Methadone dosing at New York State opioid treatment programs following initial revisions to federal regulations.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, a temporary federal regulatory exemption for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) was issued, allowing for a greater number of take-home methadone doses than was previously permitted. In the same month, to address financial sustainability, New York State (NYS) Medicaid also transitioned to a bundle reimbursement methodology for OTPs. We examined methadone dosing schedules in NYS before and after these regulatory and financing changes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using NYS OTP patient data from two sources: the client data system for a baseline period (February 2020) and survey data collected after regulatory and financing changes (May 2020 to August 2021, 64 weekly surveys). We compared methadone dosing schedules over time using chi-square tests and Poisson regression. RESULT: At baseline, data were available for 78% (n=77/99) of OTPs including 90.9% (n=26,225/28,839) of their enrolled patients. During the survey period, 99 OTPs completed 93.1% (n=5901/6336) of weekly surveys, with a mean statewide weekly patient census of 38,904 (SD=1214.5). Between February and May 2020, daily dosing significantly decreased from 55.4% to 16.3% of patients (-39.1 percentage points [95%CI: -39.8 to -38.4]), although it significantly increased subsequently (3.33%/4-weeks [95%CI: 3.28, 3.39]). In addition, weekly-to-monthly dosing significantly increased from 26.9% to 54.5% of patients (27.6 percentage points [95%CI: 26.9, 28.4]), although it significantly decreased subsequently (-1.19%/4-weeks [95%CI: -1.23, -1.15]). DISCUSSION: Despite large initial changes, we found a trend toward gradual return to more restrictive dosing schedules. OTPs need further support in leveraging new opportunities to improve methadone treatment and outcomes.

Health services use among formerly incarcerated Louisiana Medicaid members within one year of release.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between enrollment in Medicaid prior to release compared with post-release, and the use of health services and time to the first service use after release among Louisiana Medicaid members within one year of release from Louisiana state corrections custody. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking Louisiana Medicaid and Louisiana state corrections release data. We included individuals ages 19 to 64 years released from state custody between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2019 and enrolled in Medicaid within 180 days of release. Outcome measures included receipt of general health services (primary care visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations), cancer screenings, specialty behavioral health services, and prescription medications. To determine the association between pre-release Medicaid enrollment and time to receipt of health services, multivariable regression models were used which accounted for significant differences in characteristics between the groups. RESULTS: Overall, 13283 individuals met eligibility criteria and 78.8% (n = 10473) of the population was enrolled in Medicaid pre-release. Compared with those enrolled in Medicaid prior to release, those enrolled post-release were more likely to have an emergency department visit (59.6% versus 57.5%, p = 0.04) and hospitalization (17.9% versus 15.9%, p = 0.01) and less likely to receive outpatient mental health services (12.3% versus 15.2%, p<0.001) and prescription drugs. Compared with those enrolled in Medicaid prior to release, those enrolled post-release had a significantly longer time to receiving many services including a primary care visit (adjusted mean difference: 42.2 days [95% CI: 37.9 to 46.5; p<0.001]), outpatient mental health services (42.8 days [95% CI: 31.3 to 54.4; p<0.001]), outpatient substance use disorder service (20.6 days [95% CI: 2.0 to 39.2; p = 0.03]), and medication for opioid use disorder (40.4 days [95% CI: 23.7 to 57.1; p<0.001]) as well as inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids (63.8 days [95% CI: 49.3 to 78.3, p<0.001]), antipsychotics (62.9 days [95% CI: 50.8 to 75.1; p<0.001]), antihypertensives (60.5 days [95% CI: 50.7 to 70.3; p<0.001]), and antidepressants (52.3 days [95% CI: 44.1 to 60.5; p<0.001]). CONCLUSION: Compared with Medicaid enrollment post-release, pre-release Medicaid enrollment was associated with higher proportions of, and faster access to, a wide variety of health services. Regardless of enrollment status, we found prolonged times between release and receipt of time-sensitive behavioral health services and prescription medications.

