Treatment setting and buprenorphine discontinuation: an analysis of multi-state insurance claims.

BACKGROUND: Potential differences in buprenorphine treatment outcomes across various treatment settings are poorly characterized in multi-state administrative data. We thus evaluated the association of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment setting and insurance type with risk of buprenorphine discontinuation among commercial insurance and Medicaid enrollees initiated on buprenorphine. METHODS: In this observational, retrospective cohort study using the Merative MarketScan databases (2006-2016), we analyzed buprenorphine retention in 58,200 US adults with OUD. Predictor variables included insurance status (Medicaid vs commercial) and treatment setting, operationalized as substance use disorder (SUD) specialty treatment facility versus outpatient primary care physicians (PCPs) versus outpatient psychiatry, ascertained by linking physician visit codes to buprenorphine prescriptions. Treatment setting was inferred based on timing of prescriber visit claims preceding prescription fills. We estimated time to buprenorphine discontinuation using multivariable cox regression. RESULTS: Among enrollees with OUD receiving buprenorphine, 26,168 (45.0%) had prescriptions from SUD facilities without outpatient buprenorphine treatment, with the remaining treated by outpatient PCPs (n = 23,899, 41.1%) and psychiatrists (n = 8133, 13.9%). Overall, 50.6% and 73.3% discontinued treatment at 180 and 365 days respectively. Buprenorphine discontinuation was higher among enrollees receiving prescriptions from SUD facilities (aHR = 1.03[1.01-1.06]) and PCPs (aHR = 1.07[1.05-1.10]). Medicaid enrollees had lower buprenorphine retention than those with commercial insurance, particularly those receiving buprenorphine from SUD facilities and PCPs (aHR = 1.24[1.20-1.29] and aHR = 1.39[1.34-1.45] respectively, relative to comparator group of commercial insurance enrollees receiving buprenorphine from outpatient psychiatry). CONCLUSION: Buprenorphine discontinuation is high across outpatient PCP, psychiatry, and SUD treatment facility settings, with potentially lower treatment retention among Medicaid enrollees receiving care from SUD facilities and PCPs.

Co-occurring psychiatric disorders and disparities in buprenorphine utilization in opioid use disorder: An analysis of insurance claims.

Background: As the overdose crisis continues in the U.S. and Canada, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment outcomes for people with co-occurring psychiatric disorders are not well characterized. Our objective was to examine the influence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders on buprenorphine initiation and discontinuation. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used multi-state administrative claims data in the U.S. to evaluate rates of buprenorphine initiation (relative to psychosocial treatment without medication) in a cohort of 236,198 people with OUD entering treatment, both with and without co-occurring psychiatric disorders, grouping by psychiatric disorder subtype (mood, psychotic, and anxiety-and-related disorders). Among people initiating buprenorphine, we assessed the influence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders on buprenorphine retention. We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate buprenorphine initiation and Cox regression to estimate time to discontinuation, adjusting for all 3 classes of co-occurring disorders simultaneously and adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Buprenorphine initiation occurred in 29.3 % of those with co-occurring anxiety-and-related disorders, compared to 25.9 % and 17.5 % in people with mood and psychotic disorders. Mood (adjusted-risk-ratio[aRR] = 0.82[95 % CI = 0.82-0.83]) and psychotic disorders (aRR = 0.95[0.94-0.96]) were associated with decreased initiation (versus psychosocial treatment), in contrast to greater initiation in the anxiety disorders cohort (aRR = 1.06[1.05-1.06]). We observed an increase in buprenorphine discontinuation associated with mood (adjusted-hazard-ratio[aHR] = 1.20[1.17-1.24]) and anxiety disorders (aHR = 1.12[1.09-1.14]), in contrast to no association between psychotic disorders and buprenorphine discontinuation. Conclusions: We observed underutilization of buprenorphine among people with co-occurring mood and psychotic disorders, as well as high buprenorphine discontinuation across anxiety, mood, and psychotic disorders.

Adult Medical Cannabinoid Use and Changes in Prescription Controlled Substance Use.

