Barriers and facilitators to use of buprenorphine in state-licensed specialty substance use treatment programs: A survey of program leadership.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine, reduce overdose risk and improve outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, historically, most non-opioid treatment program (non-OTP) specialty substance use treatment programs have not offered buprenorphine. Understanding barriers to offering buprenorphine in specialty substance use treatment settings is critical for expanding access to buprenorphine. This study aims to examine program-level attitudinal, financial, and regulatory factors that influence clients' access to buprenorphine in state-licensed non-OTP specialty substance use treatment programs. METHODS: We surveyed leadership from state-licensed non-OTP specialty substance use treatment programs in New Jersey about organizational characteristics, including medications provided on- and off-site and percentage of OUD clients receiving any type of MOUD, and perceived attitudinal, financial, and regulatory barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine. The study estimated prevalence of barriers and compared high MOUD reach (n = 36, 35 %) and low MOUD reach (n = 66, 65 %) programs. RESULTS: Most responding organizations offered at least one type of MOUD either on- or off-site (n = 80, 78 %). However, 71 % of organizations stated that fewer than a quarter of their clients with OUD use any type of MOUD. Endorsement of attitudinal, financial, and institutional barriers to buprenorphine were similar among high and low MOUD reach programs. The most frequently endorsed government actions suggested to increase use of buprenorphine were facilitating access to long-acting buprenorphine (n = 95, 96 %), education and stigma reduction for clients and families (n = 95, 95 %), and financial assistance to clients to pay for medications (n = 90, 90 %). CONCLUSIONS: Although non-OTP specialty substance use programs often offer clients access to MOUD, including buprenorphine, most OUD clients do not actually receive MOUD. Buprenorphine uptake in these settings may require increased financial support for programs and clients, more robust education and training for providers, and efforts to reduce the stigma associated with medication among clients and their families.

Changes in For-Profit Medication-Assisted Therapy Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study is a follow-up to previous research regarding buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in Johnson City, Tennessee. For-profit MAT clinics were surveyed to determine changes in tapering practice patterns and insurance coverage during the last 3 years. METHODS: Johnson City for-profit MAT clinics; also called office based opioid treatment centers, were surveyed by telephone. Clinic representatives were asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy, insurance coverage, counseling offered onsite, and opportunities for tapering while pregnant. RESULTS: All of the MAT clinics representatives indicated that tapering in pregnancy could be considered even though tapering in pregnancy is contrary to current national guidelines. Forty-three percent of the clinics now accept insurance as compared with 0% in the 2016 study. The average weekly cost per visit remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of tapering buprenorphine during pregnancy appears to have become a standard of care for this community, as representatives state it is offered at all of the clinics that were contacted. Representatives from three clinics stated the clinics require tapering, even though national organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine do not recommend this approach. Although patients who have government or other insurance are now able to obtain buprenorphine with no expense at numerous clinics, the high cost for uninsured patients continues to create an environment conducive to buprenorphine diversion.

Examining trends in substance use disorder capacity and service delivery by Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers: A time series regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic and subsequent mortality is a national concern in the U.S. The burden of this problem is disproportionately high among low-income and uninsured populations who are more likely to experience unmet need for substance use services. We assessed the impact of two Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) substance use disorder (SUD) service capacity grants on SUD staffing and service use in HRSA -funded health centers (HCs). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of the Uniform Data System (UDS) from 2010 to 2017 to assess HC (n = 1,341) trends in capacity measured by supply of SUD and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) providers, utilization of SUD and MAT services, and panel size and visit ratio measured by the number of patients seen and visits delivered by SUD and MAT providers. We merged mortality and national survey data to incorporate SUD mortality and SUD treatment services availability, respectively. From 2010 to 2015, 20% of HC organizations had any SUD staff, had an average of one full-time equivalent SUD employee, and did not report an increase in SUD patients or SUD services. SUD capacity grew significantly in 2016 (43%) and 2017 (22%). MAT capacity growth was measured only in 2016 and 2017 and grew by 29% between those years. Receipt of both supplementary grants increased the probability of any SUD capacity by 35% (95% CI: 26%, 44%) and service use, but decreased the probability of SUD visit ratio by 680 visits (95% CI: -1,013, -347), compared to not receiving grants. CONCLUSIONS: The significant growth in HC specialized SUD capacity is likely due to supplemental SUD-specific HRSA grants and may vary by structure of grants. Expanding SUD capacity in HCs is an important step in increasing SUD access for low income and uninsured populations broadly and for patients of these organizations.

