The Role of Local Health Departments in Addressing the Opioid Crisis and Deploying Opioid Settlement Funds.

This article examines the evolving role of local health departments in North Carolina's opioid crisis response. Highlighting strategies like community mobilization, data prioritization, and regional partnerships, it illustrates the impact of opioid settlement funds in empowering local health departments to manage behavioral health systems and implement effective opioid abatement interventions.

The North Carolina Model for Opioid Settlement Funds.

North Carolina's effort to hold drug companies account-able for their role in creating and fueling the overdose epi-demic has generated $1.4 billion for the state over 18 years. Securing these funds has been a victory, but ensuring they are used to save lives is equally critical.

Health and Economic Outcomes of Offering Buprenorphine in Homeless Shelters in Massachusetts.

Importance: Overdose is the leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness (PEH), but engagement in medication treatment is low in this population. Shelter-based buprenorphine may be a strategy for increasing initiation and retention on lifesaving medications. Objective: To estimate clinical outcomes and conduct an economic analysis of statewide shelter-based opioid treatment in Massachusetts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study in Massachusetts used a cohort state-transition simulation model. Two cohorts were modeled starting in 2013, including (1) a closed cohort of a fixed population of PEH with history of high-risk opioid use over their lifetimes and (2) an open cohort in which membership could change over time, allowing assessment of population-level trends over a 10-year period. Data analysis occurred from January 2023 to April 2024. Exposures: Model exposures included (1) no shelter-based buprenorphine (status quo) and (2) offering buprenorphine in shelters statewide. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included overdose deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and health care and modified societal perspective costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters. Results: In the closed cohort analysis of 13 800 PEH (mean [SD] age, 40.4 [13.1] years; 8749 male [63.4%]), shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with an additional 65.4 person-weeks taking buprenorphine over an individual's lifetime compared with status quo. Shelter-based buprenorphine was cost saving when compared with the status quo, with a discounted lifetime cost savings from the health sector perspective of $1300 per person, and 0.2 additional discounted QALYs per person and 0.9 additional life-years per person. In the population-level simulation, 254 overdose deaths were averted over the 10-year period with the shelter-based buprenorphine strategy compared with the status quo (a 9.2% reduction of overdose deaths among PEH in Massachusetts). Overdose-related and other health care utilization undiscounted costs decreased by $3.0 million and $66.4 million, respectively. Shelter-based opioid treatment generated $44.7 million in additional medication and clinical costs, but saved $69.4 million in overdose and other health costs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes among PEH, shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with fewer overdose deaths and was cost saving. These findings suggest that broad rollout of shelter-based buprenorphine may be an important tool in addressing the overdose crisis.

Opioid-related clinical outcomes and associated healthcare costs following abuse/misuse of oxycodone formulations: A HEOR analysis from real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: The United States (US) opioid epidemic is a continued burden on the healthcare system and on the lives of individuals affected by the consequences of opioid abuse/misuse. The objective of this study was to use real-world data from intentional abuse/misuse exposures managed by US poison centers to compare clinical outcomes and quantify healthcare costs among three study cohorts: -exposures that involved Xtampza ER®, other oxycodone extended-release (ER), and oxycodone immediate-release (IR). STUDY DESIGN: A real-world, observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient and exposure characteristics. Drug utilization-adjusted rates of intentional abuse/misuse and clinical outcomes were used to determine relative risk. Healthcare cost estimates were calculated by extrapolating average charge per opioid-related disorder emergency department (ED) visit and per inpatient stay based upon case disposition rates, adjusted for population and drug utilization. RESULTS: Compared to Xtampza ER, exposures that involved other oxycodone ER were 7.4 times more likely to be intentional abuse/misuse, 25.9 times more likely to result in major effect or death, 9.7 times more likely to require a visit to the ED, and 14.3 times more likely to result in hospital admission. Similar results were found for oxycodone IR when compared to Xtampza ER. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first of its kind to synthesize clinical outcomes with opioid-related healthcare costs, suggesting that even when Xtampza ER is abused/misused, the rates of major effect/death, ED visits, and hospital admissions were significantly lower than those for other oxycodone-containing medications, resulting in relatively low downstream opioid-related healthcare costs.