Introduction: Nonopioid-based strategies for managing chronic noncancer pain are needed to help reduce overdose deaths. Although lab studies and population-level data suggest that cannabinoids could provide opioid-sparing effects, among medical cannabis participants they may also impact overdose risk by modifying other controlled substance use such as sedative hypnotics. However, no study has combined observational data at the individual level to empirically address interactions between the use of cannabinoids and prescribed controlled substances. Methods: Electronic health records, including prescription drug monitoring program data, from a large multisite medical cannabis program in New York State were abstracted for all participants with noncancer pain and recently prescribed noncannabinoid controlled substances who completed a new intake visit from April 15, 2018-April 14, 2019 and who remained actively in treatment for >180 days. Participants were partitioned into two samples: those with recent opioid use and those with active opioid use and co-use of sedative hypnotics. A patient-month level analysis assessed total average equivalent milligrams by class of drug (i.e., cannabinoid distinguishing tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] vs. cannabidiol [CBD], opioids, and sedative-hypnotics) received as a time-varying outcome measure across each 30-day "month" period postintake for at least 6 months for all participants. Results: Sample 1 of 285 opioid users were 61.1 years of age (±13.5), 57.5% female, and using an average of 49.7 (±98.5) morphine equivalents daily at intake. Unadjusted analyses found a modest decline in morphine equivalents to 43.9 mg (±94.1 mg) from 49.7 (±98.5) in month 1 (p=0.047) while receiving relatively low doses of THC (2.93 mg/day) and CBD (2.15 mg/day). Sample 2 of 95 opioid and sedative-hypnotic users were 60.9 years of age (±13.1), 63.2% female, and using an average of 86.6 (±136.2) morphine equivalents daily, and an average of 4.3 (±5.6) lorazepam equivalents. Unadjusted analyses did not find significant changes in either morphine equivalents (p=0.81) or lorazepam equivalents (p=0.980), and patients similarly received relatively low doses of THC (2.32 mg/day) and CBD (2.24 mg/day). Conclusions: Findings demonstrated minimal to no change in either opioids or sedative hypnotics over the 6 months of medical cannabis use but may be limited by low retention rates, external generalizability, and an inability to account for nonprescribed substance use.

Opioid overdose survivors: Medications for opioid use disorder and risk of repeat overdose in Medicaid patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically-treated opioid overdose are at high risk for subsequent adverse outcomes, including repeat overdose. Understanding factors associated with repeat overdose can aid in optimizing post-overdose interventions. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, retrospective cohort study using NJ Medicaid data from 2014 to 2019. Medicaid beneficiaries aged 12-64 with an index opioid overdose from 2015 to 2018 were followed for one year for subsequent overdose. Exposures included patient demographics; co-occurring medical, mental health, and substance use disorders; service and medication use in the 180 days preceding the index overdose; and MOUD following index overdose. RESULTS: Of 4898 individuals meeting inclusion criteria, 19.6% had repeat opioid overdoses within one year. Index overdoses involving heroin/synthetic opioids were associated with higher repeat overdose risk than those involving prescription/other opioids only (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.71). Risk was higher for males and those with baseline opioid use disorder diagnosis or ED visits. Only 21.7% received MOUD at any point in the year following overdose. MOUD was associated with a large decrease in repeat overdose risk among those with index overdose involving heroin/synthetic opioids (HR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.20-0.46). Among those receiving MOUD at any point in follow-up, 10.5% (112/1065) experienced repeat overdose versus 22.1% (848/3833) for those without MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat overdose was common among individuals with medically-treated opioid overdose. Risk factors for repeat overdose varied by type of opioid involved in index overdose, with differential implications for intervention. MOUD following index opioid overdose involving heroin/synthetic opioids was associated with reduced repeat overdose risk.

How Physician Workforce Shortages Are Hampering the Response to the Opioid Crisis.

The United States is experiencing an unprecedented opioid crisis, with a record of about 93,000 opioid-involved overdose deaths in 2020, which requires rapid and substantial scaling up of access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder. Only 18% of individuals with opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment, and strategies to increase access are hindered by a lack of treatment providers. Using a case study from the largest municipal hospital system in the United States, the authors describe the effects of a workforce shortage on health system responses to the opioid crisis. This national problem demands a multipronged approach, including federal programs to grow and diversify the pipeline of addiction providers, medical education initiatives, and enhanced training and mentorship to increase the capacity of allied clinicians to treat patients who have an opioid use disorder. Workforce development should be combined with structural reforms for integrating addiction treatment into mainstream medical care and with new treatment models, including telehealth, which can lower patient barriers to accessing treatment.