Characteristics and health service use of Medicaid-insured individuals filling naloxone under a standing order in Louisiana.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone distribution is a key intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths. On January 23, 2017, Louisiana implemented a standing order that permits pharmacies to dispense naloxone to patients without a patient-specific prescription. OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics and health service use of Louisiana Medicaid members filling naloxone under the standing order. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Louisiana Medicaid members from January 23, 2017 to December 31, 2019. We extracted fee-for-service claims and managed care encounters for naloxone dispensed under the standing order. RESULTS: Overall, there were 2053 naloxone fills by 1912 unique individuals. The total number of naloxone fills increased from 22 in 2017 to 1218 in 2019. Most members (n = 1,586, 83.0%) received any type of health service and 20.4% (n = 391) received an opioid-related health service in the 30 days prior to filling naloxone. Additionally, 12.7% (n = 242) of members had received medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and 42.6% (n = 815) filled a prescription opioid analgesic within the 60 days prior to filling naloxone. Nineteen members (1.0%) had an emergency department visit for overdose within 90 days after filling naloxone. CONCLUSION: Standing orders play an important role in providing access to naloxone, even among Medicaid members who had recent encounters with health care providers. We identified multiple opportunities to improve naloxone prescribing among providers caring for Medicaid-insured people who use opioids, including prescribers of opioid analgesics or MOUD.

A Policy Approach to Reducing Low-Value Device-Based Procedure Use.

Policy Points Low-value care is common in clinical practice, leading to patient harm and wasted spending. Much of this low-value care stems from the use of medical device-based procedures. We describe here a novel academic-policymaker collaboration in which evidence-based clinical coverage for device-based procedures is implemented through prior authorization-based policies for Louisiana's Medicaid beneficiary population. This process involves eight steps: 1) identifying low-value medical device-based procedures based on clinical evidence review, 2) quantifying utilization and reimbursement, 3) reviewing clinical coverage policies to identify opportunities to align coverage with evidence, 4) using a low-value device selection index, 5) developing an evidence synthesis and policy proposal, 6) stakeholder engagement and input, 7) policy implementation, and 8) policy evaluation. This strategy holds significant potential to reduce low-value device-based care.

Mixed Method Evaluation of Louisiana's Prerelease Medicaid Enrollment Program, 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: Over 600,000 people leave US prisons annually. Many are eligible for Medicaid upon release but may need support to enroll. Carceral facilities in nearly half of states have implemented systems to facilitate Medicaid access for those leaving incarceration, but there is limited information on program implementation models or outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate implementation and initial outcomes of Louisiana's prison-based Prerelease Medicaid Enrollment Program. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we assessed enrollment in Louisiana Medicaid at time of release from prison in the 2 years (2017-2018) after Program implementation, as well as reasons for Medicaid closure (ie, loss of coverage) and health services use 6 months postrelease. In May-June 2019, we conducted interviews statewide with program implementers (n=16) and focus groups in New Orleans, Louisiana with formerly incarcerated Program participants (n=16). RESULTS: A total of 4476 people were included in the quantitative analysis. There was a 34.3 (95% confidence interval: 20.7-47.9) percentage point increase in Medicaid enrollment upon release. Nearly all (98.6%) attended at least 1 outpatient visit and almost half (46.7%) had 1 emergency department visit within 6 months of release. Not responding to information requests was the most common reason for Medicaid closure. Program implementers and formerly incarcerated participants identified Program strengths, barriers, and suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The program was successful in rapidly increasing Medicaid enrollment at the time of prison release and facilitating the use of health care services.