Responses among substance abuse treatment providers to the opioid epidemic in the USA: Variations in buprenorphine and methadone treatment by geography, operational, and payment characteristics, 2007-16.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007-16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007-16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment. RESULTS: Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035). CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

Cost-effectiveness of the HepCATT intervention in specialist drug clinics to improve case-finding and engagement with HCV treatment for people who inject drugs in England.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; however, ~50% are undiagnosed in England and linkage-to-care is poor. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of an intervention (HepCATT) to improve case-finding and referral to HCV treatment compared with standard-of-care pathways in drug treatment centres in England. DESIGN: HCV transmission and disease progression model with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective. Primary outcome and cost data from the HepCATT study parameterized the intervention, suggesting that HepCATT increased HCV testing in drug treatment centres 2.5-fold and engagement onto the HCV treatment pathway 10-fold. A model was used to estimate the decrease in HCV infections and HCV-related deaths from 2016, with costs and health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) tracked over 50 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken. SETTING: England-specific epidemic with 40% prevalence of chronic HCV among PWID. PARTICIPANTS: PWID attending drug treatment centres. INTERVENTION: Nurse facilitator in drug treatment centres to improve the HCV care pathway from HCV case-finding to referral and linkage to specialist care. Comparator was the standard-of-care HCV care pathway. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained through improved case-finding. FINDINGS: Over 50 years per 1000 PWID, the HepCATT intervention could prevent 75 (95% central interval 37-129) deaths and 1330 (827-2040) or 51% (30-67%) of all new infections. The mean ICER was £7986 per QALY gained, with all PSA simulations being cost-effective at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Univariable sensitivity analyses suggest the intervention would become cost-saving if the cost of HCV treatment reduces to £3900. If scaled up to all PWID in England, the intervention would cost £8.8 million and decrease incidence by 56% (33-70%) by 2030. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing hepatitis C virus infection case-finding and treatment referral in drug treatment centres could be a highly cost-effective strategy for decreasing hepatitis C virus incidence among people who inject drugs.

Is it feasible to pay specialty substance use disorder treatment programs based on patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Some US payers are starting to vary payment to providers depending on patient outcomes, but this approach is rarely used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. PURPOSE: We examine the feasibility of applying a pay-for-outcomes approach to SUD treatment. METHODS: We reviewed several relevant literatures: (1) economic theory papers that describe the conditions under which pay-for-outcomes is feasible in principle; (2) description of the key outcomes expected from SUD treatment, and the measures of these outcomes that are available in administrative data systems; and (3) reports on actual experiences of paying SUD treatment providers based on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The economics literature notes that when patient outcomes are strongly influenced by factors beyond provider control and when risk adjustment performs poorly, pay-for-outcomes will increase provider financial risk. This is relevant to SUD treatment. The literature on SUD outcome measurement shows disagreement on whether to include broader outcomes beyond abstinence from substance use. Good measures are available for some of these broader constructs, but the need for risk adjustment still brings many challenges. Results from two past payment experiments in SUD treatment reinforce some of the concerns raised in the more conceptual literature. CONCLUSION: There are special challenges in applying pay-for-outcomes to SUD treatment, not all of which could be overcome by developing better measures. For SUD treatment it may be necessary to define outcomes more broadly than for general medical care, and to continue conditioning a sizeable portion of payment on process measures.

