State Medicaid Initiatives Targeting Substance Use Disorder in Criminal Legal Settings, 2021.

Objectives. To document state Medicaid pre- and postrelease initiatives for individuals in the criminal legal system with substance use disorder (SUD). Methods. An Internet-based survey was sent in 2021 to Medicaid directors in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia to determine whether they were pursuing initiatives for persons with SUD across 3 criminal legal settings: jails, prisons, and community corrections. A 90% response rate was obtained. Results. In 2021, the majority of states did not report any targeted Medicaid initiatives for persons with SUD residing in criminal legal settings. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia adopted at least 1 Medicaid initiative for persons with SUD across the 3 criminal legal settings. The most commonly adopted initiatives were in the areas of medication for opioid use disorder treatment and Medicaid enrollment. Out of 24 possible initiatives for each state (8 initiatives across 3 criminal legal settings), the 2 most commonly adopted were (1) provision of medication treatment of opioid use disorder before release from criminal legal settings (16 states) and (2) facilitation of Medicaid enrollment through suspension rather than termination of Medicaid enrollment upon entry to a criminal legal setting (14 states). Initiatives pertaining to Medicaid SUD care coordination were adopted by the fewest (9) states. Conclusions. In 2021, states' involvement in Medicaid SUD initiatives for criminal legal populations remained low. Increased adoption of Medicaid SUD initiatives across criminal legal settings is needed, especially knowing the high rate of overdose mortality among this group. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(5):527-530. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307604).

Predictors of mental health among U.S. adults during COVID-19 early pandemic, mid- pandemic, and post-vaccine eras.

BACKGROUND: A collective trauma like COVID-19 impacts individuals differently due to socio-contextual and individual characteristics. Younger adults, minorities, affiliates of certain political parties, and residents of some regions of the United States reported experiencing poorer mental health during the pandemic. Being diagnosed with COVID-19, or losing a friend/family to it, was related to more adverse mental health symptoms. While the negative impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes has been studied, mental health changes during this pandemic need further exploration. METHODS: In a study of 8,612 U.S. households, using three surveys collected from a nationally representative panel between May 2020 and October 2021, using a repeated cross-sectional design, a linear mixed effect regression model was performed to investigate factors associated with the mental health status, based on the Mental Health Inventory-5, of individuals throughout different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether an improvement over time, especially after vaccines became available, was observed. RESULTS: An overall improvement in mental health was observed after vaccines became available. Individuals with no COVID-related death in their household, those not wearing masks, those identifying as members of the Republican Party, race/ethnicities other than Asian, men, older adults, and residents of the South were less likely than others to report mental health challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for widespread mental health interventions and health promotion to address challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Due to the worse mental health observed among Asians, younger adults, women, low-income families, those with a higher level of concern for COVID-19, people who lost someone to COVID-19, and/or individuals with histories of opioid use disorder and criminal legal involvement, over the period of this study, targeted attention needs to be given to the mental health of these groups.

Pandemic Procedures: Adapting Problem-Solving Court (PSC) Operations and Treatment Protocols During COVID-19.

With an ongoing pandemic claiming hundreds of lives a day, it is unclear how COVID-19 has affected court operations, particularly problem-solving courts (PSCs) which have goals rooted in rehabilitation for participants in their programs. Even with practical recommendations from national organizations directing courts on how to manage COVID-19, whether and how PSCs met the needs of PSC participants during this time is underexplored. This study, drawn from a larger national study using a survey of PSC coordinators, examines the COVID-19 responses of PSCs to remain safely operational for participants. A sub-sample of survey respondents (n = 82 PSC coordinators) detailed how the COVID-19 pandemic led to changes to their court and treatment operations amidst the constraints of the pandemic. The courts' shifts in policy and practice have important impacts for court participants' treatment retention and success in the PSC program, and these shifts need more in-depth research in the future.

Medication-Assisted Treatment in Problem-solving Courts: A National Survey of State and Local Court Coordinators.