Comparing perspectives on medication treatment for opioid use disorder between national samples of primary care trainee physicians and attending physicians.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are not treated with FDA-approved medications methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone. Expanding capacity for evidence-based OUD medication in primary care is a national priority. No studies have examined primary care trainee physicians' attitudes about these medications. This study surveyed a national sample of primary care trainee physicians and compared their views with those of primary care attending physicians (i.e., those who have completed training). METHODS: Random samples of 1,000 trainee physicians and 1,000 attending physicians specializing in family, internal, or general medicine were selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. Surveys were mailed February-August 2019. 45 % of eligible trainee physicians and 54 % of eligible attending physicians responded. Chi-square tests were used to compare responses between the groups. RESULTS: Trainee physicians were more likely than attending physicians to agree that treating OUD with medication is more effective than treatment without medication (76 % versus 67 %, p = 0.03). Half of trainee physicians (51 %) expressed interest in treating patients with OUD compared to 20 % of attending physicians. Trainee physicians expressed greater support than attending physicians for policies that loosen restrictions on prescribing OUD medications. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to attending physicians, the emerging cohort of primary care physicians may be more receptive to working with patients with OUD and prescribing medication. Enhancing medical training on OUD and its treatment, exposing clinicians to individuals in recovery from OUD, and increasing support for clinicians that provide medication treatment for OUD may strengthen this group's capacity to respond to the opioid crisis.

How do state Medicaid programs determine what substance use disorder treatment medications need prior authorization? An overview for clinicians.

The process by which state Medicaid programs develop their preferred drug lists, and determine which medications require prior authorization, is opaque to many clinicians. This process is a synthesis of cost and clinical information. For cost, the federal Medicaid Drug Rebate Program establishes mandatory rebates that pharmaceutical manufacturers must pay state Medicaid programs. In addition, state Medicaid programs may also negotiate supplemental rebates whereby, in exchange for a preferred position on the preferred drug list, manufacturers pay an additional rebate. These supplemental rebates are most important in therapeutic classes with multiple brand competitors (e.g., medication treatments for opioid use disorder). For clinical information, state Medicaid programs convene pharmaceutical and therapeutics committees, drug utilization review boards, or both, composed of a variety of stakeholders such as practicing clinicians. Cost factors such as federal rebate calculations and supplemental rebate negotiations may lead to counterintuitive preferred drug lists, for example, a state Medicaid program requiring prior authorization for a generic medication but not for its brand equivalent (e.g., buprenorphine/naloxone products). Because of states' reliance on rebates, mandates to remove prior authorization may have the unintended consequence of increasing costs significantly through the loss of rebate negotiating power. In the face of high and rising medication costs, state Medicaid programs are also implementing innovative policy approaches to maintain access and control costs, such as targeted rebate negotiation and value-based pricing. Through participation in state Medicaid program clinical advisory committees, individual clinicians can have a powerful voice. Interested clinicians should consider joining to inform policy and help ensure their patients' needs are met.

Racial Inequities in Preventable Pregnancy-Related Deaths in Louisiana, 2011-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To examine preventable pregnancy-related deaths in Louisiana by race and ethnicity and maternal level of care to inform quality improvement efforts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational descriptive analysis of Louisiana Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review data of 47 confirmed pregnancy-related deaths occurring from 2011 to 2016. The review team determined cause of death, preventability, and contributing factors. We compared preventability by race-ethnicity and maternal level of care of the facility where death occurred (from level I: basic care to level IV: regional perinatal health center) using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The rate of pregnancy-related death among non-Hispanic black women (22.7/100,000 births, 95% CI 15.5-32.1, n=32/140,785) was 4.1 times the rate among non-Hispanic white women (5.6/100,000, 95% CI 2.8-10.0, n=11/197,630). Hemorrhage (n=8/47, 17%) and cardiomyopathy (n=8/47, 17%) were the most common causes of pregnancy-related death. Among non-Hispanic black women who experienced pregnancy-related death, 59% [n=19] of deaths were deemed potentially preventable, compared with 9% (n=1) among non-Hispanic white women (OR 14.6, 95% CI 1.7-128.4). Of 47 confirmed pregnancy-related deaths, 58% (n=27) occurred at level III or IV birth facilities. Compared with those at level I or II birth facilities (n=2/4, 50%), pregnancy-related deaths occurring at level III or IV birth facilities (n=14/27, 52%) were not less likely to be categorized as preventable (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.5-8.0). CONCLUSION: Compared with non-Hispanic white women, pregnancy-related deaths that occurred among non-Hispanic black women in Louisiana from 2011 to 2016 were more likely to be preventable. The proportion of deaths that were preventable was similar between lower and higher level birth facilities. Hospital-based quality improvement efforts focused on addressing hemorrhage, hypertension, and associated racial inequities may prevent pregnancy-related deaths in Louisiana.