The use of off-label medications in substance abuse treatment programs.

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment centers serve a population of clients who have diverse needs, and may desire or require access to varied treatments while seeking care for their SUDs. While pharmacotherapies have increased in popularity for the treatment of SUDs, adoption rates do remain quite low. But a wider array of pharmacotherapies has become available in recent years which may shift the trend. This article helps shed light on how variations in SUD treatment centers develop and persist with regard to the adoption and delivery of off-label medications. Methods: We use a nationally representative and longitudinal sample of SUD treatment centers in the US (N = 196). We use a logistic regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and offering any medications, off-label. We also use a negative binomial regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and the number of medications that were used off-label. Results: Our findings reveal that older centers, accredited centers, and centers that offer mental health screenings are all positively associated with the provision of off-label medication in SUD treatment. We also find a positive relationship between private funding and offering a greater number of off-label medications. Conclusions: Our results suggest that SUD clients who seek treatment from centers that offer medications off-label, may have access to a greater number of medication-assisted treatment options.

Staff perceptions of prescription and over-the-counter drug dependence services in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Dependence to prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs represents an increasing public health and clinical problem both in England and internationally. However, relatively little is known about those affected, particularly in relation to their management at drug dependence treatment centres. This study aimed to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) working in formal drug treatment services in relation to supporting clients with prescription and OTC drug dependence. METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative design was used involving semi-structured telephone interviews. 15 staff were recruited using purposive sampling to represent a variety of different professional roles, funding (NHS, charity and local government) and geographical locations across England. Transcribed interviews were analysed using Braun and Clarke's six stage thematic analysis. RESULTS: Current services were considered to be inappropriate for the treatment of OTC and prescription drug dependence, which was perceived to be a significantly under-recognised issue affecting a range of individuals but particularly those taking opioid analgesics. Negativity around current treatment services involved concerns that these were more suited for illicit drug users and this was exacerbated by a lack of specific resources, funding and commissioning. There was a perceived variation in service provision in different areas and a further concern about the lack of formal treatment guidelines and care pathways. Participants felt there to be stigma for affected clients in both the diagnosis of OTC or prescription drug dependence and also attendance at drug treatment centres which adversely impacted service engagement. Suggested service improvements included commissioning new specific services in general practices and pain management clinics, developing national guidelines and care pathways to ensure equal access to treatment and increasing awareness amongst the public and HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals considerable negativity and concern about current treatment services for prescription and OTC drug dependence in England from the perspective of those working in such services. Policy and practice improvement are suggested to improve outcomes for this neglected group in relation to increasing funding, guidelines and awareness.

Public policy, attitudes and willingness to pay for treatment of substance dependence in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of costs and benefits of substance use treatment programs through a standard economic framework is necessary for optimal policy making. However, drug policy making is seldom supported by economic justification. Measurement of willingness to pay is a tool to provide better understanding of intangible substance use treatment outcomes and to help a balanced policy in treatment of substance use between maintenance treatment and abstinence-based approach. AIM: To assess the reciprocal association between economic indexes and attitudes about substance use and its treatment as indicators of tendency toward the two different treatment. METHOD: Willingness to pay for treatment was measured by contingency valuation method among 109 treatment cost payers of which 78 subjects were from outpatient methadone maintenance clinics and 31 were from abstinence-based residential facilities. To analyze predictors of willingness to pay, we used income to capture heterogeneity of purchasing power among subjects. Further, we checked bivariate correlation of different attitudes of cost payers with willingness to pay. In the next step using backward regression equation we tried to reach the best specification of the model. Selected variables include cost payers' attitudes toward substance use and its treatment, effectiveness of treatment, social attitude toward the condition of substance use in Iran, fairness of treatment prices, and government financial support for addiction treatment. RESULTS: In methadone maintenance clinics the payers' income had a pivotal role in determining willingness to pay for substance use treatment by 50% (p<0.001 ). On the other hand, in abstinence-based residential facilities positive attitude toward substance use (61%, p<0.01) was the major direct determinant of willingness to pay for treatment. Attitude to public financial support for substance use treatment (55%, p<0.01 ) and consumption experience (45%, p<0.01 ) showed an inverse association with WTP in regression equation. CONCLUSION: This study expanded the understanding of the nature of payment in different substance use treatment modalities. The suggestion to policy makers is that before taking position on different types of treatment services, it is necessary to pay attention to factors that determine values cost payers put on treatment. In other words, economic indexes, payers' views about substance use and its treatment, and their opinion about effectiveness of substance use treatment programs may jeopardize the success of the policy.

