Effect of the Communities that HEAL intervention on receipt of behavioral therapies for opioid use disorder: A cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. opioid overdose crisis persists. Outpatient behavioral health services (BHS) are essential components of a comprehensive response to opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. The Helping to End Addiction Long-Term® (HEALing) Communities Study developed the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities in Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including BHS. This paper compares the rate of individuals receiving outpatient BHS in Wave 1 intervention communities (n = 34) to waitlisted Wave 2 communities (n = 33). METHODS: Medicaid data included individuals ≥18 years of age receiving any of five BHS categories: intensive outpatient, outpatient, case management, peer support, and case management or peer support. Negative binomial regression models estimated the rate of receiving each BHS for Wave 1 and Wave 2. Effect modification analyses evaluated changes in the effect of the CTH intervention between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by research site, rurality, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between intervention and waitlisted communities in the rate of individuals receiving any of the five BHS categories. None of the interaction effects used to test the effect modification were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors should be considered when interpreting results-no significant intervention effects were observed through Medicaid claims data, the best available data source but limited in terms of capturing individuals reached by the intervention. Also, the 12-month evaluation window may have been too brief to see improved outcomes considering the time required to stand-up BHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: Identifier: NCT04111939.

Cost of start-up activities to implement a community-level opioid overdose reduction intervention in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: Communities That HEAL (CTH) is a novel, data-driven community-engaged intervention designed to reduce opioid overdose deaths by increasing community engagement, adoption of an integrated set of evidence-based practices, and delivering a communications campaign across healthcare, behavioral-health, criminal-legal, and other community-based settings. The implementation of such a complex initiative requires up-front investments of time and other expenditures (i.e., start-up costs). Despite the importance of these start-up costs in investment decisions to stakeholders, they are typically excluded from cost-effectiveness analyses. The objective of this study is to report a detailed analysis of CTH start-up costs pre-intervention implementation and to describe the relevance of these data for stakeholders to determine implementation feasibility. METHODS: This study is guided by the community perspective, reflecting the investments that a real-world community would need to incur to implement the CTH intervention. We adopted an activity-based costing approach, in which resources related to hiring, training, purchasing, and community dashboard creation were identified through macro- and micro-costing techniques from 34 communities with high rates of fatal opioid overdoses, across four states-Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Resources were identified and assigned a unit cost using administrative and semi-structured-interview data. All cost estimates were reported in 2019 dollars. RESULTS: State-level average and median start-up cost (representing 8-10 communities per state) were $268,657 and $175,683, respectively. Hiring and training represented 40%, equipment and infrastructure costs represented 24%, and dashboard creation represented 36% of the total average start-up cost. Comparatively, hiring and training represented 49%, purchasing costs represented 18%, and dashboard creation represented 34% of the total median start-up cost. CONCLUSION: We identified three distinct CTH hiring models that affected start-up costs: hospital-academic (Massachusetts), university-academic (Kentucky and Ohio), and community-leveraged (New York). Hiring, training, and purchasing start-up costs were lowest in New York due to existing local infrastructure. Community-based implementation similar to the New York model may have lower start-up costs due to leveraging of existing infrastructure, relationships, and support from local health departments.

Establishing a Protocol for Determining the Costs of an Integrated Set of Evidence-based Practices Aimed at Reducing Opioid Overdose Deaths.

OBJECTIVES: In the midst of the opioid overdose crisis, local jurisdictions face a choice of public health interventions. A significant barrier when considering evidence-based practices (EBPs) is the lack of information regarding their implementation cost. This protocol paper provides the methodological foundation for the economic cost evaluations of community-wide strategies on the scale of a national study. It can serve as a resource for other communities, local policymakers, and stakeholders as they consider implementing possible public health strategies in their unique settings. METHODS: We present a protocol that details (1) the process of identifying, reviewing, and analyzing individual strategies for study-funded and non-study-funded costs; (2) prospective costing tool designation, and; (3) data collection. To do this, we set up working groups with community stakeholders, reviewed financial invoices, and surveyed individuals with detailed knowledge of their community implementation. DISCUSSION: There were 3 main challenges/limitations. The first was the lack of a standard structure for documenting nonfunded costs associated with each strategy. The second was the need for timely implementation of cost data. The third was generalizability because our study designed its strategies for selected communities due to their high opioid overdose mortality rates. Future steps include more tailored questions to ask during the categorization/filter process and establishing realistic expectations for organizations regarding documenting. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected will provide a critical methodological foundation for costing large community-based EBP strategies and provide clarity for stakeholders on the cost of implementing EBP strategies to reduce opioid overdose deaths.

