State Medicaid Initiatives Targeting Substance Use Disorder in Criminal Legal Settings, 2021.

Objectives. To document state Medicaid pre- and postrelease initiatives for individuals in the criminal legal system with substance use disorder (SUD). Methods. An Internet-based survey was sent in 2021 to Medicaid directors in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia to determine whether they were pursuing initiatives for persons with SUD across 3 criminal legal settings: jails, prisons, and community corrections. A 90% response rate was obtained. Results. In 2021, the majority of states did not report any targeted Medicaid initiatives for persons with SUD residing in criminal legal settings. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia adopted at least 1 Medicaid initiative for persons with SUD across the 3 criminal legal settings. The most commonly adopted initiatives were in the areas of medication for opioid use disorder treatment and Medicaid enrollment. Out of 24 possible initiatives for each state (8 initiatives across 3 criminal legal settings), the 2 most commonly adopted were (1) provision of medication treatment of opioid use disorder before release from criminal legal settings (16 states) and (2) facilitation of Medicaid enrollment through suspension rather than termination of Medicaid enrollment upon entry to a criminal legal setting (14 states). Initiatives pertaining to Medicaid SUD care coordination were adopted by the fewest (9) states. Conclusions. In 2021, states' involvement in Medicaid SUD initiatives for criminal legal populations remained low. Increased adoption of Medicaid SUD initiatives across criminal legal settings is needed, especially knowing the high rate of overdose mortality among this group. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(5):527-530. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307604).

How Does Medicaid Managed Care Address the Needs of Beneficiaries with Opioid Use Disorders? A Deep Dive into Contract Design.

Many people who experience opioid use disorder rely on Medicaid. The high penetration of managed care systems into Medicaid raises the importance of understanding states' expectations regarding coverage, access to care, and health system performance and effectively elevates agreements between states and plans into blueprints for coverage and care. Federal law broadly regulates these structured agreements while leaving a high degree of discretion to states and plans. In this study, researchers reviewed the provisions of 15 state Medicaid managed care contract related to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment to identify whether certain elements of SUD treatment were a stated expectation and the extent to which the details of those expectations varied across states in ways that ultimately could affect evaluation of performance and health outcomes. We found that while all states include SUD treatment as a stated contract expectation, discussions around coverage of specific services and nationally recognized guidelines varied. These variations reflect key state choices regarding how much deference to afford their plans in coverage design and plan administration and reveal important differences in purchasing expectations that could carry implications for efforts to examine similarities and differences in access, quality, and health outcomes within managed care across the states.

Differential patterns of opioid misuse between younger and older adults - a retrospective observational study using data from South Carolina's prescription drug monitoring program.

Background: Most research on opioid misuse focuses on younger adults, yet opioid-related mortality has risen fastest among older Americans over age 55.Objectives: To assess whether there are differential patterns of opioid misuse over time between younger and older adults and whether South Carolina's mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) affected opioid misuse differentially between the two groups.Methods: We used South Carolina's Reporting and Identification Prescription Tracking System from 2010 to 2018 to calculate an opioid misuse score for 193,073 patients (sex unknown) using days' supply, morphine milligram equivalents (MME), and the numbers of unique prescribers and dispensaries. Multivariable regression was used to assess differential opioid misuse patterns by age group over time and in response to implementation of South Carolina's mandatory PDMP in 2017.Results: We found that between 2011 and 2018, older adults received 57% (p < .01) more in total MME and 25.4 days more (p < .01) in supply, but received prescriptions from fewer doctors (-0.063 doctors, p < 01) and pharmacies (-0.11 pharmacies, p < 01) per year versus younger adults. However, older adults had lower odds of receiving a high misuse score (OR 0.88, p < .01). After the 2017 legislation, misuse scores fell among younger adults (OR 0.79, p < .01) relative to 2011, but not among older adults.Conclusion: Older adults may misuse opioids differently compared to younger adults. Assessment of policies to reduce opioid misuse should take into account subgroup differences that may be masked at the population level.

How Medicaid work requirements could exacerbate the opioid epidemic.

In 2018, the Trump Administration took the unprecedented step of allowing states to impose work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. States can apply for a demonstration waiver to require Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 who do not meet exemption criteria (e.g., disability, caring for a sick relative) to participate in "community engagement" activities, which include employment, volunteering, and enrollment in a qualifying education or job training program. Debate thus far has focused primarily around the important issue of whether such requirements are legal. Less attention has focused on another serious concern - namely, that work requirements could exacerbate the nation's most urgent public health crisis: the opioid epidemic. Many enrollees with opioid use disorder who are unable to meet states' community engagement criteria will not qualify for an exemption from the work requirements, and risk being dropped from Medicaid enrollment. Refusing health insurance to individuals who are unable to meet work requirements could result in significant losses in coverage among a highly vulnerable population. Implementing new barriers to Medicaid coverage will hinder the effectiveness of massive state and federal investments in improving access to evidence-based addiction treatment.

