Beliefs and Attitudes about Vermont's Buprenorphine Decriminalization Law among Clinicians Who Prescribe Buprenorphine.

BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2021, Vermont repealed all criminal penalties for possessing 224 milligrams or less of buprenorphine. We examined the potential impact of decriminalization with a survey of Vermont clinicians who prescribed buprenorphine within the past year. METHODS: All 638 Vermont clinicians with a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine were emailed the survey by Vermont Department of Health; 117 responded. We estimated the prevalence of the following four outcomes, for all responding clinicians and stratified by clinician demographics and practice characteristics: awareness of decriminalization, beliefs about the effects of decriminalization, support for decriminalization, and changes in practice resulting from decriminalization. RESULTS: 72 (62%) prescribers correctly stated that Vermont does not have criminal penalties for buprenorphine possession. 107 (91%) support decriminalization. 56 (48%) believe that, because buprenorphine is decriminalized, their patients are more likely to give, sell, or trade the buprenorphine that is prescribed to them to someone else. However, only 5 providers (4%) said they now prescribe to fewer patients. CONCLUSION: The great majority of Vermont clinicians who prescribe buprenorphine support its decriminalization and have not changed their prescribing practices because of decriminalization.

In 2021, Vermont repealed criminal penalties for buprenorphine possession.We surveyed Vermont (n = 117) buprenorphine prescribers about decriminalization.91% of providers support decriminalization.48% of providers believe decriminalization will increase diversion of medications.Only 4% of providers prescribe to fewer patients because of decriminalization.

Discontinuation of Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: A Multilevel Framework.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has been associated with large increases in opioid-related mortality, yet it is unclear whether specific subpopulations were especially likely to discontinue buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder as the pandemic ensued. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess predictors of buprenorphine discontinuation in the early months of the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic (April-July 2020) compared with a prepandemic period (April-July 2019). DESIGN: In each time period, we estimated a multilevel regression models to assess risk of discontinuation in April-July for people who started buprenorphine in January-February. Models included person-level, prescriber-level, and area-level covariates. SUBJECTS: Individuals age 18 years or older in the all-payer IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Claims. MEASURES: The primary outcome was buprenorphine discontinuation (ie, no filled prescriptions during the follow-up periods). RESULTS: Overall, 13.98% of patients discontinued buprenorphine in April-July 2020, less than the 15.71% in 2019 (P<0.001). In 2020, patient-level factors associated with discontinuation included younger age, male sex, shorter baseline possession ratio, and payment by cash. Compared with patients with a primary care physician prescriber, specialties most associated with discontinuation were pain medicine and physician assistant/nurse practitioner. Compared with the South Atlantic region, discontinuation risk was lowest in New England and highest in the West South Central States. The association between patient, prescriber, and geographic variables to risk of discontinuation was very similar in 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical and policy interventions may have mitigated opioid use disorder treatment discontinuation following the pandemic, such discontinuation is nevertheless common and varies by identifiable patient, provider and geographic factors.

Buprenorphine Treatment Episodes During the First Year of COVID: a Retrospective Examination of Treatment Initiation and Retention.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, overall buprenorphine treatment appeared to remain relatively stable, despite some studies suggesting a decrease in patients starting buprenorphine. There is a paucity of empirical information regarding patterns of buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the patterns of buprenorphine episodes during the pandemic and how those patterns compared to pre-pandemic patterns. DESIGN: Pharmacy claims representing approximately 92% of all prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions indicated for treatment of opioid use disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The number of active, starting, and ending buprenorphine treatment episodes March 13 to December 1, 2020, and the expected number of such episodes in 2020 based on the growth in treatment episodes from March 13 to December 1, 2019. KEY RESULTS: The observed number of active buprenorphine episodes in December 2020 was comparable to the expected number, but new treatment episodes starting between March 13 and December 1, 2020, were 17.2% fewer than expected based on the 2019 experience. Similarly, the number of episodes that ended between March 13 and December 1, 2020, was 16.0% fewer than expected. Decreases from expected episode starts and ends occurred throughout the period but were greatest in the 2 months after the declaration of the public health emergency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Beneath the apparent stability of buprenorphine patient numbers during the pandemic, the flow of individuals receiving buprenorphine treatment changed substantially. Our findings shed light on how policy changes meant to support buprenorphine prescribing influenced prescribing dynamics during that period, suggesting that while policy efforts may have been successful in maintaining existing patients in treatment, that success did not extend to individuals not yet in treatment.