Association of Arizona's Implementation of a Behavioral Health Crisis Response System With Suicide Hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: In July 2022, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline went live. The Lifeline is part of larger federal and state efforts to build comprehensive behavioral health crisis response systems that include mobile crisis units and crisis diversion and stabilization centers. Comprehensive response systems are anticipated to reduce hospitalizations for suicide and other behavioral health crises; however, research testing this assumption has been limited. The authors used Arizona-a state known for its comprehensive crisis system-to determine the association between state implementation of a comprehensive behavioral health crisis response system and suicide-related hospitalizations. METHODS: A comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) design was used to compare changes in suicide-related hospitalizations after the 2015 implementation of Arizona's crisis response system (N=215,063). Data were from the 2010-2019 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID). Nevada (N=84,091 hospitalizations) was used as a comparison state because it is a western state that had not yet implemented a comprehensive crisis system and had available HCUP SID data. The CITS model included controls for time-varying differences in state demographic composition. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2014 to 2019, annual suicide-related hospitalizations in Arizona increased from 122.0 to 324.2 to 584.5, respectively, per 100,000 people, and in Nevada, hospitalizations increased from 94.7 to 263.2 to 595.5, respectively, per 100,000 people. Arizona's crisis response system was associated with a significant relative decrease in the quarterly trend of 2.57 suicide-related hospitalizations per 100,000 people (p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to understand how the implementation of a comprehensive crisis response system may affect suicide-related hospitalizations.

Health care use and cost of treatment for adolescents and young adults with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the cost of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with counseling for the adolescent and young adult population. This study calculated the health care utilization and cost of MOUD treatment, other substance use disorder treatment, and general health care for adolescents and young adults receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: The study randomized youth ages 15 to 21 (N = 288) equally into the two study conditions: extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) or treatment as usual (TAU). While participants committed to treatment based on randomization the study observed considerable nonadherence to both randomized conditions. Instead of using the randomly assigned study conditions, we present descriptive costs by the type of MOUD treatment received: XR-NTX only, buprenorphine only, any other combination of MOUD treatments, and no MOUD. Health care use was aggregated over the 6-month period for each participant, and we calculated average/participant utilization for each treatment group. To determine participant costs, we multiplied the unit costs of health care services obtained from the literature by the reported amount of health care utilization for each participant. We then calculated the mean, standard error, median and IQR for MOUD costs, other substance use disorder treatment costs and general healthcare cost from the health care sector perspective. RESULTS: On average, participants in the XR-NTX only group received 2.6 doses of XR-NTX (equivalent to approximately 78 days of treatment). The buprenorphine only group had an average of 97 days of buprenorphine treatment. The XR-NTX only group had higher/patient costs compared to participants in the buprenorphine only group ($10,491 vs. $8765) and higher XR-NTX utilization would further increase costs. Participants in the any other MOUD combination group had the highest total costs ($14,627) while participants in the no MOUD group at the lowest ($3453). DISCUSSION: Our cost analysis calculates the real-world cost of MOUD treatment and, while not generalizable, provides policy makers an estimate of costs for adolescents and young adults. We found that participants in the XR-NTX only group received fewer days of medication compared to the buprenorphine only group, but their medication costs were higher due to the cost of XR-NTX injections. While the buprenorphine only group had the highest number of days of medication utilization of all the groups, the average number of days of medication utilization was considerably shorter than the six-month treatment period.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of abstinence contingent wage supplements.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders are correlated with unemployment and poverty. However, few interventions aim to improve substance use, unemployment, and, distally, poverty. The Abstinence-Contingent Wage Supplement (ACWS) randomized controlled trial combined a therapeutic workplace with abstinence-contingent wage supplements to address substance use and unemployment. The ACWS study found that abstinence-contingent wage supplements increased the percentage of participants who had negative drug tests, who were employed, and who were above the poverty line during the intervention period. This study presents the cost of ACWS and calculates the cost-effectiveness of ACWS compared with usual care. METHODS: To calculate the cost and cost-effectiveness of ACWS, we used activity-based costing methods to cost the intervention and calculated the costs from the provider and healthcare sector perspective. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for negative drug tests and employment. RESULTS: ACWS cost $11,310 per participant over the 12-month intervention period. Total intervention and healthcare costs per participant over the intervention period were $20,625 for usual care and $30,686 for ACWS. At the end of the intervention period an additional participant with a negative drug test cost $1437 while an additional participant employed cost $915. CONCLUSIONS: ACWS increases drug abstinence and employment and may be cost-effective at the end of the 12-month intervention period if decision makers are willing to pay the incremental cost associated with the intervention.

