Availability of best practices for opioid use disorder in jails and related training and resource needs: findings from a national interview study of jails in heavily impacted counties in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Jails are optimal settings in which to screen individuals for opioid use disorders (OUD) and provide needed services, especially medications for OUD (MOUD). This study sought to assess the availability of OUD "best practices" in jails located in counties heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the U.S. and their related training and resource needs. Counties were selected for study inclusion using two indicators of OUD severity: the absolute number and population rate of opioid overdose deaths. Structured interviews were completed with representatives from 185/244 (76%) of targeted counties and 185/250 (74%) of targeted jails in these counties. Ten OUD best practices were identified based on current treatment and practice guidelines. These include: screening for OUD; clinical assessment; medically managed withdrawal; MOUD administration; MOUD for pregnant people; counseling and wrap-around services; collaboration with community providers; assistance with Medicaid/insurance; re-entry services; and overdose prevention. Descriptive analyses examined the provision of any services and average percentage of services endorsed within best-practice categories, association of best-practice availability with community and jail characteristics, and related needs for training and resources. RESULTS: Over 70% of jail respondents indicated that some aspects of each of the ten OUD best practices were available within their jails, ranging from 71% using clinical assessment to 96% providing overdose prevention. However, there was considerable variability in the average percentage of items endorsed within each best-practice category, ranging from 38% of items regarding re-entry services to 88% of items regarding medically managed withdrawal. Availability of OUD best practices in jails also varied by community and jail characteristics. Jails reported the highest needs for funding for medication and clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Policies are needed to address the identified gaps in availability of OUD best practices within jails. Training, technical assistance, and funding are needed to improve clinical capacity of jails to administer MOUD and to ensure continuity of care from jail to community, which are essential to reducing the risk of opioid-related overdose following release.

Drug court utilization of medications for opioid use disorder in high opioid mortality communities.

INTRODUCTION: A 2012 national survey found low utilization of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in US drug courts. This study provides an update on MOUD policies and practices among drug courts in communities that the opioid epidemic has substantially impacted. METHODS: The study surveyed adult drug courts (N = 169, 80 % response rate) in US counties with high opioid mortality rates or numbers of opioid-related deaths about their policies and practices relating to MOUD and the overdose-reversal medication, naloxone. RESULTS: Nearly three quarters of the programs (73 %) reported providing access to all FDA-approved MOUD medications, >90 % offer agonist medications (buprenorphine and/or methadone), 80 % provide naloxone training, and 62 % distribute naloxone overdose-reversal kits to their clients. Most programs rely principally on medical judgment for medication decisions (75 %), have received staff training on MOUD (65 %), and have arranged for clients to continue receiving agonist medications while serving jail sanctions for program violations (63 %). Nevertheless, only about one quarter to one half of clients with OUDs receive the medications in most programs, and respondents offered few explanations for this disconnect between policy and practice. In addition, 24 % of the programs continue to overrule medication decisions and 36 % of the jails in these communities do not offer agonist medication for drug court clients serving custodial sanctions. CONCLUSIONS: Programs have achieved substantial progress in the past decade in improving drug court policies concerning MOUD in communities enduring the worst brunt of the opioid epidemic; however, programs require further guidance to help them understand and rectify service barriers and put intended MOUD policies into effective operation. The authors provide recommendations to enhance MOUD utilization in drug courts and the broader criminal justice system.

Scoping review of interventions to link individuals to substance use services at discharge from jail.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) must be linked to community-based SUD treatment and other services upon their release from jail, given their high service needs and risks for relapse, recidivism, and opioid-related overdose following release. METHOD: This scoping review identified 14 studies (28 affiliated publications) that used experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate jail re-entry interventions for individuals with SUD. The team coded intervention components, study characteristics, and study outcomes based on a service continuum for treatment linkage and retention and for post-release substance use and criminal justice outcomes. RESULTS: This review included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT) for linkage to treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD); 4 RCTs and 4 quasi-experimental studies for linkage to non-specific SUD treatment; and 2 RCTs for linkage to HIV + SUD services. Most studies (9/14) used case management and/or peer or patient navigation as the core intervention; 2 studies provided medical management for MOUD induction and/or facilitated referral to MOUD in the community; and 3 studies used motivational-based linkage interventions. A qualitative analysis of study outcomes found evidence to support the effectiveness of a diverse range of interventions to link individuals to community-based SUD treatment, MOUD, and other services at re-entry, but limited support for intervention effects on longer-term outcomes, including treatment retention, medication adherence, recidivism, and substance use. CONCLUSION: Future controlled trials and implementation studies should help to unpack and examine core components of jail re-entry interventions and their successful implementation to enhance treatment retention and improve post-release outcomes.