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are a critical part of a societal effort to mitigate the opioid epidemic's devastating consequences. This paper reports on a national survey of PSCs (N = 42 state-wide court coordinators; N = 849 local court coordinators) and examines the structural factors that could explain the likelihood of a local PSC authorizing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and MAT utilization. Results of the analyses indicate that MAT availability at the county level was a significant predictor of the likelihood of local courts authorizing MAT. The court's location in a Medicaid expansion state was also a significant predictor of local courts allowing buprenorphine and methadone, but not naltrexone. Problem-solving courts are in the early stages of supporting the use of medications, even when funding is available through Medicaid expansion policies. Adoption and use of treatment innovations like MAT are affected by coordinators' perceptions of MAT as well as structural factors such as the availability of the medications in the community and funding resources. The study has important implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

Share of Adult Suicides After Recent Jail Release.

Importance: Although people released from jail have an elevated suicide risk, the potentially large proportion of this population in all adult suicides is unknown. Objective: To estimate what percentage of adults who died by suicide within 1 year or 2 years after jail release could be reached if the jail release triggered community suicide risk screening and prevention efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort modeling study used estimates from meta-analyses and jail census counts instead of unit record data. The cohort included all adults who were released from US jails in 2019. Data analysis and calculations were performed between June 2021 and February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes were percentage of total adult suicides within years 1 and 2 after jail release and associated crude mortality rates (CMRs), standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), and relative risks (RRs) of suicide in incarcerated vs not recently incarcerated adults. Taylor expansion formulas were used to calculate the variances of CMRs, SMRs, and other ratios. Random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-analyses were used to estimate suicide SMRs in postrelease years 1 and 2 from 10 jurisdictions. Alternate estimate was computed using the ratio of suicides after release to suicides while incarcerated. Results: Included in the analysis were 2019 estimates for 7 091 897 adults (2.8% of US adult population; 76.7% males and 23.3% females) who were released from incarceration at least once, typically after brief pretrial stays. The RR of suicide was 8.95 (95% CI, 7.21-10.69) within 1 year after jail release and 6.98 (95% CI, 4.21-9.76) across 2 years after release. A total of 27.2% (95% CI, 18.0%-41.7%) of all adult suicide deaths occurred in formerly incarcerated individuals within 2 years of jail release, and 19.9% (95% CI, 16.2%-24.1%) of all adult suicides occurred within 1 year of release (males: 23.3% [95% CI, 20.8%-25.6%]; females: 24.0% [95% CI, 19.7%-36.8%]). The alternate method yielded slightly larger estimates. Another 0.8% of adult suicide deaths occurred during jail stays. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort modeling study found that adults who were released from incarceration at least once make up a large, concentrated population at greatly elevated risk for death by suicide; therefore, suicide prevention efforts focused on return to the community after jail release could reach many adults within 1 to 2 years of jail release, when suicide is likely to occur. Health systems could develop infrastructure to identify these high-risk adults and provide community-based suicide screening and prevention.

Endorsement of COVID-19 misinformation among criminal legal involved individuals in the United States: Prevalence and relationship with information sources.

Criminal legal system involvement (CLI) is a critical social determinant of health that lies at the intersection of multiple sources of health disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates many of these disparities, and specific vulnerabilities faced by the CLI population. This study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19-related misinformation, as well as its relationship with COVID-19 information sources used among Americans experiencing CLI. A nationally representative sample of American adults aged 18+ (N = 1,161), including a subsample of CLI individuals (n = 168), were surveyed in February-March 2021. On a 10-item test, CLI participants endorsed a greater number of misinformation statements (M = 1.88 vs. 1.27) than non-CLI participants, p < .001. CLI participants reported less use of government and scientific sources (p = .017) and less use of personal sources (p = .003) for COVID-19 information than non-CLI participants. Poisson models showed that use of government and scientific sources was negatively associated with misinformation endorsement for non-CLI participants (IRR = .841, p < .001), but not for CLI participants (IRR = .957, p = .619). These findings suggest that building and leveraging trust in important information sources are critical to the containment and mitigation of COVID-19-related misinformation in the CLI population.