Medicaid coverage in substance use disorder treatment after the affordable care act.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) prompted sweeping changes to Medicaid, including expanding insurance coverage to an estimated 12 million previously uninsured Americans, and imposing new parity requirements on benefits for behavioral health services, including substance use disorder treatment. Yet, limited evidence suggests that these changes have reduced the number of uninsured in substance use disorder treatment, or increased access to substance use disorder treatment overall. This study links data from a nationally-representative study of outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs and a unique national survey of state Medicaid programs to capture changes in insurance coverage among substance use disorder treatment patients after ACA implementation. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 15.7-point increase in the percentage of patients insured by Medicaid in substance use disorder treatment programs and a 13.7-point decrease in the percentage uninsured. Restrictions in state Medicaid benefits and utilization policies were associated with a decreased percentage of Medicaid patients in treatment. Moreover, Medicaid expansion was not associated with a change in the total number of clients served over the study period. Our findings highlight the important role Medicaid has played in increasing insurance coverage for substance use disorder treatment.

Impact of Medicaid Restrictions on Availability of Buprenorphine in Addiction Treatment Programs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how utilization restrictions on state Medicaid benefits for buprenorphine are related to addiction treatment programs' decision to offer the drug. METHODS: We used data from 2 waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey conducted in 2014 and 2017 in the United States to assess the relationship of utilization restrictions to buprenorphine availability. RESULTS: The proportion of programs offering buprenorphine was 43.2% in states that did not impose any utilization restrictions, 25.5% in states that imposed only annual limits, 17.3% in states that imposed only prior authorization, and 12.8% in states that imposed both. Programs in states requiring prior authorization from Medicaid had substantially lower odds of offering buprenorphine (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence interval = 0.29, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid prior authorization was linked to lower odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs. Public Health Implications. State Medicaid prior authorization requirements are linked to reduced odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs and may discourage prescribing.

Why Research Should Pay Attention to Effects of Marketization of Addiction Treatment Systems.

OBJECTIVE: Researchers generally assume that addiction treatment systems can be viewed as entities and planned with the citizens' best interests in mind. We argue that another steering principle, the market logic, has permeated many Western World treatment systems but is neglected in research. We demonstrate how it may affect system-level planning, service provision, and the service users. METHOD: We draw on an ongoing Swedish study, with some Nordic references, using several data sources: (1) public statistics on treatment expenditures and purchases; (2) interviews with service users (n = 36) and their service providers (n = 23) on different market features; (3) an observation of a large public procurement process concluding framework agreements based on competitive tendering; (4) interviews with officials involved with steering of the system and procurement (n = 16); (5) a workshop on procurement in the Nordic countries (n = 11 participants); and (6) 77 interviews with professionals, managers, and elected representatives. RESULTS: We outline seven propositions that call for further research attention: public procurement, as regulated in the European Union, is not suitable for addiction treatment; marketization challenges democracy, equity, needs assessment, and treatment planning; marketization causes new accountability problems and idle monitoring; marketization causes fragmentation and obstructs coordination and continuity of care; marketization causes unification of services and favors big bureaucratically sophisticated providers; treatment professionals' values are downplayed when a mistrust-based market logic replaces a trust- and needs-based logic; and marketization marginalizes treatment professionals and service users by limiting discretion. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point toward the importance of acknowledging and mitigating market principles in treatment systems to safeguard needs assessments and planning that serve the interests of the service users and the public.

