Methadone Prescribing Regulation for Opioid Use Disorder in Canada: Evidence for an East-West Policy Divide.

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is a key element in the response to opioid-related harms in Canada. In May 2018, Health Canada rescinded the requirement for obtaining a federal exemption for methadone prescribing. This comparative analysis examined provincial OAT policies and policy changes in response to this federal policy change. Policies and changes were regionalized; despite having lower rates of opioid-related harms, eastern provinces had looser regulatory regimes compared with western provinces, which became even looser after the federal policy change. Diverse knowledge and policy networks need to be fostered to bridge this east-west divide in substance use care policy.

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.

Estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opioid use disorder treatment under proposed U.S. regulatory relaxations: A model-based analysis.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine and methadone treatment in the U.S. if exemptions expanding coverage for substance use disorder services via telehealth and allowing opioid treatment programs to supply a greater number of take-home doses of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) continue (Notice of Proposed Rule Making, NPRM). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Model-based analysis of buprenorphine and methadone treatment for a cohort of 100,000 individuals with OUD, varying treatment retention and overdose risk among individuals receiving and not receiving methadone treatment compared to the status quo (no NPRM). INTERVENTION: Buprenorphine and methadone treatment under NPRM. MEASUREMENTS: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime per person QALYs and costs. FINDINGS: For buprenorphine treatment under the status quo, 1.21 QALYs are gained at a cost of $19,200/QALY gained compared to no treatment; with 20% higher treatment retention, 1.28 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and the strategy dominates the status quo. For methadone treatment under the status quo, 1.11 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment. In all scenarios, methadone provision cost less than $20,000/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and less than $50,000/QALY gained compared to status quo methadone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine and methadone OUD treatment under NPRM are likely to be effective and cost-effective. Increases in overdose risk with take-home methadone would reduce health benefits. Clinical and technological strategies could mitigate this risk.

Utilization of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Among West Virginia Medicaid Enrollees Following Medicaid Coverage of Methadone.

BACKGROUND: West Virginia entered an institution for mental disease Section 1115 waiver with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2018, which allowed Medicaid to cover methadone at West Virginia's nine opioid treatment programs (OTPs) for the first time. METHODS: We conducted time trend and geospatial analyses of Medicaid enrollees between 2016 and 2019 to examine medications for opioid use disorder utilization patterns following Medicaid coverage of methadone, focusing on distance to an OTP as a predictor of initiating methadone and conditional on receiving any, longer treatment duration. RESULTS: Following Medicaid coverage of methadone in 2018, patients receiving methadone comprised 9.5% of all Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnosis and 10.6% in 2019 (P < 0.01). In 2018, two-thirds of methadone patients either had no prior OUD diagnosis or were not previously enrolled in Medicaid in our observation period. Patients residing within 20 miles of an OTP were more likely to receive methadone (marginal effect [ME]: -0.041, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients residing in metropolitan areas were more likely to receive treatment than those residing in nonmetropolitan areas (ME: -0.019, P < 0.05). Metropolitan patients traveled an average of 15 miles to an OTP; nonmetropolitan patients traveled more than twice as far (P < 0.001). We found no significant association between distance and treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: West Virginia Medicaid's new methadone coverage was associated with an influx of new enrollees with OUD, many of whom had no previous OUD diagnosis or prior Medicaid enrollment. Methadone patients frequently traveled far distances for treatment, suggesting that the state needs additional OTPs and innovative methadone delivery models to improve availability.

Geographic variation in availability of opioid treatment programs across U.S. communities.