An economic analysis of the cost of mobile units for harm reduction, naloxone distribution, and medications for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Mobile substance use treatment units are effective approaches to increase treatment access and reduce barriers to opioid use disorder (OUD) care. However, little is known about the economic costs of maintaining and operating these units. This study aimed to estimate the economic costs of starting and maintaining mobile units providing harm reduction, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). METHODS: As part of the HEALing Communities Study, four communities in Massachusetts (Bourne/Sandwich, Brockton, Gloucester, Salem) implemented mobile units offering OEND and MOUD (buprenorphine and naltrexone only); each selected different services tailored to their community. All provided MOUD linkage via telehealth, but only one offered in-person MOUD prescribing on the unit. We retrospectively collected detailed resource utilization data from invoices to estimate the direct economic costs from August 2020 through June 2022. Cost components were categorized into start-up and operating costs. We calculated total economic cost over the study period and the average monthly operating cost. RESULTS: Implementing a mobile unit offering OEND and MOUD required a one-time median start-up cost of $59,762 (range: $52,062-$113,671), with 80 % of those costs attributed to the vehicle purchase. The median monthly operating cost was $14,464. The largest cost category for all mobile units was personnel costs. The monthly ongoing costs varied by community settings and services: approximately $5000 for two urban communities offering OEND and MOUD linkage via telehealth (Gloucester, Salem), $28,000 for a rural community (Bourne/Sandwich), and $23,000 for an urban community also providing in-person MOUD prescribing on the unit (Brockton). CONCLUSION: The economic costs of mobile substance use treatment and harm reduction units are substantial but vary by community settings and services offered. Our results provide valuable community-level economic data to stakeholders and policymakers considering establishing and/or expanding mobile units with OEND and MOUD services. Further exploration of cost-effectiveness and efficiency should be considered across different settings.

Reprint of: Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

Importance: Medicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care. Objective: To describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included. Exposure: Receiving MOUD care in an OTP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022. Results: The share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states. Conclusions and Relevance: This study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.

A 3-year retrospective review of hospital admissions involving opioid toxicity in South Australia.

INTRODUCTION: This article aims to characterise hospital admissions involving opioid toxicity across South Australia to guide future implementation and evaluation of risk mitigation strategies. METHODS: International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition codes (T40.0-T40.4) were used to identify admissions involving pre-hospital opioid toxicity in public hospitals across South Australia from 1 June 2017 to 30 August 2020. Demographic and episode of care data were extracted and summarised using descriptive statistics. Admission cost estimates were calculated using Independent Hospital Pricing Authority data. RESULTS: A total of 2046 cases met the criteria for inclusion; over half (56%) were female and median age on admission was 44 years (interquartile range 27 years). Where opioid toxicity was the primary diagnosis, 70% of admissions did not specify the responsible opioid and 23% were related to heroin use. One-fifth of admissions occurred outside of metropolitan Adelaide. Individuals living in an area of relative socio-economic disadvantage were over-represented. Over half of admissions required a stay >24 h; 19% were admitted for ≥5 days, 22% required intensive care and ~10% required mechanical ventilation. The total estimated cost of admissions involving opioid toxicity in South Australia over the 3-year period was $18,230,546.50, equating to $5.6 million per annum. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the significant personal, fiscal, and systemic impacts of opioid toxicity-related hospital admissions in South Australia and provide a baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives to reduce opioid-related harm, including real-time prescription monitoring and take-home naloxone supply.

Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application.

BACKGROUND: The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed. METHODS: We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study. RESULTS: We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

A simple heuristic for allocating opioid settlement funding to reduce overdose mortality in the United States.

As resolution for opioid-related claims and litigation against pharmaceutical manufacturers and other stakeholders, state and local governments are newly eligible for millions of dollars of settlement funding to address the overdose crisis in the United States. To inform effective use of opioid settlement funds, we propose a simple framework that highlights the principal determinants of overdose mortality: the number of people at risk of overdose each year, the average annual number of overdoses per person at risk, and the average probability of death per overdose event. We assert that the annual number of overdose deaths is a function of these three determinants, all of which can be modified through public health intervention. Our proposed heuristic depicts how each of these drivers of drug-related mortality - and the corresponding interventions designed to address each term - operate both in isolation and in conjunction. We intend for this framework to be used by policymakers as a tool for identifying and evaluating public health interventions and funding priorities that will most effectively address the structural forces shaping the overdose crisis and reduce overdose deaths.

Association Between Cost-Sharing and Buprenorphine Prescription Abandonment.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled. PARTICIPANTS: Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.

Association Between Cost Sharing and Naloxone Prescription Dispensing.

Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned). Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021. Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted. Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71 306 commercially insured patients and 101 706 Medicare patients (40 019 [56.1%] and 61 410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73 311 and 106 076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment. Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.

INTRODUCTION: The health and economic consequences of inadequately treated opioid use disorder (OUD) are substantial. Healthcare systems in the United States (US) and other countries are facing a growing healthcare crisis due to opioids. Although effective medications for OUD exist, relying solely on clinical information is insufficient for addressing the opioid crisis. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the role of pharmacoeconomic studies in informing evidence-based medication treatment for OUD is discussed, with a particular emphasis on the US healthcare system, where the economic burden is significantly higher than the global average. The scope/objective of pharmacoeconomics as a distinct scientific research program is briefly defined, followed by a discussion of existing evidence informed by data from systematic reviews, in addition to a convenience sample of recently published pharmacoeconomic studies and protocols. The review also explores the need for methodological advancements in the field. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the potential of pharmacoeconomic research in shaping evidence-based medicine for OUD, significant challenges limiting its real-world application remain. How to address these challenges are explored, including how to combine cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses to address the needs of the healthcare system as a whole and specific stakeholders interested in adopting new OUD treatment strategies.

Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating healthcare interventions for their impacts beyond health outcomes may result in recognition of changes in human capital, income level, tax revenue, and government spending, which could affect economic growth and population health. In this paper, we document instances where current health technology assessment (HTA) practices fail to account for the impacts of healthcare interventions on broader society beyond the healthcare sector. METHODS: We propose a novel conceptual framework, highlighting its three components (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis [DCEA], input-output model, and voting scheme) and their contributions to capturing the economic and societal ripple effects of healthcare interventions. This manuscript also outlines a case study in which the framework is applied to the reassessment of a previously evaluated digital health therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) compared with standard of care, demonstrating its practical application. RESULTS: The DCEA health value metric indicates that digital therapeutic is more equitable, favoring socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, while standard of care exacerbates health inequality by benefiting the already advantaged. Additionally, digital therapeutic shows potential for boosting productivity, raising income, and creating jobs, supporting its consideration by employer-sponsored health plans to optimize resource allocation for treating OUD. CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework provides insights for enhancing HTAs to incorporate the broader economic and societal impacts of healthcare interventions. By integrating DCEA, extended HTA analysis with input-output modeling, and a voting scheme, decision makers can make informed choices aligned with societal priorities, although further research and validation are necessary for practical implementation across diverse healthcare contexts.

Simulated impact of medicaid expansion on the economic burden of opioid use disorder in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) imposes significant costs on state and local governments. Medicaid expansion may lead to a reduction in the cost burden of OUD to the state. METHODS: We estimated the health care, criminal justice and child welfare costs, and tax revenue losses, attributable to OUD and borne by the state of North Carolina in 2022, and then estimated changes in the same domains following Medicaid expansion in North Carolina (adopted in December 2023). Analyses used existing literature on the national and state-level costs attributable to OUD to estimate individual-level health care, criminal justice, and child welfare system costs, and lost tax revenues. We combined Individual-level costs and prevalence estimates to estimate costs borne by the state before Medicaid expansion. Changes in costs after expansion were computed based on a) medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) access for new enrollees and b) shifting of responsibility for some health care costs from the state to the federal government. Monte Carlo simulation accounted for the impact of parameter uncertainty. Dollar estimates are from the 2022 price year, and costs following the first year were discounted at 3 %. RESULTS: In 2022, North Carolina incurred costs of $749 million (95 % credible interval [CI]: $305 M-$1,526 M) associated with OUD (53 % in health care, 36 % in criminal justice, 7 % in lost tax revenue, and 4 % in child welfare costs). Expanding Medicaid lowered the cost burden of OUD incurred by the state. The state was predicted to save an estimated $72 million per year (95 % CI: $6 M-$241 M) for the first two years and $30 million per year (95 % CI: -$28 M-$176 M) in subsequent years. Over five years, savings totaled $224 million (95 % CI: -$47 M-$949 M). CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion has the potential to decrease the burden of OUD in North Carolina, and policymakers should expedite its implementation.

Firearm-Related Injuries and the US Opioid and Other Substance Use Epidemic: A Nationwide Evaluation of Emergency Department Encounters.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a sharp climb in the Unites States' death rate among opioid and other substance abuse patients, as well as an increased prevalence in gun violence. We aimed to investigate the association between substance abuse and gun violence in a national sample of patients presenting to US emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We queried the 2018-2019 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample for patients ≥18 years with substance abuse disorders (opioid and other) using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Within this sample, we analyzed characteristics and outcomes of patients with firearm-related injuries. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were ED charges and length of stay. RESULTS: Among the 25.2 million substance use disorder (SUD) patients in our analysis, 35,306 (0.14%) had a firearm-related diagnosis. Compared to other SUD patients, firearm-SUD patients were younger (33.3 versus 44.7 years, P < 0.001), primarily male (88.6% versus 54.2%, P < 0.001), of lower-income status (0-25th percentile income: 56.4% versus 40.5%, P < 0.001), and more likely to be insured by Medicaid or self-pay (71.6% versus 53.2%, P < 0.001). Firearm-SUD patients had higher mortality (1.4% versus 0.4%, P < 0.001), longer lengths of stay (6.5 versus 4.9 days, P < 0.001), and higher ED charges ($9269 versus $5,164, P < 0.001). Firearm-SUD patients had a 60.3% rate of psychiatric diagnoses. Firearm-SUD patients had 5.5 times greater odds of mortality in adjusted analyses (adjusted odds ratio: 5.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid-substance abuse patients with firearm injuries have higher mortality rates and costs among these groups, with limited discharge to postacute care resources. All these factors together point to the urgent need for improved screening and treatment for this vulnerable group of patients.

Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.