Impact Of Long-Term Buprenorphine Treatment On Adverse Health Care Outcomes In Medicaid.

The optimal, or even minimum, duration of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) needed to improve long-term outcomes has not been established empirically. As a result, health plans set potentially restrictive treatment standards to guide benefits and payment. To address this gap, we used a National Quality Forum measure for OUD medication treatment duration (180 days) to examine the impact of longer treatment on health care outcomes within a key population of Medicaid enrollees. Compared to buprenorphine discontinuation around the National Quality Forum benchmark (six to nine months), longer treatment (at least fifteen months) was associated with relative reductions in the risk of having all-cause inpatient (-52 percent) and emergency department (-26 percent) use, opioid-related hospital use (-128 percent), overdose events (-173 percent), and opioid prescriptions (-120 percent) and in the rate of prescription opioid use (-124 percent). We argue that these clinical benefits provide a rationale for policies that increase access to longer-term buprenorphine treatment, including lengthening the standards for minimum treatment duration.

Prescribing decisions at buprenorphine treatment initiation: Do they matter for treatment discontinuation and adverse opioid-related events?

INTRODUCTION: Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) that can be prescribed in multiple treatment settings. Treatment retention, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we examined the association of days of supply as well as daily dosage of the initial buprenorphine prescription with treatment discontinuation and adverse opioid-related events following buprenorphine initiation. METHODS: 2011 to 2015 Health Care Cost Institute commercial claims data were analyzed for individuals aged 18-64 years initiating buprenorphine treatment (N = 17,158). Treatment discontinuation was defined as a gap of 30 days or more in buprenorphine use within 180 days of initiation. Adverse opioid-related events were defined as having at least one emergency department visit or inpatient admission involving opioid poisoning, dependence or abuse within 360 days of initiation. We conducted multivariate logistic regressions to estimate adjusted odds ratios of outcomes associated with daily dose (≤4 mg vs. >4 mg) and days of supply (≤7, 8-15, 16-27, or ≥ 28 days) of the initial buprenorphine prescription. RESULTS: Over one-half (55%) of individuals discontinued buprenorphine within 180 days and 13% experienced at least one adverse opioid-related event within 360 days of initiation. Both a lower initial dose [≤4 mg, OR = 1.79, p < 0.01] and fewer initial days of supply [≤7 days vs. ≥28 days, OR = 1.32, p < 0.01] [8-15 days vs. ≥28 days, OR = 1.22, p < 0.01] were associated with increased odds of discontinuation. While a lower initial dose was not associated with adverse events, fewer initial days of supply were associated with a higher risk of adverse events, even after controlling for treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In this population of commercially insured, non-elderly adults, we found that fewer initial days of supply as well as a lower initial dose were associated with increased likelihood of treatment discontinuation, highlighting the importance of prescribing decisions when initiating buprenorphine for OUD.

Risk factors for discontinuation of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorders in a multi-state sample of Medicaid enrollees.

INTRODUCTION: Recent U.S. trends demonstrate sharp rises in adverse opioid-related health outcomes, including opioid use disorder (OUD), overdose, and death. Yet few affected people receive treatment for OUD and a minority of those who receive treatment are effectively retained in care. The purpose of this study was to examine duration of buprenorphine treatment for OUD following treatment initiation to identify risk factors for early discontinuation. METHODS: We analyzed insurance claims from the 2013-2015 MarketScan multi-state Medicaid database. The sample included adults 18-64 years old with an OUD diagnosis in the 6 months before initiating buprenorphine treatment, defined as 6 months without a buprenorphine claim prior to the index buprenorphine claim (N = 17,329 individuals). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate risk of discontinuing treatment (>30 days without buprenorphine supply), and logistic regression to estimate the odds of persistent treatment for a minimum of 180 days. RESULTS: Over one-quarter of the sample discontinued buprenorphine in the first month of treatment (N = 4928; 28.4%) and most discontinued before 180 days (N = 11,189; 64.6%). In the proportional hazards model, risk factors for discontinuation included a lower initial buprenorphine dose (≤4 mg; Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.72, p < .001), male sex (HR = 1.19, p < .001), younger age (HR = 1.34, p < .001), minority race/ethnicity (black HR = 1.31, p < .001; Hispanic HR = 1.24, p = .01; other HR = 1.09, p < .001), capitated insurance (HR = 1.21, p < .001), comorbid substance use disorders (alcohol HR = 1.07, p = .04; non-opioid drugs HR = 1.14, p < .001), hepatitis C (HR = 1.06, p = .01), opioid overdose history (HR = 1.20, p = .001), or any inpatient care (HR = 1.22, p < .001) in the 6-month baseline period. In logistic models, these risk factors were similarly associated with significantly lower odds of treatment retention for at least 180 days. CONCLUSION: For Medicaid beneficiaries with OUD treated with buprenorphine, there is a need to implement treatment models that more effectively address barriers to treatment retention. These barriers are particularly challenging for minorities, younger individuals, and those with additional substance use disorders.