Methadone for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) treatment is only dispensed at Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs). Little is known about the geographic variation in OTP availability and community characteristics associated with the availability across smaller geographic communities in the U.S. To (1) describe geographic distribution of OTPs and (2) examine OTP availability by community characteristics in the contiguous U.S. at Zip Code Area Tabulation (ZCTA) level. Logistic regression was used to examine community characteristics associated with OTP availability (N = 30,367). Chi-square and t-tests were conducted to examine statistically significant differences in OTP availability. Maps and descriptive statistics were used to examine geographic variation in OTP availability. Only 5% (1,417) of ZCTAs had at least one OTP for a total of 1,682 OTPs. Rural ZCTAs had 50% lower odds of having an OTP compared to urban ZCTAs [AOR 0.5; (95% CI: 0.41-0.60)]. ZCTAs in the lowest income quartile had higher odds of having an OTP compared to ZCTAs in the highest income quartile [AOR 3.4; (95% CI: 2.71-4.18)]. Further, ZCTAs with OTPs had a higher proportion of minority residents [Black: 17.5% vs. 7.2%; Hispanic: 19.2% vs. 9%] and a lower proportion of White residents [55.1% vs. 78.2%]. Nationally, OTPs are extremely scarce with notable regional and urban-rural disparities. Potential solutions to address these disparities are discussed.

Introduction of Medicare coverage in opioid treatment programs: Findings from the first three years.

BACKGROUND: Prior to January of 2020, there was no Medicare reimbursement for services delivered in opioid treatment programs (OTPs). OTPs are the only authorized providers of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment with methadone, a critical tool to address the opioid overdose crisis. While prior research has examined the availability of MOUD other than methadone for Medicare beneficiaries, research has not identified organizational and local Medicare beneficiary characteristics associated with Medicare insurance acceptance among OTPs. OBJECTIVES: This study has two objectives: 1) to determine the extent to which OTPs began accepting Medicare insurance in the first three years following the new Medicare OTP benefit; and 2) to identify organizational characteristics and local Medicare beneficiary characteristics associated with OTP acceptance of Medicare. METHODS: We used data from the 2021-2023 National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities to examine OTP acceptance of Medicare. We used logistic regression to identify organizational characteristics and local Medicare beneficiary characteristics associated with OTP acceptance of Medicare (n = 4630 OTPs). RESULTS: By 2022, about 78.7 % of OTPs accepted Medicare, compared to only 41.1 % of non-OTPs. The odds of Medicare acceptance were lower among for-profit OTPs, compared to non-profit OTPs, and higher among OTPs that accepted Medicaid and private insurance. Additionally, the odds of accepting Medicare were lower for OTPs located in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, compared to OTPs located in the West. Finally, the odds of accepting Medicare were higher for OTPs located in counties with higher percentages of Non-Hispanic White Medicare beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: We found high rates of Medicare acceptance among OTPs in the first three years of the Medicare OTP benefit, suggesting increased access to OUD treatment via OTPs for Medicare beneficiaries. While promising, results indicate potential geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in access to OTPs.

'Planning for a healthy baby and a healthy pregnancy': A critical analysis of Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid dependence during pregnancy.

As opioid fatalities rise in North America, the need to improve the supports available to those who are dependent on opioids and pregnant has become more urgent. This paper discusses the social organisation of drug treatment supports for those who are pregnant, using Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) as a case study. Pregnant patients are a priority population for MMT, both in Canada and internationally; the regulatory bodies that oversee MMT in Canada are the provincial Colleges of Physician and Surgeons and Health Canada. The paper analyses MMT CPGs published by these agencies, comparing their general recommendations to those specific to pregnant patients. We demonstrate that the guidelines address few treatment considerations for pregnant patients, other than improved birth outcomes and child welfare, despite acknowledging their more complex needs. Drawing on social science studies of gender and drugs, we argue that MMT CPGs therefore perpetuate the intensified surveillance and foetal prioritisation that have long generated barriers to care for opiate-dependent pregnant patients. We also discuss how and why the CPGs ultimately only reinforced these current limitations in the drug treatment sector.

Changes in Medicaid Fee-for-Service Benefit Design for Substance Use Disorder Treatment During the Opioid Crisis, 2014 to 2021.