Are Policy Strategies for Addressing the Opioid Epidemic Partisan? A View from the States.

CONTEXT: In contrast to the Affordable Care Act, some have suggested the opioid epidemic represents an area of bipartisanship. This raises an important question: to what extent are Democrat-led and Republican-led states different or similar in their policy responses to the opioid epidemic? METHODS: Three main methodological approaches were used to assess state-level policy responses to the opioid epidemic: a legislative analysis across all 50 states, an online survey of 50 state Medicaid agencies, and in-depth case studies with policy stakeholders in five states. FINDINGS: Conservative states pursue hidden and targeted Medicaid expansions, and a number of legislative initiatives, to address the opioid crisis. However, the total fiscal commitment among these Republican-led states pales in comparison to states that adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion. Because the state legislative initiatives do not provide treatment, these states spend substantially less than states with Democratic control. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than persistently working to retrench all programs, conservatives have relied on policy designs that emphasize devolution, fragmentation, and inequality to both expand and retrench benefits. This strategy, which allocates benefits differentially to different social groups and obfuscates responsibility, allows conservatives to avoid political blame typically associated with retrenchment.

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.

Changes in State Technical Assistance Priorities and Block Grant Funds for Addiction After ACA Implementation.

Objectives. To assess states' provision of technical assistance and allocation of block grants for treatment, prevention, and outreach after the expansion of health insurance coverage for addiction treatment in the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Methods. We used 2 waves of survey data collected from Single State Agencies in 2014 and 2017 as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. Results. The percentage of states providing technical assistance for cross-sector collaboration and workforce development increased. States also shifted funds from outpatient to residential treatment services. However, resources for opioid use disorder medications changed little. Subanalyses indicated that technical assistance priorities and allocation of funds for treatment services differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Public Health Implications. The ACA's infusion of new public and private funds enabled states to reallocate funds to residential services, which are not as likely to be covered by health insurance. The limited allocation of block grant funds for effective opioid medications is concerning in light of the opioid crisis, especially in states that did not implement the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

Benefit requirements for substance use disorder treatment in state health insurance exchanges.

BACKGROUND: Established in 2014, state health insurance exchanges have greatly expanded substance use disorder (SUD) treatment coverage in the United States as qualified health plans (QHPs) within the exchanges are required to conform to parity provisions laid out by the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Coverage improvements, however, have not been even as states have wide discretion over how they meet these regulations. OBJECTIVE: How states regulate SUD treatment benefits offered by QHPs has implications for the accessibility and quality of care. In this study, we assessed the extent to which state insurance departments regulate the types of SUD services and medications plans must provide, as well as their use of utilization controls. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally-representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment. Data were obtained from state Departments of Insurance via a 15-minute internet-based survey. RESULTS: States varied widely in regulations on QHPs' administration of SUD treatment benefits. Some states required plans to cover all 11 SUD treatment services and medications we assessed in the study, whereas others did not require plans to cover anything at all. Nearly all states allowed the plans to employ utilization controls, but reported little guidance regarding how they should be used. CONCLUSION: Although some states have taken full advantage of the health insurance exchanges to increase access to SUD treatment, others seem to have done the bare minimum required by the ACA. By not requiring coverage for the entire SUD continuum of care, states are hindering client access to appropriate types of care necessary for recovery.

The Medicaid expansion gap and racial and ethnic minorities with substance use disorders.

We compared the race and ethnicity of individuals residing in states that did and did not expand Medicaid in 2014. Findings indicated that African Americans and Native Americans with substance use disorders who met new federal eligibility criteria for Medicaid were less likely than those of other racial and ethnic groups to live in states that expanded Medicaid. These findings suggest that the uneven expansion of Medicaid may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in insurance coverage for substance use disorder treatment.

Crafting effective regulatory policies for psychedelics: What can be learned from the case of cannabis?

The turn of the century brought a resurgence of interest in psychedelics as a treatment for addiction and other psychiatric conditions, accompanied by extensive positive media attention and private equity investment. Government regulatory bodies in Australia, Israel, Canada and the United States now permit use of psychedelics for medical purposes. In the United States, citizen action and corporate financing have led to petitions and ballot initiatives to legalize psilocybin and other psychedelics for medical and recreational use. Given this momentum, policymakers must grapple with important questions that define whether and how psychedelics are made available to the public, as well as how companies produce and promote them. The current push to broaden the production, sale, and use of psychedelics bears many parallels to the movement to legalize cannabis in the United States and other nations-most notably, the use of poorly-evidenced therapeutic claims to create a de facto recreational market via the health care system. Experience with cannabis highlights the value of debating the question of legalization for nonmedical use as such rather than misrepresenting it as a medical issue. The lessons of cannabis policy also suggest a need to challenge hyping of psychedelic research findings; to promote rigorous clinical research on dosing and potency; to minimize the influence of for-profit industry in shaping policies to their economic advantage; and to coordinate federal, state, and local governments to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of psychedelic drugs (regardless of whether they are legalized for medical and/or recreational use).