Primary care engagement is associated with increased pharmacotherapy prescribing for alcohol use disorder (AUD).

BACKGROUND: Primary care provider skills such as screening, longitudinal monitoring, and medication management are generalizable to prescribing alcohol use disorder (AUD) pharmacotherapy. The association between primary care engagement (i.e., longitudinal utilization of primary care services) and prescribing of AUD pharmacotherapy is unknown. METHODS: We examined a 5-year (2010-2014) retrospective cohort of patients with AUD, 18 years and older, at an urban academic medical center in the Bronx, NY, USA. Our main exposure was level of primary care engagement (no primary care, limited primary care, and engaged with primary care) and our outcome was any AUD pharmacotherapy prescription within 2 years of AUD diagnosis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association between primary care engagement and pharmacotherapy prescribing, accounting for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 21,159 adults (28.9% female) with AUD, 2.1% (n = 449) were prescribed pharmacotherapy. After adjusting for confounders, the probability of receiving an AUD pharmacotherapy prescription for patients with no primary care was 1.61% (95% CI 1.39, 1.84). The probability of AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing was 2.56% (95% CI 2.06, 3.06) for patients with limited primary care and 2.89% (95% CI 2.44, 3.34%) for patients engaged with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of AUD patients prescribed AUD pharmacotherapy was low; however, primary care engagement was associated with a higher, but modest, probability of receiving a prescription. Efforts to increase primary care engagement among patients with AUD may translate into increased AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing; however, strategies to increase prescribing across health care settings are needed.

Payments from drug companies to physicians are associated with higher volume and more expensive opioid analgesic prescribing.

BACKGROUND: While the rise in opioid analgesic prescribing and overdose deaths was multifactorial, financial relationships between opioid drug manufacturers and physicians may be one important factor. METHODS: Using national data from 2013 to 2015, we conducted a retrospective cohort study linking the Open Payments database and Medicare Part D drug utilization data. We created two cohorts of physicians, those receiving opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013, and those receiving opioid-related payments in 2015 but not in 2013 and 2014. Our main outcome measures were expenditures on filled prescriptions, daily doses filled, and expenditures per daily dose. For each cohort, we created a comparison group that did not receive an opioid-related payment in any year and was matched on state, specialty, and baseline opioid expenditures. We used a difference-in-differences analysis with linear generalized estimating equations regression models. RESULTS: We identified 6,322 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013; they received a mean total of $251. Relative to comparison group physicians, they had a significantly larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($6,171; 95% CI: 4,997 to 7,346), daily doses dispensed (1,574; 95%CI: 1,330 to 1,818) and mean expenditures per daily dose ($0.38; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.47). We identified 8,669 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2015, but not in 2013 or 2014; they received a mean total of $40. Relative to comparison physicians, they also had a larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($1,031; 95% CI: 603 to 1,460), daily doses dispensed (557; 95% CI: 417 to 697), and expenditures per daily dose ($0.06; 95% CI: 0.002 to 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to the growing public policy concern that payments from opioid drug manufacturers can influence physician prescribing. Interventions are needed to reduce such promotional activities or to mitigate their influence.

Physician Time Burden Associated with Querying Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs.

