Reducing perceived barriers to scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder in the United States in the HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) communities study.

BACKGROUND: Scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is needed to reduce opioid overdose deaths, but barriers are pervasive. This study examines whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention reduced perceived barriers to expanding OEND and MOUD in healthcare/behavioral health, criminal-legal, and other/non-traditional venues. METHODS: The HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) Communities Study is a parallel, wait-list, cluster randomized trial testing the CTH intervention in 67 communities in the United States. Surveys administered to coalition members and key stakeholders measured the magnitude of perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in November 2019-January 2020, May-June 2021, and May-June 2022. Multilevel linear mixed models compared Wave 1 (intervention) and Wave 2 (wait-list control) respondents. Interactions by rural/urban status and research site were tested. RESULTS: Wave 1 respondents reported significantly greater reductions in mean scores for three outcomes: perceived barriers to scaling up OEND in Healthcare/Behavioral Health Venues (-0.26, 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.48, -0.05, p = 0.015), OEND in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.53, 95% CI: - 0.84, -0.22, p = 0.001) and MOUD in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.34, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.05, p = 0.020). There were significant interactions by research site for perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in Criminal-Legal Venues. There were no significant interactions by rural/urban status. DISCUSSION: The CTH Intervention reduced perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in certain venues, with no difference in effectiveness between rural and urban communities. More research is needed to understand facilitators and barriers in different venues.

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.

Mobile treatment for opioid use disorder: Implementation of community-based, same-day medication access interventions.

BACKGROUND: Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are lifesaving, but <20 % of individuals in the US who could benefit receive them. As part of the NIH-supported HEALing Communities Study (HCS), coalitions in several communities in Massachusetts and Ohio implemented mobile MOUD programs to overcome barriers to MOUD receipt. We defined mobile MOUD programs as units that provide same-day access to MOUD at remote sites. We aimed to (1) document the design and organizational structure of mobile programs providing same-day or next-day MOUD, and (2) explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation as well as the successes and challenges of ongoing operation. METHODS: Program staff from five programs in two states (n = 11) participated in semi-structured interviews. Two authors conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts based on the domains of the social-ecological model and the semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: Mobile MOUD units sought to improve immediate access to MOUD ("Our answer is pretty much always, 'Yes, we'll get you started right here, right now,'"), advance equity ("making sure that we have staff who speak other languages, who are on the unit and have some resources that are in different languages,"), and decrease opioid overdose deaths. Salient program characteristics included diverse staff, including staff with lived experience of substance use ("She just had that personal knowledge of where we should be going"). Mobile units offered harm reduction services, broad medical services (in particular, wound care), and connection to transportation programs and incorporated consistency in service provision and telemedicine access. Implementation facilitators included trusting relationships with partner organizations (particularly pharmacies and correctional facilities), nuanced understanding of local politics, advertising, protocol flexibility, and on-unit prescriber hours. Barriers included unclear licensing requirements, staffing shortages and competing priorities for staff, funding challenges due to inconsistency in grant funding and low reimbursement ("It's not really possible that billing in and of itself is going to be able to sustain it"), and community stigma toward addiction services generally. CONCLUSIONS: Despite organizational, community, and policy barriers, participants described mobile MOUD units as an innovative way to expand access to life-saving medications, promote equity in MOUD treatment, and overcome stigma.

Effect of the Communities that HEAL intervention on receipt of behavioral therapies for opioid use disorder: A cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. opioid overdose crisis persists. Outpatient behavioral health services (BHS) are essential components of a comprehensive response to opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. The Helping to End Addiction Long-Term® (HEALing) Communities Study developed the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities in Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including BHS. This paper compares the rate of individuals receiving outpatient BHS in Wave 1 intervention communities (n = 34) to waitlisted Wave 2 communities (n = 33). METHODS: Medicaid data included individuals ≥18 years of age receiving any of five BHS categories: intensive outpatient, outpatient, case management, peer support, and case management or peer support. Negative binomial regression models estimated the rate of receiving each BHS for Wave 1 and Wave 2. Effect modification analyses evaluated changes in the effect of the CTH intervention between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by research site, rurality, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between intervention and waitlisted communities in the rate of individuals receiving any of the five BHS categories. None of the interaction effects used to test the effect modification were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors should be considered when interpreting results-no significant intervention effects were observed through Medicaid claims data, the best available data source but limited in terms of capturing individuals reached by the intervention. Also, the 12-month evaluation window may have been too brief to see improved outcomes considering the time required to stand-up BHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: Identifier: NCT04111939.

Effects of the Communities that Heal (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma in the HEALing Communities Study: results of a multi-site, community-level, cluster-randomized trial.

Background: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Methods: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). Findings: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Interpretation: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. Funding: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.