Modeling the impact of COVID-19 pandemic-driven increases in alcohol consumption on health outcomes and hospitalization costs in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol consumption increased in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and risky drinking are linked to harmful health effects. This paper aimed to project future health and cost impacts of shifts in alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An individual-level simulation model of the long-term drinking patterns for people with life-time AUD was used to simulate 10 000 individuals and project model outcomes to the estimated 25.9 million current drinkers with life-time AUD in the United States. The model considered three scenarios: (1) no change (counterfactual for comparison); (2) increased drinking levels persist for 1 year ('increase-1') and (3) increased drinking levels persist for 5 years ('increase-5'). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Current drinkers with life-time AUD. MEASUREMENTS: Life expectancy [life-years (LYs)], quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), alcohol-related hospitalizations and associated hospitalization costs and alcohol-related deaths, during a 5-year period. FINDINGS: Short-term increases in alcohol consumption (increase-1 scenario) resulted in a loss of 79 000 [95% uncertainty interval (UI]) 26 000-201 000] LYs, a loss of 332 000 (104 000-604 000) QALYs and 295 000 (82 000-501 000) more alcohol-related hospitalizations, costing an additional $5.4 billion ($1.5-9.3 billion) over 5 years. Hospitalizations for cirrhosis of the liver accounted for approximately $3.0 billion ($0.9-4.8 billion) in hospitalization costs, more than half the increase across all alcohol-related conditions. Health and cost impacts were more pronounced for older age groups (51+), women and non-Hispanic black individuals. Increasing the duration of pandemic-driven increases in alcohol consumption in the increase-5 scenario resulted in larger impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Simulations show that if the increase in alcohol consumption observed in the United States in the first year of the pandemic continues, alcohol-related mortality, morbidity and associated costs will increase substantially over the next 5 years.

Cost and Cost Savings of Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization for a Comorbid Substance Use Disorder Population.

BACKGROUND: A randomized clinical trial found that patient navigation for hospital patients with comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) reduced emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospital utilization compared with treatment-as-usual. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and calculate any cost savings from the Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization (NavSTAR) intervention over treatment-as-usual. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study calculates activity-based costs from the health care providers and uses a net benefits approach to calculate the cost savings generated from NavSTAR. NavSTAR provided patient navigation focused on engagement in SUD treatment, starting before hospital discharge and continuing for up to 3 months postdischarge. SUBJECTS: Adult hospitalized medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD for opioids, cocaine, and/or alcohol. COST MEASURES: Cost of the 3-month NavSTAR patient navigation intervention and the cost of all inpatient days and ED visits over a 12-month period. RESULTS OF BASE CASE ANALYSIS: NavSTAR generated $17,780 per participant in cost savings. Ninety-seven percent of bootstrapped samples generated positive cost savings, and our sensitivity analyses did not change our results. LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited at one hospital in Baltimore, MD through the hospital's addiction consultation service. Findings may not generalize to the broader population. Outpatient health care cost data was not available through administrative records. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that patient navigation interventions should be considered by payors and policy makers to reduce the high hospital costs associated with comorbid SUD patients.

The Relationship Between Reductions in WHO Risk Drinking Levels During Treatment and Subsequent Healthcare Costs for the ACTIVE Workgroup.

BACKGROUND: Abstinence has historically been considered the target outcome for alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment, yet recent work has found drinking reductions after AUD treatment, as measured by World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels, are associated with meaningful improvements in functioning, physical health, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: This study extends previous analyses of AUD treatment outcomes by estimating the association between changes in WHO risk drinking levels (very high, high, medium, and low, based on average daily alcohol consumption) and healthcare costs. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the COMBINE study, a multisite randomized clinical trial of acamprosate, naltrexone and behavioral interventions for AUD. Generalized gamma regression models were used to estimate relationships between WHOrisk drinking level reductions over the course of treatment and healthcare costs in the year after treatment (N = 964) and up to 3 years following treatment (N = 651). RESULTS: SustainedWHOrisk drinking reductions of 2 or more levels throughout treatment were associated with 52.0% lower healthcare costs ( P < 0.001) in the year following treatment, and 44.0% lower costs ( P < 0.0025) over 3 years. A reduction of exactly 1 level was associated with 34.8% lower costs over 3 years, which was not significant ( P = 0.05). Cost reductions were driven by lower inpatient behavioral health and emergency department utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in WHO risk drinking levels of at least 2 levels was associated with lower healthcare costs over 1 and 3 years. Our results add to literature showing drinking reductions are associated with improvement in health.