Importance: Medicaid is the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment in the US and plays a key role in responding to the opioid epidemic. However, as recently as 2017, many state Medicaid programs still did not cover the full continuum of clinically recommended care. Objective: To determine whether state Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) programs have expanded coverage and loosened restrictions on access to substance use disorder treatment in recent years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In 2014, 2017, and 2021, a survey on coverage for substance use disorder treatment was conducted among state Medicaid programs and the District of Columbia with FFS programs. This survey was completed by Medicaid program directors or knowledgeable staff. Data analysis was performed in 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following were calculated for a variety of substance use disorder treatment services (individual and group outpatient, intensive outpatient, short-term and long-term residential, recovery support, inpatient treatment and detoxification, and outpatient detoxification) and medications (methadone, oral and injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine): (1) the percentage of Medicaid FFS programs covering these services and medications and (2) the percentage of Medicaid FFS programs using utilization management policies, such as copayments, prior authorizations, and annual maximums. Results: This study had response rates of 92% in 2014 and 2017 (47 of 51 states) and 90% in 2021 (46 of 51 states). For the 2021 wave, data are reported for the 38 non-managed care organization plan-only states. Between 2017 and 2021, coverage of individual and group outpatient treatment increased to 100% of states, and use of annual maximums for medications decreased to 3% or less (n ≤ 1). However, important gaps in coverage persisted, particularly for more intensive services: 10% of Medicaid FFS programs (n = 4) did not cover intensive outpatient treatment, 13% (n = 5) did not cover short-term residential care, and 33% (n = 13) did not cover long-term residential care. Use of utilization controls, such as copays, prior authorizations, and annual maximums, decreased but continued to be widespread. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of state Medicaid FFS programs, increases in coverage and decreases in use of utilization management policies over time were observed for substance use disorder treatment and medications. However, these findings suggest that some states still lag behind and impose barriers to treatment. Future research should work to identify the long-term ramifications of these barriers for patients.

Changes In County-Level Access To Medications For Opioid Use Disorder After Medicare Coverage Of Methadone Treatment Began.

In 2020 Medicare began reimbursing for opioid treatment program (OTP) services, including methadone maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), for the first time. Methadone is highly effective for OUD, yet its availability is restricted to OTPs. We used 2021 data from the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities to examine county-level factors associated with OTPs accepting Medicare. In 2021, 16.3 percent of counties had at least one OTP that accepted Medicare. In 124 counties the OTP was the only specialty treatment facility offering any form of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Regression results showed that the odds of a county having an OTP that accepted Medicare were lower for counties with higher versus lower percentages of rural residents and lower for counties located in the Midwest, South, and West compared with the Northeast. The new OTP benefit improved the availability of MOUD treatment for beneficiaries, although geographic gaps in access remain.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Buprenorphine and Methadone Utilization Among Reproductive-Age Women with Opioid Use Disorder: an Analysis of Multi-state Medicaid Claims in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Associations between race/ethnicity and medications to treat OUD (MOUD), buprenorphine and methadone, in reproductive-age women have not been thoroughly studied in multi-state samples. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate racial/ethnic variation in buprenorphine and methadone receipt and retention in a multi-state U.S. sample of Medicaid-enrolled, reproductive-age women with opioid use disorder (OUD) at the beginning of OUD treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Reproductive-age (18-45 years) women with OUD, in the Merative™ MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database (2011-2016). MAIN MEASURES: Differences by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, "other" race/ethnicity) in the likelihood of receiving buprenorphine and methadone during the start of OUD treatment (yes/no) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Differences in time to medication discontinuation (days) by race/ethnicity were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 66,550 reproductive-age Medicaid enrollees with OUD (84.1% non-Hispanic White, 5.9% non-Hispanic Black, 1.0% Hispanic, 5.3% "other"), 15,313 (23.0%) received buprenorphine and 6290 (9.5%) methadone. Non-Hispanic Black enrollees were less likely to receive buprenorphine (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.76 [0.68-0.84]) and more likely to be referred to methadone clinics (aOR = 1.78 [1.60-2.00]) compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Across both buprenorphine and methadone in unadjusted analyses, the median discontinuation time for non-Hispanic Black enrollees was 123 days compared to 132 days and 141 days for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic enrollees respectively (χ2 = 10.6; P = .01). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black enrollees experienced greater discontinuation for buprenorphine and methadone (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 1.16 [1.08-1.24] and aHR = 1.16 [1.07-1.30] respectively) compared to non-Hispanic White peers. We did not observe differences in buprenorphine or methadone receipt or retention for Hispanic enrollees compared to the non-Hispanic White enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Our data illustrate inequities between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White Medicaid enrollees with regard to buprenorphine and methadone utilization in the USA, consistent with literature on the racialized origins of methadone and buprenorphine treatment.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Trends in Methadone Dispensing for Opioid Use Disorder After Medicare Payment Policy Changes.