Modeling the Potential Impact of Changing Access Rates to Specialist Treatment for Alcohol Dependence for Local Authorities in England: The Specialist Treatment for Alcohol Model (STreAM).

OBJECTIVE: We modeled the impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates to different treatment pathways on the future prevalence of alcohol dependence, treatment outcomes, service capacity, costs, and mortality. METHOD: Local Authority numbers and the prevalence of people "potentially in need of assessment for and treatment in specialist services for alcohol dependence" (PINASTFAD) are estimated by mild, moderate, severe, and complex needs. Administrative data were used to estimate the Specialist Treatment Access Rate per PINASTFAD person and classify 22 different treatment pathways. Other model inputs include natural remission, relapse after treatment, service costs, and mortality rates. "What-if" analyses assess changes to Specialist Treatment Access Rates and treatment pathways. Model outputs include the numbers and prevalence of people who are PINASTFAD, numbers treated by 22 pathways, outcomes (successful completion with abstinence, successfully moderated nonproblematic drinking, re-treatment within 6 months, dropout, transfer, custody), mortality rates, capacity requirements (numbers in contact with community services or staying in residential or inpatient places), total treatment costs, and general health care savings. Five scenarios illustrate functionality: (a) no change, (b) achieve access rates at the 70th percentile nationally, (c) increase access by 25%, (d) increase access to Scotland rate, and (e) reduce access by 25%. RESULTS: At baseline, 14,581 people are PINASTFAD (2.43% of adults) and the Specialist Treatment Access Rate is 10.84%. The 5-year impact of scenarios on PINASTFAD numbers (vs. no change) are (B) reduced by 191 (-1.3%), (C) reduced by 477 (-3.3%), (D) reduced by almost 2,800 (-19.2%), and (E) increased by 533 (+3.6%). The relative impact is similar for other outputs. CONCLUSIONS: Decision makers can estimate the potential impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates for alcohol dependence.

Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Program-level financial incentives are used by some payers as a tool to improve quality of substance use treatment. However, evidence of effectiveness is mixed and performance contracts may have unintended consequences such as creating barriers for more challenging clients who are less likely to meet benchmarks. This study investigates the impact of a performance contract on waiting time for substance use treatment and client selection. Admission and discharge data from publicly funded Maine outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) substance use treatment programs (N = 38,932 clients) were used. In a quasi-experimental pre-post design, pre-period (FY 2005-2007) admission data from incentivized (IC) and non-incentivized (non-IC) programs were compared to post-period (FY 2008-2012) using propensity score matching and multivariate difference-in-difference regression. Dependent variables were waiting time (incentivized) and client selection (severity: history of mental disorders and substance use severity, not incentivized). Despite financial incentives designed to reduce waiting time for substance use treatment among state-funded outpatient programs, average waiting time for treatment increased in the post period for both IC and non-IC groups, as did client severity. There were no significant differences in waiting time between IC and non-IC groups over time. Increases in client severity over time, with no group differences, indicate that programs did not restrict access for more challenging clients. Adequate funding and other approaches to improve quality may be beneficial.

Re-engineering methadone-Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered approach to methadone treatment.