Factors Associated with HIV Testing Among People Who Inject Drugs: Findings from a Multistate Study at the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Few studies have examined HIV testing among people who inject drugs (PWID) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines factors associated with PWID who have been recently (past six months) tested for HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. PWID were recruited between August 2020 and January 2021 from 22 drug treatment and harm reduction programs in nine states and the District of Columbia. We used logistic regression to identify correlates of recent HIV testing among PWID (n = 289). Most (52.9%) PWID reported having been recently tested for HIV. Factors associated with recent HIV testing included: having attended college [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.32-4.10], weekly hunger (aOR 2.08, 95% CI 1.20-3.60), crystal methamphetamine injection (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.05-3.97), and non-metropolitan residence (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13, 0.88). Findings suggest HIV testing initiatives should be expanded during times of crisis, such as global pandemics.

Impact of Administering Buprenorphine to Overdose Survivors Using Emergency Medical Services.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of utilizing emergency medical services units to administer high dose buprenorphine after an overdose to treat withdrawal symptoms, reduce repeat overdose, and provide a next-day substances use disorder clinic appointment to initiate long-term treatment. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched cohort study of patients who experienced an overdose and either received emergency medical services care from a buprenorphine-equipped ambulance or a nonbuprenorphine-equipped ambulance in Camden, New Jersey, an urban community with high overdose rates. There were 117 cases and 123 control patients in the final sample. RESULTS: Compared with a nonbuprenorphine-equipped ambulance, exposure to a buprenorphine-equipped ambulance was associated with greater odds of engaging in opioid use disorder treatment within 30 days of an emergency medical services encounter (unadjusted odds ratio: 5.62, 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 13.39). Buprenorphine-equipped ambulance engagement did not decrease repeat overdose compared to the comparison group. Patients who received buprenorphine experienced a decrease in withdrawal symptoms. Their clinical opiate withdrawal scale score decreased from an average of 9.27 to 3.16. buprenorphine-equipped ambulances increased on-scene time by 6.12 minutes. CONCLUSION: Patients who encountered paramedics trained to administer buprenorphine and able to arrange prompt substance use disorder treatment after an acute opioid overdose demonstrated a decrease in opioid withdrawal symptoms, an increase in outpatient addiction follow-up care, and showed no difference in repeat overdose. Patients receiving buprenorphine in the out-of-hospital setting did not experience precipitated withdrawal. Expanded out-of-hospital treatment of opiate use disorder is a promising model for rapid access to buprenorphine after an overdose in a patient population that often has limited contact with the health care system.

Urine drug testing in the context of opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: a content analysis of U.S. state laws in 2022.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis, U.S. states have passed laws requiring urine drug testing (UDT) when opioid analgesics are prescribed for chronic pain. We sought to identify state law UDT requirements. METHODS: We searched NexisUni legal database using terms related to UDT, chronic pain, and opioids. We included laws effective during spring 2022 that required UDT when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. We performed deductive content analysis, coding laws for mandated UDT frequency, type of clinician and type of payer to whom the law applied, and circumstances under which UDT was mandated. RESULTS: We found 32 laws across 13 states that met our inclusion criteria. UDT requirements varied substantially by state, including with regard to the type of clinician to whom the law applied, the mandated frequency of UDT (eg, at initiation/assessment, at least annually, more than once per year), and the circumstances in which UDT was mandated (eg, patient had substance use disorder; dosage/day threshold). DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have UDT mandates associated with prescribing opioids as chronic pain treatment. When developing policy indicators for empirical studies, researchers evaluating how UDT policy affects health outcomes must consider the complexity and lack of uniformity of UDT requirements. In addition, even if states mandate UDT, it is unclear whether clinicians understand the best way to use the test results.

Factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs: findings from a multistate study at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Receptive injection equipment sharing (i.e., injecting with syringes, cookers, rinse water previously used by another person) plays a central role in the transmission of infectious diseases (e.g., HIV, viral hepatitis) among people who inject drugs. Better understanding these behaviors in the context of COVID-19 may afford insights about potential intervention opportunities in future health crises. OBJECTIVE: This study examines factors associated with receptive injection equipment sharing among people who inject drugs in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: From August 2020 to January 2021, people who inject drugs were recruited from 22 substance use disorder treatment programs and harm reduction service providers in nine states and the District of Columbia to complete a survey that ascertained how the COVID-19 pandemic affected substance use behaviors. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with people who inject drugs having recently engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing. RESULTS: One in four people who inject drugs in our sample reported having engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing in the past month. Factors associated with greater odds of receptive injection equipment sharing included: having a high school education or equivalent (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.24, 3.69), experiencing hunger at least weekly (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.01, 3.56), and number of drugs injected (aOR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.02, 1.30). Older age (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 1.00) and living in a non-metropolitan area (aOR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.18, 1.02) were marginally associated with decreased odds of receptive injection equipment sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Receptive injection equipment sharing was relatively common among our sample during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings contribute to existing literature that examines receptive injection equipment sharing by demonstrating that this behavior was associated with factors identified in similar research that occurred before COVID. Eliminating high-risk injection practices among people who inject drugs requires investments in low-threshold and evidence-based services that ensure persons have access to sterile injection equipment.

Will the End of the X-Waiver Expand Access to Buprenorphine Treatment? Achieving the Full Potential of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act repealed the special waiver for prescribing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, a bipartisan goal long sought by advocates. The change has symbolic importance in recognizing that buprenorphine is a mainstream medical treatment. We argue that the maximum potential of the law can be achieved by addressing three bottlenecks. First, it is important that new training requirements for all controlled substances prescribers be grounded in scientific principles of addiction treatment and are robustly evaluated to ensure they meet quality standards. Second, even with the elimination of the waiver, there are potential constraints from state law such as state-specific requirements that practitioners require counseling or obtain a separate credential, and many states also have limiting scope of practice regulations. We recommend that these requirements are eased wherever possible to improve treatment access. Third, it is critical to build onramps to treatment in settings such as primary care, hospitals, and correctional facilities. While we anticipate that buprenorphine prescribing will primarily occur in high-volume practices, there is the potential to activate a broader workforce to serve as entry points to care. We conclude that the stage is set for significant increases in lifesaving treatment but the difficult task ahead is ensuring that the resources and training are available to build strong capacity.

Exploring the Association of State Policies and the Trajectories of Buprenorphine Prescriber Patient Caseloads.