Importance: A significant proportion of Medicare beneficiaries have a diagnosed opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine are both effective medications for the treatment of OUD (MOUDs); however, Medicare did not cover methadone until 2020. Objective: To examine trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees after 2 policy changes in 2020 related to methadone access. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of temporal trends in methadone and buprenorphine treatment dispensing assessed MA beneficiary claims from January 1, 2019, through March 31, 2022, captured by Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart. Of 9 870 791 MA enrollees included in the database, 39 252 had at least 1 claim for methadone, buprenorphine, or both during the study period. All available MA enrollees were included. Subanalyses by age and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid status were conducted. Exposures: Study exposures were (1) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare bundled payment reimbursement policy for OUD treatment and (2) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and CMS Medicare policies designed to facilitate access to treatment for OUD, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing by beneficiary characteristics. National methadone and buprenorphine dispensing rates were calculated as claims-based dispensing rates per 1000 MA enrollees. Results: Among the 39 252 MA enrollees with at least 1 MOUD dispensing claim (mean age, 58.6 [95% CI, 58.57-58.62] years; 45.9% female), 195 196 methadone claims and 540 564 buprenorphine pharmacy claims were identified, for a total of 735 760 dispensing claims. The methadone dispensing rate for MA enrollees was 0 in 2019 because the policy did not allow any payment until 2020. Claims rates per 1000 MA enrollees were low initially, increasing from 0.98 in the first quarter of 2020 to 4.71 in the first quarter of 2022. Increases were primarily associated with dually eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries younger than 65 years. National buprenorphine dispensing rates were 4.64 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2019, increasing to 7.45 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2022. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that methadone dispensing increased among Medicare beneficiaries after the policy changes. Rates of buprenorphine dispensing did not provide evidence that beneficiaries substituted buprenorphine for methadone. The 2 new CMS policies represent an important first step in increasing access to MOUD treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.

Cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of prescription-type opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) versus methadone alongside the OPTIMA trial in Canada. METHODS: The OPTIMA study was a pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm randomized controlled trial, to assess the comparative effectiveness of flexible take-home BNX vs. methadone in routine clinical care for individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using a semi-Markov cohort model. Probabilities of overdose were calibrated, accounting for fentanyl prevalence and other overdose risk factors such as naloxone availability. We considered health sector and societal cost perspectives, including costs (2020 CAD) for treatment, health resource use, criminal activity, and health state-specific preference weights as outcomes to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Six-month and lifetime (3% annual discount rate) time-horizons were explored. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, individuals accumulated -0.144 [CI: -0.302, -0.025] incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$2047 [CI: -$39,197, $24,250] from a societal perspective, and -$4549 [CI: -$6332, -$3001] from a health sector perspective. Over a six-month time-horizon, individuals accumulated 0.002 [credible interval (CI): -0.011, 0.016] incremental QALYs in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$307 [CI: -$10,385, $8466] from a societal perspective and -$1111 [CI: -$1517, -$631] from a health sector perspective. BNX was dominated (costlier, less effective) in 49.7% of simulations when adopting a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible take-home BNX was not cost-effective versus methadone over a lifetime time horizon, resulting from better treatment retention in methadone compared to BNX.

Budget impact tool for the incorporation of medications for opioid use disorder into jail/prison facilities.