The Impact of State Medicaid Eligibility and Benefits Policy on Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Hospitalizations.

Rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) resulting from opioid misuse are rising. However, policies to treat opioid misuse during pregnancy are unclear. We apply a difference-in-differences design to national pediatric discharge records to examine the effects of state Medicaid policies on NAS. Among states in which Medicaid covered two clinically-recommended medications for treating opioid misuse (buprenorphine, methadone), the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion reduced Medicaid-covered NAS hospitalizations. Medicaid expansion did not affect NAS hospitalizations in other expansion states. These findings imply a nuanced relationship between Medicaid policy and NAS that should be considered in addressing opioid misuse among pregnant women.

Most States Allow Medicaid Managed Care Plans Discretion To Restrict Substance Use Disorder Treatment Benefits.

Managed care plans, which contract with states to cover three-quarters of Medicaid enrollees, play a crucial role in addressing the drug epidemic in the United States. However, substance use disorder benefits vary across Medicaid managed care plans, and it is unclear what role states play in regulating their activities. To address this question, we surveyed thirty-three states and Washington, D.C., regarding their substance use disorder treatment coverage and utilization management requirements for Medicaid managed care plans in 2021. Most states mandated coverage of common forms of substance use disorder treatment and prohibited annual maximums and enrollee cost sharing in managed care. Fewer than one-third of states forbade managed care plans from imposing prior authorization for each treatment service. For most treatment medications, fewer than two-thirds of states prohibited prior authorization, drug testing, "fail first," or psychosocial therapy requirements in managed care. Our findings suggest that many states give managed care plans broad discretion to impose requirements on covered substance use disorder treatments, which may affect access to lifesaving care.

Statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic: Results from a national survey of single state agencies.

BACKGROUND: Single State Agencies (SSAs) are at the forefront of efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic, responsible for allocating billions of dollars in federal, state, and local funds to ensure service quality, promote best practices, and expand access to care. Federal expenditures to SSAs have more than tripled since the early years of the epidemic, yet, it is unclear what initiatives SSAs have undertaken to address the crisis and how they are financing these efforts. METHODS: This study used data from an internet-based survey of SSAs, conducted by the University of Chicago Survey Lab from January to December 2021 (response rate of 94 %). The survey included a set of 14 items identifying statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic and six funding sources. We calculated the percentage of SSAs that supported each statewide effort and the percentage of SSAs reporting use of each source of funding across the 14 statewide efforts. RESULTS: Treatment of opioid-related overdose figured most prominently among statewide efforts, with all SSAs providing funding for naloxone distribution and all but one SSA supporting naloxone training. Recovery support services, Project ECHO, and Hub and Spoke models were supported by the vast majority of SSAs. Statewide efforts related to expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) received somewhat less support, with 45 % of SSAs supporting mobile methadone/MOUD clinics/programs and 70 % supporting buprenorphine in emergency departments. A relatively low proportion of SSAs (54 %) provided support for syringe services programs. State Opioid Response (SOR) funds were the most common funding source reported by SSAs (57 % of SSAs), followed by block grant funds (19 %) and other state funding (15 %). CONCLUSION: Results highlight a range of SSA efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic. Limited adoption of efforts to expand access to MOUD and harm reduction services may represent missed opportunities. The uncertainty over reauthorization of the SOR grant post-2025 also raises concerns over sustainability of funding for many of these statewide initiatives.

Medicaid Managed Care Prior Authorization For Buprenorphine Tied To State Partisanship And Health Plan Profit Status, 2018.

Buprenorphine is among the most effective drugs for treating opioid use disorder, yet only a quarter of Americans who need it receive it. Requiring prior authorization has been identified as an important barrier to buprenorphine access. However, the practice remains widespread in Medicaid-the largest insurer of Americans with opioid use disorder. In this study, we examined how prior authorization for buprenorphine is related to plan structure and state political environment, using data on all 266 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans active in 2018. We found substantial variation in prior authorization use across states, with all plans requiring prior authorization in eleven states and no plans requiring it in thirteen other states. We found that for-profit plans and those located in Republican states were more likely to impose prior authorization policies. Our findings suggest that managed care plans' decisions regarding use of prior authorization may be shaped by internal pressures to control costs, as well as by differing partisan stances regarding the need to prevent criminal diversion of buprenorphine.