Objective: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) enable prescribers to review patient prescription histories, and their use is mandatory in many states. We estimated the cost of physicians retrieving PDMP patient reports compared with a model where a delegate (i.e., administrative staff) retrieves reports. Methods: We performed a cost analysis with a one-year time horizon, from the perspective of physicians' employers. We obtained specialty-specific estimates of controlled substance prescribing frequency from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2012-2014. We defined three PDMP usage cases based on the frequency of queries: comprehensive (before every Schedule II-IV controlled substance prescription), selective (before new Schedule II-IV prescriptions and every six months for continuing medications), and minimal (before new Schedule II or III prescriptions and annually for continuing medications). Results: The delegate model was less costly for all specialties in the comprehensive usage case and most specialties in the selective usage case, and it was similar to physician model costs in the minimal usage case. Estimated annual costs of the physician model to a large health care system (1,000 full-time equivalent physicians) were $1.6 million for comprehensive usage, $1.1 million for selective usage, and $645,313 for minimal usage. The delegate model was less costly in the comprehensive (savings of $907,283) and selective usage cases (savings of $156,216). Conclusions: Relying on delegates vs physicians to retrieve reports is less costly in most cases. Automation and integration of PDMP data into electronic health records may reduce costs further. Physicians, health care systems, and states should collaborate to streamline access to PDMPs.

Medicaid Coverage of Methadone Maintenance and the Use of Opioid Agonist Therapy Among Pregnant Women in Specialty Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is the standard of care for pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD). Medicaid coverage policies may strongly influence OAT use in this group. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between Medicaid coverage of methadone maintenance and planned use of OAT in the publicly funded treatment system. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of treatment admissions in 30 states extracted from the Treatment Episode Data Set (2013 and 2014). SUBJECTS: Medicaid-insured pregnant women with OUD (n=3354 treatment admissions). MEASURES: The main outcome measure was planned use of OAT on admission. The main exposure was state Medicaid coverage of methadone maintenance. Using multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for sociodemographic, substance use, and treatment characteristics, we compared the probability of planned OAT use in states with Medicaid coverage of methadone maintenance versus states without coverage. RESULTS: A total of 71% of pregnant women admitted to OUD treatment were 18-29 years old, 85% were white non-Hispanic, and 56% used heroin. Overall, 74% of admissions occurred in the 18 states with Medicaid coverage of methadone maintenance and 53% of admissions involved planned use of OAT. Compared with states without Medicaid coverage of methadone maintenance, admissions in states with coverage were significantly more likely to involve planned OAT use (adjusted difference: 32.9 percentage points, 95% confidence interval, 19.2-46.7). CONCLUSIONS: Including methadone maintenance in the Medicaid benefit is essential to increasing OAT among pregnant women with OUD and should be considered a key policy strategy to enhance outcomes for mothers and newborns.

The emerging public discourse on state legalization of marijuana for recreational use in the US: Analysis of news media coverage, 2010-2014.

OBJECTIVES: US states have begun to legalize marijuana for recreational use. In the absence of clear scientific evidence regarding the likely public health consequences of legalization, it is important to understand how the risks and benefits of this policy are being discussed in the national dialogue. To assess the public discourse on recreational marijuana policy, we assessed the volume and content of US news media coverage of the topic. METHOD: We analyzed the content of a 20% random sample of news stories published/aired in high circulation/viewership print, television, and Internet news sources from 2010 to 2014 (N=610). RESULTS: News media coverage of recreational marijuana policy was heavily concentrated in news outlets from the four states (AK, CO, OR, WA) and DC that legalized marijuana for recreational use during the study period. Overall, 53% of news stories mentioned pro-legalization arguments and 47% mentioned anti-legalization arguments. The most frequent pro-legalization arguments posited that legalization would reduce criminal justice involvement/costs (20% of news stories) and increase tax revenue (19%). Anti-legalization arguments centered on adverse public health consequences, such as detriments to youth health and well-being (22%) and marijuana-impaired driving (6%). Some evidence-informed public health regulatory options, like marketing and packaging restrictions, were mentioned in 5% of news stories or fewer. CONCLUSION: As additional states continue to debate legalization of marijuana for recreational use, it is critical for the public health community to develop communication strategies that accurately convey the rapidly evolving research evidence regarding recreational marijuana policy.