The impact of the opioid crisis on U.S. state prison systems.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have documented limited use of medications to treat opioid use disorders (OUD) for people incarcerated within state prisons in the United States. Using the framework of the criminal justice OUD service cascade, this study interviewed representatives of prison systems in states most heavily impacted by opioid overdose regarding the provision of medications for OUD (MOUD). METHODS: A stratified sampling strategy included states with high indicators of opioid-overdose deaths. Two sampling strata targeted states with: 1) OUD overdose rates significantly higher than the per capita national average; or 2) high absolute number of OUD overdose fatalities. Interviews were completed with representatives from 21 of the 23 (91%) targeted states in 2019, representing 583 prisons across these states. Interviews assessed service provision across the criminal justice OUD service cascade, including OUD screening, withdrawal management, MOUD availability and provision, overdose prevention, re-entry services, barriers, and needs for training and technical assistance. RESULTS: MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone) was available in at least one prison in approximately 90% of the state prison systems and all three medications were available in at least one prison in 62% of systems. However, MOUD provision was limited to subsets of prisons within these systems: 15% provided buprenorphine, 9% provided methadone, 36% provided naltrexone, and only 7% provided all three. Buprenorphine and methadone were most frequently provided to pregnant women or individuals already receiving these at admission, whereas naltrexone was primarily used at release. Funding was the most frequently cited barrier for all medications. CONCLUSION: Study findings yield a complex picture of how, when, and to whom MOUD is provided across prisons within prison systems in states most heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the United States and have implications for expanding availability.

A scoping review of factors that influence opioid overdose prevention for justice-involved populations.

BACKGROUND: There is a high risk of death from opioid overdose following release from prison. Efforts to develop and implement overdose prevention programs for justice-involved populations have increased in recent years. An understanding of the gaps in knowledge on prevention interventions is needed to accelerate development, implementation, and dissemination of effective strategies. METHODS: A systematic search process identified 43 published papers addressing opioid overdose prevention in criminal justice settings or among justice-involved populations from 2010 to February 2020. Cross-cutting themes were identified, coded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Papers were coded into five categories: acceptability (n = 8), accessibility (n = 4), effectiveness (n = 5), feasibility (n = 7), and participant overdose risk (n = 19). Common themes were: (1) Acceptability of naloxone is associated with injection drug use, overdose history, and perceived risk within the situational context; (2) Accessibility of naloxone is a function of the interface between corrections and community; (3) Evaluations of overdose prevention interventions are few, but generally show increases in knowledge or reductions in opioid overdose; (4) Coordinated efforts are needed to implement prevention interventions, address logistical challenges, and develop linkages between corrections and community providers; (5) Overdose is highest immediately following release from prison or jail, often preceded by service-system interactions, and associated with drug-use severity, injection use, and mental health disorders, as well as risks in the post-release environment. CONCLUSION: Study findings can inform the development of overdose prevention interventions that target justice-involved individuals and policies to support their implementation across criminal justice and community-based service systems.

A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US States: Lessons from Colorado and Washington.

Despite the federal prohibition against marijuana, state-level recreational use appears to be moving forward. Public opinion is shifting. Following well-publicized state-legalization in Washington and Colorado, states across the US have begun considering similar measures. Since the 2016 election, over 21% of Americans now live in places where recreational marijuana is state-legal, and over 63% of the country permits medical or recreational use at the state level. This paper does not consider whether states should legalize marijuana nor does it weigh all regulatory options available to states. Instead, it considers how states can create a practical framework to regulate recreational marijuana, particularly in a climate of federal uncertainty where marijuana remains illegal. We draw lessons from Colorado and Washington-assuming that other states will adopt similar models and employ commercial, for-profit systems. Considering both the variety of goals that states could adopt and how they interact, we offer recommendations in five areas: cultivation, production, and processing; sale, consumption, and possession; taxes and finance; public health and safety; and governance. We recommend that states implement a relatively restrictive regulatory approach, with a single market for recreational and medical marijuana, if appropriate. This should make marijuana laws easier to enforce, help reduce diversion, and satisfy federal guidance. Moreover, drawing from Colorado and Washington's experience, we suggest a flexible system with robust data collection and performance monitoring that supports a thorough evaluation. This should allow states to "learn as they go"-a must, given the uncertainty surrounding such policy shifts. Of course, a tightly regulated approach will have drawbacks-including a significant illegal market. But political experience teaches that states will be better off loosening a tight market than attempting to tighten a loose one. We also consider a potential role for the federal government under the status quo.