The association of Medicare Part D prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone with adherence to opioid use disorder treatment guidelines in the United States.

AIMS: To assess differences in the quality of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment received by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in health plans that used prior authorization (PA) for buprenorphine-naloxone compared with those enrolled in plans that did not use PA. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional observational study, United States. Continuously enrolled beneficiaries (71 294) with an OUD who filled at least one prescription for buprenorphine-naloxone between March 2012 and July 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of patients tested for hepatis B, hepatis C, HIV and liver functioning; percentage of patients with urine drug screens and number of urine drug screens; continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone for at least 180 days; co-use of benzodiazepines; number of outpatient visits with and without an OUD diagnosis. FINDINGS: PA was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of testing for hepatitis B [-3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.4, -2.7] and C (-5.9, 95% CI = -6.9, -4.9), but the findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in HIV (-1.1, 95% CI = -2.5, 0.4) or liver function testing (1.3, 95% CI = -0.1, 2.7). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of urine drug screening (-25.5, 95% CI = -26.8, -24.1) and with fewer drug screens (-2.5, 95% CI = -3.0, -2.1). Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone (0.3, 95% CI = -1.2, 1.8). PA was associated with fewer outpatient visits (-2.1, 95% CI = -3.0, -1.2) and fewer outpatient visits with an OUD diagnosis (-1.7, 95% CI = -2.1, -1.3). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of filling benzodiazepine prescriptions before and after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (-28.9, 95% CI = -29.6, -28.3) but a greater likelihood of only using benzodiazepines after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (10.6, 95% CI = 9.3, 11.8). CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare patients subject to prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone are not more likely to receive high-quality treatment for opioid use disorder than patients not subject to prior authorization.

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Incentives for Viral Suppression in People Living with HIV.

Only 63% of people living with HIV in the United States are achieving viral suppression. Structural and social barriers limit adherence to antiretroviral therapy which furthers the HIV epidemic while increasing health care costs. This study calculated the cost and cost-effectiveness of a contingency management intervention with cash incentives. People with HIV and detectable viral loads were randomized to usual care or an incentive group. Individuals could earn up to $3650 per year if they achieved and maintained an undetectable viral load. The average 1-year intervention cost, including incentives, was $4105 per patient. The average health care costs were $27,189 per patient in usual care and $35,853 per patient in the incentive group. We estimated a cost of $28,888 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which is well below accepted cost-per-QALY thresholds. Contingency management with cash incentives is a cost-effective intervention for significantly increasing viral suppression.

Prior Authorization for Opioid Use Disorder Versus Pain Medications: Lessons Learned for Parity Enforcement.

OBJECTIVE: This study characterized the use of prior authorization for opioid use disorder medications as compared with that for opioid pain medications in the United States among Medicare Part D plans. METHOD: Medicare Part D formulary data from 2017-2019 were used to describe differences in prior authorization between opioid use disorder medications and opioid pain medications. RESULTS: In 2017, 72% of Medicare Part D formularies required prior authorization for brand buprenorphine-naloxone, whereas 6% of formularies required prior authorization for brand oxycodone. In 2019, 3% of formularies required prior authorization for brand buprenorphine-naloxone, whereas 16% of formularies required prior authorization for brand oxycodone. Throughout the study period, other formulary restrictions such as quantity limits were similar for both medications. CONCLUSIONS: The disparate use of prior authorization in 2017 for opioid use disorder medications as compared with opioid pain medications suggests that formulary decision making may be inconsistent between medications used to treat substance use disorders and those used to treat pain. If Part D formularies publicly released their decision-making criteria, then there would be a greater understanding of why prior authorization was differentially applied. Greater transparency would help ensure that formulary decisions are not the result of biases and stigma toward substance use disorders.

