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.

Insurance Receipt and Readiness for Opportunities under the Affordable Care Act: A National Survey of Treatment Providers for Substance Use Disorders.

This study measures the readiness of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment to use opportunities under the Affordable Care Act by examining Medicaid and private insurance acceptance between 2011 and 2013, as well as center characteristics associated with acceptance. Data for this study were from a random sample of SUD treatment centers in the United States. Interviews were conducted on site and face to face, with administrative and clinical directors. We employed logistic regression analyses to examine Medicaid acceptance and private insurance acceptance. We found that 59% of centers accepted Medicaid and 55% accepted private insurance. Accredited centers were more likely to accept Medicaid. A 12-step orientation and greater reliance on female clients were negatively associated with Medicaid acceptance. Larger centers and centers with a greater percentage of counselors with advanced degrees had greater odds of accepting private insurance. Centers that offered residential treatment had lower odds of accepting either Medicaid or private insurance. For private insurance acceptance, having a specific track for homeless patients lowered the odds of acceptance, as did having a greater percentage of Hispanic clients. Newly insured individuals under the ACA may have difficulty finding a program that accepts insurance. Future research should examine effects of Medicaid expansion on SUD treatment delivery.

Integration of Care in the Implementation of the Affordable Care Act: Changes in Treatment Services in a National Sample of Centers Treating Substance Use Disorders.

This study examined patterns of medicalization in substance use disorder (SUD) that are aligned with the goals of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Using a nationally representative sample of SUD treatment programs, we examined changes in several treatment domains. While observed changes were modest, they were in directions that support the thrust of the ACA. Specifically, we found an increase in the percentage of treatment referrals from other health care providers. We found an increase in the number of physicians for programs that did have a physician on staff, and an increase in counselors certified in treating alcohol and drug addiction. There was significant growth in the availability of oral and injectable naltrexone but not of other pharmacotherapies. There was a decrease in support for the 12-step model and an increase on the emphasis of a medicalized treatment model. Finally, we found a shift away from federal block grants and other public funding, consistent with the expectations of the ACA. These data indicate that, while progress is slow, the environment of the recent past has been supportive of the goal of SUD treatment's integration into mainstream medical care.

The United States' Federal Parity Act and treatment of substance use disorders: Administrators' familiarity and perceptions of impact.

BACKGROUND: The 2008 Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) aims to secure parity in private insurance coverage between behavioral and other medical disorders in the United States (U.S.). This legislation represents an important change in the operating field of substance use disorder treatment, but to date, its impact on treatment centers has not been widely examined. The current study measured the extent of center leaders' familiarity with the MHPAEA and their perceptions of its overall impact on their centers. METHODS: Using a nationally representative sample of treatment centers in the U.S., we examined the extent of MHPAEA familiarity and its perceived impact as reported by treatment center leaders. We further employed logistic and ordered logistic regressions to determine personal and organizational characteristics associated with their reported familiarity and experienced impacts, including changes in the number of privately-insured clients seeking treatment and in the treatment coverage of those clients. RESULTS: We found that dissemination of parity information was low. Only 36% of administrators reported high levels of familiarity and 16% used professional sources of information. The majority of administrators (71%) reported no impact of the legislation on their organization, but those that reported any impact were more likely to state positive impact. Greater parity knowledge and perceived positive impacts were associated with administrator and organizational characteristics indicative of greater access to industry-specific knowledge, a medical model orientation, and reliance on private insurance revenue. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that dissemination of parity information is lacking and that the majority of leaders have yet to experience an impact of the MHPAEA. Leaders of centers with more sophisticated structures are most likely to be familiar with the legislation and perceive a positive impact. Research concerning the effective management of treatment centers, including environmental scanning techniques, continues to be needed.

Rural substance use treatment centers in the United States: an assessment of treatment quality by location.

BACKGROUND: While previous research has added to the understanding of rural residents' unique health challenges, much remains to be learned about the provision of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in rural areas. A key question is difference in structural resources and quality of care between rural and urban treatment centers. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in treatment quality in rural and urban centers and to determine if differences in treatment quality are contextualized by centers' structural resources. METHODS: Utilizing combined data from two representative samples of SUD treatment centers (n = 591), we used a series of multivariate regressions to analyze the association between center rurality and various indicators of structural characteristics and treatment quality. Interaction effects were further examined between structural characteristics and treatment quality indicators. RESULTS: We found that structural and quality differences between rural and urban treatment centers were present. Rural centers had reduced access to highly educated counselors, were more likely to be non-profit and dependent on public funding, offered fewer wraparound services, and had less diverse specialized treatment options. Our results also indicated that rural centers were less likely to prescribe buprenorphine as part of their treatment but were more likely to employ nursing staff and offer specialized treatment for adolescents. Rural center access to a physician contextualized the association between center rurality and the more limited provision of wraparound services. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that treatment quality differs between urban and rural centers in complex ways that are subject to resource availability.