BACKGROUND: Increasing buprenorphine access is critical to facilitating effective opioid use disorder treatment. Buprenorphine prescriber numbers have increased substantially, but most clinicians who start prescribing buprenorphine stop within a year, and most active prescribers treat very few individuals. Little research has examined state policies' association with the evolution of buprenorphine prescribing clinicians' patient caseloads. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study design derived from 2006 to 2018 national pharmacy claims identifying buprenorphine prescribers and the number of patients treated monthly. We defined persistent prescribers based on results from a k-clustering approach and were characterized by clinicians who did not quickly stop prescribing and had average monthly caseloads greater than 5 patients for much of the first 6 years after their first dispensed prescription. We examined the association between persistent prescribers (dependent variable) and Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, prior authorization requirements, and mandated counseling policies (key predictors) that were active within the first 2 years after a prescriber's first observed dispensed buprenorphine prescription. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses and entropy balancing weights to ensure better comparability of prescribers in states that did and did not implement policies. RESULTS: Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine was associated with a smaller percentage of new prescribers becoming persistent prescribers (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.97). There was no evidence that either mandatory counseling or prior authorization was associated with the odds of a clinician being a persistent prescriber with estimated ORs equal to 0.85 (95% CI = 0.63, 1.16) and 1.13 (95% CI = 0.83, 1.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to states without coverage, states with Medicaid coverage for buprenorphine had a smaller percentage of new prescribers become persistent prescribers; there was no evidence that the other state policies were associated with changes in the rate of clinicians becoming persistent prescribers. Because buprenorphine treatment is highly concentrated among a small group of clinicians, it is imperative to increase the pool of clinicians providing care to larger numbers of patients for longer periods. Greater efforts are needed to identify and support factors associated with successful persistent prescribing.

National Trends in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder From 2007 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a key medication to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Since its approval in 2002, buprenorphine access has grown markedly, spurred by major federal and state policy changes. This study characterizes buprenorphine treatment episodes during 2007 to 2018 with respect to payer, provider specialty, and patient demographics. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, IQVIA Real World pharmacy claims data were used to characterize trends in buprenorphine treatment episodes across four time periods: 2007-2009, 2010-2012, 2013-2015, and 2016-2018. RESULTS: In total, we identified more than 4.1 million buprenorphine treatment episodes among 2 540 710 unique individuals. The number of episodes doubled from 652 994 in 2007-2009 to 1 331 980 in 2016-2018. Our findings indicate that the payer landscape changed dramatically, with the most pronounced growth observed for Medicaid (increased from 17% of episodes in 2007-2009 to 37% of episodes in 2016-2018), accompanied by relative declines for both commercial insurance (declined from 35 to 21%) and self-pay (declined from 27 to 11%). Adult primary care providers (PCPs) were the dominant prescribers throughout the study period. The number of episodes among adults older than 55 increased more than 3-fold from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018. In contrast, youth under age 18 experienced an absolute decline in buprenorphine treatment episodes. Buprenorphine episodes increased in length from 2007-2018, particularly among adults over age 45. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the U.S. experienced clear growth in buprenorphine treatment-particularly for older adults and Medicaid beneficiaries-reflecting some key health policy and implementation success stories. Yet, since the prevalence of OUD and fatal overdose rate have also approximately doubled during this period, the observed growth in buprenorphine treatment did not demonstrably impact the pronounced treatment gap. To date, only a minority of individuals with OUD currently receive treatment, indicating continued need for systemic efforts to equitably improve treatment uptake.

Subsequent Buprenorphine Treatment Following Emergency Physician Buprenorphine Prescription Fills: A National Assessment 2019 to 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder provided in the emergency department with subsequent buprenorphine treatment by community prescribers is associated with improved outcomes, but the frequency with which this occurs is unknown. We examined the rates of subsequent buprenorphine treatment for buprenorphine-naïve individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions from emergency physicians and initiated buprenorphine treatment and how such rates varied before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Using pharmacy claims capturing an estimated 92% of prescriptions filled at US retail pharmacies, we identified buprenorphine prescriptions filled between February 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020, written by emergency physicians. In this observational study, we calculated the rate at which patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions from other nonemergency clinicians, the frequency with which subsequent filled prescriptions were from different types of prescribers, and the changes in the rates of subsequent prescriptions following the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. RESULTS: We identified 22,846 prescriptions written by emergency physicians and filled by buprenorphine-naïve patients. They were most commonly paid for by Medicaid and were in metropolitan counties; 28.5% of patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions written by other clinicians. Adult primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (eg, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) were responsible for most of the subsequent prescriptions. The rates of subsequent prescriptions were 3.5% lower after the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients filling buprenorphine prescriptions written by emergency physicians do not subsequently fill prescriptions written by other clinicians, and the rates of subsequent prescriptions were lower after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. These findings highlight the need for a system of care that improves buprenorphine treatment continuity of care for patients with opioid use disorder from emergency settings to community treatment providers.

