state's general SOP laws permit APC buprenorphine prescribing. Five states require PA supervision by a federally waivered physician. Three states require NP supervision by a federally waivered physician. ConclusionsAside from general scope of practice laws, several states have created laws explicitly regulating buprenorphine prescribing by APCs outside of licensed state SUD facilities.