Substance use disorder treatment carve outs in Medicaid managed care.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid managed care organizations (MCO) play a major role in addressing the nation's epidemic of drug overdose and mortality by administering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment benefits for over 50 million Americans. While it is known that some Medicaid MCO plans delegate responsibility for managing SUD treatment benefits to an outside "carve out" entity, the extent and structure of such carve out arrangements are unknown. This is an important gap in knowledge, given that carve outs have been linked to reductions in rates of SUD treatment receipt in several studies. To address this gap, we examined carve out arrangements used by Medicaid MCO plans to administer SUD treatment benefits in ten states. METHODS: Data for this study was gleaned using a purposive sampling approach through content analysis of publicly available benefits information (e.g., member handbooks, provider manuals, prescription drug formularies) from 70 comprehensive Medicaid MCO plans in 10 selected states (FL, GA, IL, MD, MI, NH, OH, PA, UT, and WV) active in 2018. Each Medicaid MCO plan's documents were reviewed and coded to indicate whether a range of SUD treatment services (e.g., inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, residential treatment) and medications were carved out, and if so, to what type of entity (e.g., behavioral health organization). RESULTS: A large majority of Medicaid MCO plans carved out at least some (28.6 %) or all (40.0 %) SUD treatment services, with nearly all plans carving out some (77.1 %) or all (14.3 %) medications, mainly due to the carving out of methadone treatment. Medicaid MCO plans most commonly carved out SUD treatment services to behavioral health organizations, while most medications were carved out to state Medicaid fee-for-service plans. CONCLUSIONS: Carve out arrangements for SUD treatment vary dramatically across states, across plans, and even within plans. Given that some studies have linked carve out arrangements to reductions in treatment access, their widespread use among Medicaid MCO plans is cause for further consideration by policymakers and other key interest groups. Moreover, reliance on such complex arrangements for administering care may create challenges for enrollees who seek to learn about and access plan benefits.

Client and program characteristics associated with wait time to substance abuse treatment entry.

BACKGROUND: Wait time is among the most commonly cited barriers to access among individuals seeking entry to substance abuse treatment, yet relatively little is known about what contributes to it. OBJECTIVES: To address this gap, this study draws from a national sample of substance abuse treatment clients and programs to estimate the proportion of clients entering treatment who waited more than 1 month to receive it (outpatient, residential, or methadone) and to identify client and program characteristics associated with wait time. METHODS: This study used data from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (1992-1997). The data include 2920 clients from 57 substance abuse treatment programs. Generalized linear modeling was used to identify client and program characteristics associated with wait time to treatment entry. RESULTS: Results of modeling indicate that being African-American (OR: 1.40; CI: 1.04, 1.88), being referred by criminal justice (OR: 1.70; CI: 1.18, 2.43), and receiving methadone (OR: 3.90; CI: 1.00, 15.16) were associated with increased odds of waiting more than 1 month. Conversely, having a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS (OR: 0.38; CI: 0.19, 0.77) was associated with decreased odds of waiting for more than 1 month. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of clients waited more than 1 month on enter treatment. Greater odds of such wait times were associated with being African-American, criminal justice-referred, and receiving methadone. SIGNIFICANCE: This study is the first to use a national sample to examine the prevalence of wait time to substance abuse treatment entry and to identify client and program characteristics associated with it.

Emergency department utilization among recently released prisoners: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The population of ex-prisoners returning to their communities is large. Morbidity and mortality is increased during the period following release. Understanding utilization of emergency services by this population may inform interventions to reduce adverse outcomes. We examined Emergency Department utilization among a cohort of recently released prisoners. METHODS: We linked Rhode Island Department of Corrections records with electronic health record data from a large hospital system from 2007 to 2009 to analyze emergency department utilization for mental health disorders, substance use disorders and ambulatory care sensitive conditions by ex-prisoners in the year after release from prison in comparison to the general population, controlling for patient- and community-level factors. RESULTS: There were 333,369 total ED visits with 5,145 visits by a cohort of 1,434 ex-prisoners. In this group, 455 ex-prisoners had 3 or more visits within 1 year of release and 354 had a first ED visit within 1 month of release. ED visits by ex-prisoners were more likely to be made by men (85% vs. 48%, p < 0.001) and by blacks (26% vs. 16%, p < 0.001) compared to the Rhode Island general population. Ex-prisoners were more likely to have an ED visit for a mental health disorder (6% vs. 4%, p < 0.001) or substance use disorder (16%vs. 4%, p < 0.001). After controlling for patient- and community-level factors, ex-prisoner visits were significantly more likely to be for mental health disorders (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.27-1.61), substance use disorders (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.77-2.11) and ambulatory care sensitive conditions (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: ED visits by ex-prisoners were significantly more likely due to three conditions optimally managed in outpatient settings. Future work should determine whether greater access to outpatient services after release from prison reduces ex-prisoners' utilization of emergency services.