Opioid treatment program safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statewide survey.

BACKGROUND: Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) serve as daily essential services for people with opioid use disorder. This study seeks to identify modifications to operations and adoption of safety measures at Pennsylvania OTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A 25-min online survey to clinical and administrative directors at all 103 state-licensed OTPs in Pennsylvania was fielded from September to November 2020. Survey domains included: 1) changes to services, client volume, hours and staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic 2) types of services modifications 3) safety protocols to reduce COVID-19 transmission 4) challenges to operations during the pandemic. RESULTS: Forty-seven directors responded, for a response rate of 45%. Almost all respondents reported making some service modification (96%, n = 43). Almost half (47%, n = 21) of respondents reported reductions in the number of clients served. OTPs were more likely to adopt safety protocols that did not require significant funding, such as limiting the number of people entering the site (100%, n = 44), posting COVID-safety information (100%, n = 44), enforcing social distancing (98%, n = 43), and increasing sanitation (100%, n = 44). Only 34% (n = 14) of OTPS provided N95 masks to most or all staff. Respondents reported that staff's stress and negative mental health (86%, n = 38) and staff caregiving responsibilities (84%, n = 37) during the pandemic were challenges to maintaining OTP operations. CONCLUSION: OTPs faced numerous challenges to operations and adoption of safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding mechanisms and interventions to improve adoption of safety protocols, staff mental health as well as research on patient experiences and preferences can inform further OTP adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergency planning.

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

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.

Intersecting substance use treatment and harm reduction services: exploring the characteristics and service needs of a community-based sample of people who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Substance use treatment and harm reduction services are essential components of comprehensive strategies for reducing the harms of drug use and overdose. However, these services have been historically siloed, and there is a need to better understand how programs that serve people who use drugs (PWUD) are integrating these services. In this study, we compared treatment and harm reduction services offered by a multistate sample of substance use service providers and assessed how well they align with characteristics and needs of clients they serve early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of programs that deliver harm reduction and/or treatment services in ten US states. Program directors participated in a survey assessing the services offered at their program. We also recruited clients of these programs to participate in a survey assessing a range of sociodemographic and health characteristics, substance use behaviors, and health service utilization. We then cross-compared client characteristics and behaviors relative to services being offered through these programs. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed data from 511 clients attending 18 programs that we classified as either offering treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (N = 6), syringe service programs (SSP) (N = 8), or offering both MOUD and SSP (N = 4). All programs delivered a range of treatment and harm reduction services, with MOUD & SSP programs delivering the greatest breadth of services. There were discrepancies between services provided and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients: 80% of clients of programs that offered MOUD without SSP actively used drugs and 50% injected drugs; 40% of clients of programs that offered SSP without MOUD sought drug treatment services. Approximately half of clients were unemployed and unstably housed, but few programs offered direct social services. CONCLUSIONS: In many ways, existing programs are not meeting the service needs of PWUD. Investing in innovative models that empower clients and integrate a range of accessible and flexible treatment, harm reduction and social services can pave the way for a more effective and equitable service system that considers the long-term health of PWUD.

A bridge too far? Distance to waivered physicians and utilization of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder in West Virginia Medicaid.