Increasing Benzodiazepine Prescriptions and Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1996-2013.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality involving benzodiazepines among US adults. METHODS: We examined data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and multiple-cause-of-death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2013, the percentage of adults filling a benzodiazepine prescription increased from 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8%, 4.5%) to 5.6% (95% CI = 5.2%, 6.1%), with an annual percent change of 2.5% (95% CI = 2.1%, 3.0%). The quantity of benzodiazepines filled increased from 1.1 (95% CI = 0.9, 1.2) to 3.6 (95% CI = 3.0, 4.2) kilogram lorazepam equivalents per 100 000 adults (annual percent change = 9.0%; 95% CI = 7.6%, 10.3%). The overdose death rate increased from 0.58 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.62) to 3.07 (95% CI = 2.99, 3.14) per 100 000 adults, with a plateau seen after 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality have increased considerably. Fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines have plateaued overall; however, no evidence of decreases was found in any group. Interventions to reduce the use of benzodiazepines or improve their safety are needed.

Food insecurity, neighborhood food access, and food assistance in Philadelphia.

An estimated 17.6 million American households were food insecure in 2012, meaning they were unable to obtain enough food for an active and healthy life. Programs to augment local access to healthy foods are increasingly widespread, with unclear effects on food security. At the same time, the US government has recently enacted major cuts to federal food assistance programs. In this study, we examined the association between food insecurity (skipping or reducing meal size because of budget), neighborhood food access (self-reported access to fruits and vegetables and quality of grocery stores), and receipt of food assistance using the 2008, 2010, and 2012 waves of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey. Of 11,599 respondents, 16.7% reported food insecurity; 79.4% of the food insecure found it easy or very easy to find fruits and vegetables, and 60.6% reported excellent or good quality neighborhood grocery stores. In our regression models adjusting for individual- and neighborhood-level covariates, compared to those who reported very difficult access to fruits and vegetables, those who reported difficult, easy or very easy access were less likely to report food insecurity (OR 0.62: 95% CI 0.43-0.90, 0.33: 95% CI 0.23-0.47, and 0.28: 95% CI 0.20-0.40). Compared to those who reported poor stores, those who reported fair, good, and excellent quality stores were also less likely to report food insecurity (OR 0.81: 95% CI 0.60-1.08, 0.58: 95% CI 0.43-0.78, and 0.43: 95% CI 0.31-0.59). Compared to individuals not receiving food assistance, those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were significantly more likely to be food insecure (OR 1.36: 95% CI 1.11-1.67), while those receiving benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (OR 1.17: 95% CI 0.77-1.78) and those receiving both SNAP and WIC (OR 0.84: 95% CI 0.61-1.17) did not have significantly different odds of food insecurity. In conclusion, better neighborhood food access is associated with lower risk of food insecurity. However, most food insecure individuals reported good access. Improving diet in communities with high rates of food insecurity likely requires not only improved access but also greater affordability.

Availability of buprenorphine on the Internet for purchase without a prescription.

BACKGROUND: Use of illicit buprenorphine is increasingly recognized, but it is unknown if the Internet currently represents an accessible source. METHODS: A series of Internet searches were conducted. Twenty searches were performed on two different search engines. The first 100 results of each search were classified into categories based on content. All Internet pharmacies were searched for buprenorphine preparations and if available, sites were examined to determine if a prescription was required for purchase, for the cost of buprenorphine, the geographical origin of the pharmacy, and evidence of validation by an online pharmacy verification service. RESULTS: Of the 2000 links examined, 1422 were unique. Six percent of links were to illicit commercial sites, 2% were to legitimate commercial sites, and 2% were to illicit portal sites, which contained links to many illicit commercial sites. Twenty pharmacies offering buprenorphine for purchase without a prescription were identified. The monthly cost of a typical starting dose of 2 mg buprenorphine daily ranged between $232 and $1163 USD. No pharmacies were listed by online pharmacy verification services. CONCLUSION: Twenty online pharmacies advertising buprenorphine formulations for sale without a prescription were identified. Prices varied widely between illicit pharmacies but were uniformly more expensive than legitimate pharmacies. Illicitly obtained buprenorphine formulations appear to be relatively inaccessible and at high cost on the Internet.