Methadone maintenance treatment has proven effectiveness in the treatment of opioid use disorder, but significant barriers remain to treatment retention. In a randomized clinical trial, 300 newly-admitted methadone patients were randomly assigned to patient-centered methadone (PCM) v. treatment-as-usual (TAU). In PCM, participants were treated under revised program rules which permitted voluntary attendance at counseling and other changes focused on reducing involuntary discharge, and different staff roles which shifted disciplinary responsibility from the participant's counselor to the supervisor. The study found no significant differences in treatment retention, measures of opioid use, or other patient outcomes. This paper employs an activity-based costing approach to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of the two study conditions. We found that service use and costs were similar between PCM and TAU. Specifically, the average cost for PCM patients was $2396 compared to $2292 for standard methadone, while the average length of stay was 2 weeks longer for PCM patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for self-reported heroin use, opioid positive urine screens, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were mixed, with TAU achieving non-significantly better outcomes at lower treatment episode costs (i.e., economically dominating) for opioid positive urine screens. PCM patients reported slightly more days abstinent from heroin and fewer meet the opioid dependence criteria. While these differences are small and not statistically significant, we can still examine the cost-effectiveness implications. For days, abstinent from heroin, the ICER was $242 for one additional day of abstinence, however, there was notable uncertainty around this estimate. For opioid dependence criteria, the ICER was $1160 for a one-percentage point increase in the probability that a participant no longer met criteria for opioid dependence at follow-up. This economic study finds that patient choice concepts can be introduced into methadone treatment without significant impacts on costs or patient outcomes.

A population based perspective of twenty years of specialized ambulatory treatment for alcohol use disorders in publicly financed clinics. Barcelona 1996-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To provide information on persons treated for alcohol use disorders (AUD) over 20 years in a large city in a Southern European country and its trends, adding knowledge on the frequency of treatment from a population perspective. METHODS: This is a study of the number of annual admissions to ambulatory addiction treatment centers funded by the public sector in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) for the years 1996-2015. Descriptive analyses of AUD admissions were conducted, comparing changes in the number of patients entering treatment by different independent variables across periods. For city residents, sex and age-specific population annual treatment initiation rates were estimated. RESULTS: The number of ambulatory admissions to AUD treatment increased over the study period. There were about 2100 treatment admissions per year in 2011-2015, of which one fourth were women. About half of these patients had never been treated before for any substance use disorder. Annual rates of treatment initiation among city residents were 208 and 68 per 100,000 people aged 15 and older for men and women respectively, almost the double among 45-54 years old citizens. Rates of total AUD treatment admission increased moderately, but declined among younger adult men. CONCLUSIONS: These figures provide a basic population-based estimation for formal AUD treatment use in a Southern European urban setting with services available free of charge. The development of ambulatory publicly funded addiction centers may have improved access to treatment for people with AUD. age-related changes in treatment admissions may either be related to trends in the population pattern of drinking or to changes in the city demographics.

Cost of provision of opioid substitution therapy provision in Tijuana, Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Mexico recently enacted drug policy reform to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs and mandated that police refer identified substance users to drug treatment. However, the economic implications of drug treatment expansion are uncertain. We estimated the costs of opioid substitution therapy (OST) provision in Tijuana, Mexico, where opioid use and HIV are major public health concerns. METHODS: We adopted an economic health care provider perspective and applied an ingredients-based micro-costing approach to quantify the average monthly cost of OST (methadone maintenance) provision at two providers (one private and one public) in Tijuana, Mexico. Costs were divided by type of input (capital, recurrent personnel and non-personnel). We defined "delivery cost" as all costs except for the methadone and compared total cost by type of methadone (powdered form or capsule). Cost data were obtained from interviews with senior staff and review of expenditure reports. Service provision data were obtained from activity logs and senior staff interviews. Outcomes were cost per OST contact and cost per person month of OST. We additionally collected information on patient charges for OST provision from published rates. RESULTS: The total cost per OST contact at the private and public sites was $3.12 and $5.90, respectively, corresponding to $95 and $179 per person month of OST. The costs of methadone delivery per OST contact were similar at both sites ($2.78 private and $3.46 public). However, cost of the methadone itself varied substantially ($0.34 per 80 mg dose [powder] at the private site and $2.44 per dose [capsule] at the public site). Patients were charged $1.93-$2.66 per methadone dose. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of OST provision in Mexico is consistent with other upper-middle income settings. However, evidenced-based (OST) drug treatment facilities in Mexico are still unaffordable to most people who inject drugs.