Older, Less Regulated Medical Marijuana Programs Have Much Greater Enrollment Rates Than Newer 'Medicalized' Programs.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have passed laws implementing medical marijuana programs. The nineteen programs that were in operation as of October 2014 collectively had over one million participants. All states (including D.C.) with medical marijuana laws require physicians directly or indirectly to authorize the use of marijuana at their discretion, yet little is known about how medical marijuana programs vary regarding adherence to basic principles of medical practice and associated rates of enrollment. To explore this, we analyzed marijuana programs according to seven components of traditional medical care and pharmaceutical regulation. We then examined enrollment rates, while controlling for potentially confounding state characteristics. We found that fourteen of the twenty-four programs were nonmedical and collectively enrolled 99.4 percent of participants nationwide, with enrollment rates twenty times greater than programs deemed to be "medicalized." Policy makers implementing or amending medical marijuana programs should consider the powerful relationship between less regulation and greater enrollment. Researchers should consider variations across programs when assessing programs' population-level effects.

A review of a national training initiative to increase provider use of MAT to address the opioid epidemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Providers' Clinical Support System for Medication Assisted Treatment (PCSS-MAT) initiative focuses on training and mentoring health professionals in the treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) using pharmacological strategies. Led by the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP), PCSS-MAT is a consortium representing four of the five national professional organizations authorized by DATA 2,000-AAAP, American Osteopathic Academy of Addiction Medicine, American Psychiatric Association, and American Society of Addiction Medicine. DATA organizations are authorized to train physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD treatment. The primary aim of PCSS-MAT is to substantially increase evidence-based practices with medications for OUD. METHODS: This review describes the development of PCSS-MAT, an ongoing national initiative funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), to address the training needs posed by this critical public health problem. Core initiatives include: (1) Training and mentoring activities for primary care physicians; (2) Outreach to multidisciplinary professional organizations, (3) Creating a resource portal for families, patients, and communities for OUD treatment. RESULTS: Educational outreach to providers addresses the needs of patients with OUD and common co-occurring psychiatric and medical disorders. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The overall scope of PCSS-MAT is to increase access to evidence-based treatment of substance use disorders as a public health priority. Recently enacted legislation requires office-based opioid treatment programs to offer all Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA) forms of MAT. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Working with health care providers to effectively deliver MAT is key to integrating behavioral and physical medicine. (Am J Addict 2016;25:603-609).

Opportunities in Reform: Bioethics and Mental Health Ethics.

Last year marks the first year of implementation for both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in the United States. As a result, healthcare reform is moving in the direction of integrating care for physical and mental illness, nudging clinicians to consider medical and psychiatric comorbidity as the expectation rather than the exception. Understanding the intersections of physical and mental illness with autonomy and self-determination in a system realigning its values so fundamentally therefore becomes a top priority for clinicians. Yet Bioethics has missed opportunities to help guide clinicians through one of medicine's most ethically rich and challenging fields. Bioethics' distancing from mental illness is perhaps best explained by two overarching themes: 1) An intrinsic opposition between approaches to personhood rooted in Bioethics' early efforts to protect the competent individual from abuses in the research setting; and 2) Structural forces, such as deinstitutionalization, the Patient Rights Movement, and managed care. These two themes help explain Bioethics' relationship to mental health ethics and may also guide opportunities for rapprochement. The potential role for Bioethics may have the greatest implications for international human rights if bioethicists can re-energize an understanding of autonomy as not only free from abusive intrusions but also with rights to treatment and other fundamental necessities for restoring freedom of choice and self-determination. Bioethics thus has a great opportunity amid healthcare reform to strengthen the important role of the virtuous and humanistic care provider.