Health economic design for cost, cost-effectiveness and simulation analyses in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings. METHODS: The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list-controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. DISCUSSION: The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of interim methadone treatment and patient navigation initiated in jail.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are released from pre-trial detention in jail have a high risk of opioid relapse. While several interventions for OUD initiated during incarceration have been studied, few have had an economic evaluation. As part of a three-group randomized trial, we estimated the cost and cost-effectiveness of a negative urine opioid test. Detainees were assigned to interim methadone (IM) in jail with continued methadone treatment post-release with and without 3 months of post-release patient navigation (PN) compared to an enhanced treatment-as-usual group. METHODS: We implemented a micro-costing approach from the provider's perspective to estimate the cost per participant in jail and over the 12 months post-release from jail. Economic data included jail-based and community-based service utilization, self-reported healthcare utilization and justice system involvement, and administrative arrest records. Our outcome measure is the number of participants with a negative opioid urine test at their 12-month follow-up. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for intervention costs only and costs from a societal perspective. RESULTS: The average cost of providing patient navigation services per individual beginning in jail and continuing in the community was $283. We find that IM is dominated by ETAU and IM + PN. Per additional participant with a negative opioid urine test, the ICER for IM + PN including intervention costs only is $91 and $305 including societal costs. CONCLUSIONS: IM + PN is almost certainly the cost-effective choice from both an intervention provider and societal perspective.

Adherence to buprenorphine treatment guidelines among individuals with an opioid use disorder who have private insurance.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) with medications is expanding, the extent to which practitioners are prescribing medications following best practices has received little attention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which privately insured patients being treated for OUD with buprenorphine were treated in a manner consistent with practice guidelines. DESIGN: Longitudinal analyses of a large commercial claims dataset from 2012 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data for 38,517 patients with an OUD diagnosis continuously enrolled for 3 months prior to and 6 months after an initial buprenorphine or buprenorphine-naloxone prescription fill. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated whether practitioners tested patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, and liver function; how often they received urine drug screens; the frequency of outpatient visits; and the extent to which they filled prescriptions for buprenorphine for at least 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Practitioners tested approximately 4.7% of patients for hepatitis B, 6.5% for hepatitis C, and 29.3% for HIV; they tested 8.0% for liver functioning; and gave 33.3% urine drug tests. Approximately 76% of patients had at least one outpatient visit for their OUD. Among those with at least one visit, the mean number of visits was 7.38. After the initial prescription, 47.5% stayed on buprenorphine for at least 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of privately insured patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD did not receive care consistent with guidelines.

Comparison of Medicaid Reimbursements for Psychiatrists and Primary Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether state Medicaid programs systematically reimburse psychiatrists less than they reimburse primary care physicians. METHODS: This study used outpatient Medicaid claims data from 2014 for 11 U.S. states. Claims with a primary behavioral health diagnosis (i.e., mental or substance use disorder) and an evaluation and management procedure code of 99213 or 99214 were identified. These are the most frequently used procedure codes by both psychiatrists and primary care physicians when treating patients with mental and substance use disorders. Average reimbursements were compared for nonfacility claims submitted by psychiatrists and primary care physicians. RESULTS: In 9 states, psychiatrists were reimbursed less on average than primary care physicians. In one state, reimbursements were nearly equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in reimbursements across specialties may reduce access to psychiatric specialty care through Medicaid and are inconsistent with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Prior authorization requirements may be a barrier to accessing medications for opioid use disorder treatment and may, therefore, be associated with poor health care outcomes. Objective: To determine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative interrupted time series analysis examined enrollment and insurance claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with an opioid use disorder diagnosis or who filled a prescription for an opioid use disorder medication between 2012 and 2017. Over this period, 775 874 members were in 1479 Part D plans that always required prior authorization, 113 286 members were in 206 plans that removed prior authorization, 189 461 members were in 489 plans that never required prior authorization, and 619 919 members were in 485 plans that added prior authorization. Data analysis was performed from April 2019 to February 2020. Exposures: Removal or addition of prior authorization and new prescriptions filled for buprenorphine-naloxone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Buprenorphine-naloxone use, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and prescription drug and medical expenditures. Results: The study population in 2012 included 949 206 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 57 [15] years; 550 445 women [58%]). Removal of prior authorization was associated with an increase of 17.9 prescriptions (95% CI, 1.1 to 34.7 prescriptions) filled for buprenorphine-naloxone per plan per year, which is a doubling of the number of prescriptions, on average. Each prescription filled was associated with statistically significant decreases in adverse health care outcomes: substance use disorder-related inpatient admissions decreased by 0.1 admission per plan per year (95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1 admission per plan per year), and substance use disorder-related emergency department visits decreased by 0.1 visit per plan per year (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.03 visit per plan per year) (all P < .001). Combining these results, removal of prior authorization was associated with a reduction in substance use disorder-related inpatient admissions by 2.0 admissions per plan per year (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.1 admissions per plan per year) and substance use disorder-related emergency department visits by 1.4 visits per plan per year (95% CI, -3.2 to -0.1 visits per plan per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Removing prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with an increase in the medication use and decreases in health care utilization and expenditures.