Background: Travel distance to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is a challenge for many patients, but little is known about how distance is associated with medication treatment utilization. This study examines the association between distance to the nearest physician waivered to prescribe buprenorphine and patient-level buprenorphine treatment among West Virginia Medicaid expansion enrollees with diagnosed OUD. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional spatial analysis with 2016 Medicaid claims data, separately examining individuals living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. We calculated the driving distance from the centroid of patients' residential ZIP codes to the street address of the nearest waivered physician derived from the 2015 Drug Enforcement Administration listing. Regression models examined the association between distance and initiation and duration of buprenorphine (among those initiating). Results: We focused on 8,008 individuals with OUD in 2016. The nearest waivered prescriber in metropolitan areas was an average of 7.13 miles away from patients' residential ZIP codes and 14.54 miles in non-metropolitan areas. The providers they actually visited were a mean of 33.63 miles away in metro areas and 46.36 in non-metropolitan areas. In multivariable analyses, compared to those living <10 miles from a waivered physician, living >20 miles from a waivered physician was associated with -32.13 fewer days of treatment (95% CI: -57.86, -6.40) in metro areas and -16.70 fewer days in non-metro areas (95% CI: -32.32, -1.08). Conclusions: Longer travel distance to buprenorphine treatment is associated with a shorter duration of care that is likely to be clinically meaningful.

Sociodemographic differences in quality of treatment to Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine.

Background: Buprenorphine is a key medication to treat opioid use disorder, but little is known about how treatment quality varies across sociodemographic groups. Objective: We examined measures of treatment quality and explored variation by sociodemographic factors. Methods: We used Medicaid MAX data from 50 states from 2006 to 2014 to identify buprenorphine treatment episodes (N = 317,494). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the quality of buprenorphine treatment along four dimensions: (1) sufficient duration, (2) effective dosage, and concurrent prescribing of (3) opioid analgesics and (4) benzodiazepines. We explored how quality varied by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and urbanicity. Results: In adjusted models, compared to non-Hispanic White individuals, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic individuals had lower odds of receiving effective dosage (aORs = 0.79 and 0.89, respectively) and sufficient duration (aORs = 0.64 and 0.71, respectively), and lower odds of concurrent prescribing of opioid analgesics (aORs = 0.86 and 0.85, respectively) and benzodiazepines (aORs = 0.51 and 0.59, respectively). Older individuals had higher odds of sufficient duration (aORs from 1.21-1.33), but also had higher odds of concurrent opioid analgesics prescribing (aORs from 1.29-1.56) and benzodiazepines (aORs from 1.44-1.99). Females had higher odds of sufficient duration (aOR = 1.12), but lower odds of effective dosage (aOR = 0.77) and higher odds of concurrent prescribing of opioid analgesics (aOR = 1.25) and benzodiazepines (aOR = 1.16). Compared to individuals living in metropolitan areas, individuals living in non-metropolitan areas had higher odds of sufficient duration (aORs = 1.11 and 1.24) and effective dosage (aORs = 1.06 and 1.33), and lower odds of concurrent prescribing (aORs from 0.81-0.98). Conclusions: Black and Hispanic individuals were less likely to receive effective buprenorphine dosage and sufficient duration. Quality results were mixed for older and female individuals; although these individuals were more likely to receive treatment of sufficient duration, they were also more likely to be concurrently prescribed potentially contraindicated medications, and females were less likely to receive effective dosage. Findings raise concerns about adequacy of care for minority and other at-risk populations.

Quality of Buprenorphine Care for Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

AIM: The aim of this study was to characterize quality of buprenorphine care for opioid use disorder (OUD) by quantifying buprenorphine initiation, engagement, and maintenance for individuals in a large, diverse, real-world cohort in the United States. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: OUD treatment in the outpatient setting. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 45,210 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees 18 years or older in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse with an index diagnosis of OUD between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with buprenorphine. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated 6 measures of buprenorphine treatment quality. We conducted survival analyses to characterize treatment duration and logistic regressions to evaluate the association between clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and quality. FINDINGS: Of 45,210 eligible individuals with OUD, ∼1 in 10 (n=4600, 10.2%) initiated buprenorphine within 365 days following diagnosis (Measure #1) and 2850 individuals (6.3%) initiated buprenorphine within 14 days of diagnosis (Measure #2). Of individuals initiating treatment within 14 days of diagnosis, 1769 (62.1%) had 2 or more buprenorphine claims within 34 days of initiation (Measure #3). Of the 4600 individuals who received buprenorphine, 2300 (50.0%) were maintained in care with 180 days or more of covered buprenorphine treatment during 365 days after diagnosis (Measure #4). Finally, of the 4600 individuals who received buprenorphine, 2543 (55.3%) did not fill any other concurrent opioid analgesic (Measure #5) and 2951 (64.2%) did not fill any concurrent benzodiazepine (Measure #6). Quality was generally lower for individuals with MA compared with commercial coverage and among Hispanic and Black adults compared with White adults. CONCLUSION: Widespread gaps exist in quality of buprenorphine treatment initiation, engagement, and maintenance among commercially insured and MA enrollees with OUD.