BACKGROUND: Given the personal and public consequences of untreated/undertreated OUD among persons involved in the justice system, an increasing number of jails and prisons are incorporating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) into their system. Estimating the costs of implementing and sustaining a particular MOUD program is vital to detention facilities, which typically face modest, fixed health care budgets. We developed a customizable budget impact tool to estimate the implementation and sustainment costs of numerous MOUD delivery models for detention facilities. METHODS: The aim is to describe the tool and present an application of a hypothetical MOUD model. The tool is populated with resources required to implement and sustain various MOUD models in detention facilities. We identified resources via micro-costing techniques alongside randomized clinical trials. The resource-costing method is used to assign values to resources. Resources/costs are categorized as (a) fixed, (b) time-dependent, and (c) variable. Implementation costs include (a), (b), and (c) over a specified timeframe. Sustainment costs include (b) and (c). The MOUD model example entails offering all three FDA-approved medications, with methadone and buprenorphine provided by vendors, and naltrexone by the jail/prison facility. RESULTS: Fixed resources/costs are incurred only once, including accreditation fees and trainings. Time-dependent resources/costs are recurring, but fixed over a given time-period; e.g., medication delivery and staff meetings. Variable resources/costs are those that are a direct function of the number of persons treated, such as the medication provided to each patient. Using nationally representative prices, we estimated fixed/sustainment costs to be $2919/patient, over 1 year. This article estimates annual sustainment costs to be $2885/patient. CONCLUSION: The tool will serve as a valuable asset to jail/prison leadership, policymakers, and other stakeholders interested in identifying/estimating the resources and costs associated with alternative MOUD delivery models, from the planning stages through sustainment.

Treatment access for opioid use disorder among women with medicaid in Florida.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) remains prevalent. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are standard care for pregnant and non-pregnant women. Previous research has identified barriers to MOUD for women with Medicaid but did not account for the type of MOUD (methadone vs. buprenorphine) or pregnancy status. We examined access to MOUD by treatment type for pregnant and non-pregnant women with Medicaid in Florida. METHODS: A secondary analysis of Florida "secret-shopper" data was conducted. Calls were made to clinicians from the 2018 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration provider list by women posing as either a pregnant or non-pregnant woman with OUD and Medicaid. We examined 546 calls to buprenorphine-waivered providers (BWP) and 139 to opioid treatment programs (OTP). Counts and percentages were used to describe caller success by type of treatment and pregnancy status. Chi-square tests were used to identify statistical differences. RESULTS: Only 42 % of calls reached a treatment provider in Florida. Pregnant and non-pregnant women were less likely to obtain an appointment with Medicaid coverage by a BWP than an OTP (p < 0.01). Nearly 40 % of OTPs offered appointments to callers with Medicaid compared to only 17 % of BWPs. Both types of providers denied appointments more often for pregnant women. Thirty-eight percent of BWP's and 12 % of OTP's denied appointments to pregnant women using cash or Medicaid payment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates logistical and financial barriers to treatment for OUD among pregnant and non-pregnant women with Medicaid in Florida and highlights the need for improved systems of care.

Economic, social, and clinic influences on opioid treatment program retention in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are associated with positive health outcomes. People remaining on MOUD have a reduced likelihood of drug overdose and mortality. Tanzania supports a national opioid treatment program (OTP) offering MOUD, but retention is a continual challenge. To date, most research on MOUD retention in Tanzania and other Sub-Saharan Africa settings has been focused on the individual-level, with little attention to economic, social, and clinic-level factors. METHODS: We qualitatively examined economic, social, and clinic factors that affect retention on MOUD, specifically methadone maintenance therapy, among former and current clients attending an OTP clinic Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. We conducted in-depth interviews with a total of 40 current and former clients receiving MOUD and four focus groups with an additional 35 current clients on MOUD between January and April 2020. We utilized a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Daily OTP clinic attendance posed a financial burden to current and former clients and was a barrier to remaining on MOUD. Though treatment is free, clients described struggles to attend clinic, including being able to afford transportation. Female clients were differentially impacted, as sex work was the most common income-generating activity that they participated in, which presented its own set of unique challenges, including barriers to attending during set clinic hours. Drug use stigma acted as a barrier to MOUD and prevented clients from securing a job, rebuilding trust within the community, and accessing transportation to attend the clinic. Being able to rebuild trust with family facilitated remaining on MOUD, as family provided social and financial support. Caretaking responsibilities and familial expectations among female clients conflicted with MOUD adherence. Finally, clinic level factors, such as clinic dispensing hours and punitive consequences for breaking rules, posed barriers to clients on MOUD. CONCLUSION: Social and structural factors, both within (e.g., clinic policies) and outside of (e.g., transportation) the clinic impact MOUD retention. Our findings can inform interventions and policies to address economic and social barriers to MOUD, that can contribute to sustained recovery.

Incremental expenditures attributable to daily dispensation and witnessed ingestion for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia: 2014-20.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) ingestion is common in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and elsewhere, sparse evidence supports this resource-intensive practice. Many settings across North America relaxed restrictions for take-home dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic and have reported consistent or improved patient outcomes. This study measured excess expenditures attributed to daily witnessed pharmacy dispensing compared with weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a population-level retrospective analysis. We included all methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone and slow-release oral morphine dispensations in BC from 1 January 2014 to 30 December 2020. A total of 24 357 107 OAT dispensations among 51 195 unique individuals with 122 793 person-years of follow-up were included during the study period. MEASUREMENTS: Total expenditures for each person-week of OAT with an estimated expenditure under two scenarios are as follows: (1) a weekly dispensation scenario and (2) a biweekly dispensation scenario. FINDINGS: We estimated excess expenditures attributable to current dispensing practices of between $38 million (2014) and $47.4 million (2018) compared with a hypothetical weekly dispensing schedule, and $43.9 million (2014) to $54.9 million (2018) compared with biweekly dispensing. The majority of these expenditures (58-64%) were attributed to pharmacy dispensing fees ($23 million in 2014 to $30 million in 2018 compared with weekly dispensing; $26.6 million in 2014 to $34.7 million in 2018 compared with biweekly dispensing). CONCLUSION: Daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment ingestion results in more than $30 million in excess expenditures annually in the province of British Columbia, Canada compared with the costs of weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules.

[Opioid Substitution Treatment in Prisons: Comparison of Cost of Buprenorphine Depot with other Medications - a Health-Economic Calculation]. / Opioidsubstitutionsbehandlung im Justizvollzug: Der Vergabeaufwand von Buprenorphin-Depot im Vergleich zu anderen Substitutionsmedikamenten ­ eine gesundheitsökonomische Modellrechnung.

In this study, adequate forms of treatment and choice of medication in the opioid substitution treatment of opioid-dependent prisoners are discussed from a health-economic perspective with a special focus on depot applications.

Depot buprenorphine as an opioid agonist therapy in New South Wales correctional centres: a costing model.

BACKGROUND: In 2019 daily liquid methadone and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone were primary opioid agonist treatments for correctional centres in New South Wales, Australia. However, both had significant potential for diversion to other patients, and their daily administration was resource intensive. An alternative treatment in the form of subcutaneous depot buprenorphine became a viable option following a safety trial in 2020 - the UNLOC-T study. Depot preparation demonstrated advantages over current treatments as more difficult to divert and requiring fewer administrations. This paper reports the results of economic modelling of staffing costs in medication administration comparing depot buprenorphine, methadone, and sublingual buprenorphine provision in UNLOC-T trial facilities. METHODS: The costing study adopted a micro-costing approach involving the synthesis of cost data from the UNLOC-T clinical trial as well as data collected from Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network records. Labour and materials data were collected during site observations and interviews. Costs were calculated from two payer perspectives: a) the New South Wales (state) government which funds custodial and health services; and b) the Australian Commonwealth government, which pays for medications. The analysis compared the monthly-per-patient cost for each of the three medications in trial-site facilities during July 2019. This was followed by simulation of depot buprenorphine implementation across the study population. Costs associated with medical assessment and reviews were excluded. RESULTS: The monthly-per-patient New South Wales government service costs of depot buprenorphine, methadone and sublingual buprenorphine were: $151, $379 and $1,529 respectively while Commonwealth government medication costs were $434, $80 and $525. The implementation simulation found that service costs of depot buprenorphine declined as patients transitioned from weekly to monthly administration. Costs of treatment using the other medications increased as patient numbers decreased alongside fixed costs. At 12 months, monthly-per-patient service costs for depot buprenorphine, methadone and sublingual buprenorphine-which would be completely phased out by month 13-were $92, $530 and $2,162 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Depot buprenorphine was consistently the least costly of the treatment options. Future modelling could allow for dynamic patient populations and downstream impacts for participants and the state health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618000942257 . Registered 4 June 2018.