State Policymaking and Stated Reasons: Prenatal Care for Undocumented Immigrants in an Era of Abortion Restriction.

Policy Points States can create policies that provide access to publicly funded prenatal care for undocumented immigrants that garner support from diverse political coalitions. Policymakers have used a wide range of moral and practical reasons to support the expansion of care to this population, which can be tailored to frame prenatal policies for different stakeholder groups. CONTEXT: Even though nearly 6% of citizen babies born in the United States have at least one undocumented parent, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most public health insurance. Prenatal care is a recommended health service that improves birth outcomes, and some states, including both traditionally "blue" and "red" states, have opted to provide publicly funded coverage for prenatal services for people who are otherwise ineligible due to immigration status. This article explores how courts and legislatures in three states have approached the question of publicly funded prenatal care for undocumented immigrants and its relationship to the abortion debate, with a particular focus on the moral and practical justifications that policymakers employ. METHODS: We employed a review and qualitative analysis of the documents that comprise the legislative histories of prenatal policies in three case states: California, New York, and Nebraska. FINDINGS: This review and analysis of policy documents identified moral reasons based on appeals to different conceptions of moral status, respect for autonomy, and justice, as well as prudential reasons that appealed to the health and economic benefits of prenatal care for US citizens and legal residents. We found that much of the variation in reasons supporting policies by state can be traced to the state's position on the protection of reproductive rights and whether the policymakers in each state supported or opposed access to abortion. Interestingly, despite these differences, the states arrived at similar prenatal policies for immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: There may be areas where policymakers with different political orientations can converge on health policies affecting access to care for undocumented immigrants. Future research should explore the reception of various message frames for expanding public health insurance coverage to immigrants in other contexts.

Performance of a Predictive Model versus Prescription-Based Thresholds in Identifying Patients at Risk of Fatal Opioid Overdose.

Background: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) collect controlled substance prescriptions dispensed within a state. Many PDMP programs perform targeted outreach (i.e., "unsolicited reporting") for patients who exceed numerical thresholds, however, the degree to which patients at highest risk of fatal opioid overdose are identified has not been compared with one another or with a predictive model. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using statewide PDMP data for Maryland residents aged 18 to 80 years with an opioid fill between April to June 2015. The outcome was opioid-related overdose death in 2015 or 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model and three PDMP thresholds were evaluated: (1) multiple provider episodes; (2) high daily average morphine milligram equivalents (MME); and (3) overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Results: The validation cohort consisted of 170,433 individuals and 244 deaths. The predictive model captured more individuals who died (46.3% of total deaths) and had a higher death rate (7.12 per 1000) when the risk score cutoff (0.0030) was selected for a comparable size of high-risk individuals (n = 15,881) than those meeting the overlapping opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions (n = 17,440; 33.2% of total deaths; 4.64 deaths per 1000) and high MME (n = 14,675; 24.6% of total deaths; 4.09 deaths per 1000) thresholds. Conclusions: The predictive model identified more individuals at risk of fatal opioid overdose as compared with PDMP thresholds commonly used for unsolicited reporting. PDMP programs could improve their targeting of unsolicited reports to reach more individuals at risk of overdose by using predictive models instead of simple threshold-based approaches.