Application of an opioid use disorder cascade of care in a large public health system.

Background: Over the past decade, hospitals and health systems have increasingly adopted interventions to address the needs of patients with substance use disorders. The Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) Cascade of Care provides a framework for organizing and tracking patient health milestones over time and can assist health systems in identifying areas of intervention to maximize the impact of evidence-based services. However, detailed protocols are needed to guide health systems in how to operationalize the OUD Cascade and track outcomes using electronic health records.Objective: In this paper, we describe the process of operationalizing and applying the OUD Cascade in a large, urban, public hospital system.Methods: Through this case example, we describe the technical processes around data mining, as well as the decision-making processes, challenges encountered, lessons learned from compiling preliminary patient data and defining stages and outcome measures for the OUD Cascade of Care, and preliminary dataResults: We identified 33,616 (26.17% female) individuals with an OUD diagnosis. Almost half (48%) engaged with addiction services, while only 10.7% initiated medication-based treatment in an outpatient setting, 6.7% had timely follow-up, and 3.5% were retained for a minimum of 6 months.Conclusion: The current paper serves as a primer for other health systems seeking to implement data-informed approaches to guide more efficient care and improved substance use-related outcomes. An OUD Cascade of Care must be tailored to local systems based on inherent data limitations and services design with an emphasis on early stages wherein drop-off is the greatest.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Defining what we mean by "polysubstance use."

The rise in drug overdoses and harms associated with the use of more than one substance has led to increased use of the term "polysubstance use" among researchers, clinicians, and public health officials. However, the term retains no consistent definition across contexts. The current authors convened from disciplines including sociology, epidemiology, neuroscience, and addiction psychiatry to propose a recommended definition of polysubstance use. An iterative process considered authors' formal and informal conversations, insights from relevant symposia, talks, and conferences, as well as their own research and clinical experiences to propose the current definition. Three key concepts were identified as necessary to define polysubstance use: (1) substances involved, (2) timing, and (3) intent. Substances involved include clarifying either (1) the number and type of substances used, (2) presence of more than one substance use disorder, or (3) primary and secondary substance use. The concept of timing is recommended to use clear terms such as simultaneous, sequential, and same-day polysubstance use to describe short-term behaviors (e.g., 30-day windows). Finally, the concept of intent refers to clarifying unintentional use or exposure when possible, and greater attention to motivations of polysubstance use. These three components should be clearly defined in research on polysubstance use to improve consistency across disciplines. Consistent definitions of polysubstance use can aid in the synthesis of evidence to better address an overdose crisis that increasingly involves multiple substances.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder: retention as a function of demographics and rurality.

Background: Despite lifesaving medications such as buprenorphine and methadone, the majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment. COVID-19 era regulatory reforms have shown that telehealth can improve access to care, although disparities in clinical outcomes are likely to persist.Objective: We aimed to analyze 180-day and 365-day retention in treatment with buprenorphine for OUD overall and by demographics, hypothesizing that retention would be lower among racial/ethnic minorities and rural patients.Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of individuals with OUD enrolled in treatment from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, in Pennsylvania and New York using a virtual-first telehealth OUD treatment platform to assess rates of 180-day and 365-day retention. Associations between demographic characteristics and retention were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models.Results: Among 1,378 patients (58.8% male), 180-day retention was 56.4%, and 365-day retention was 48.3%. Adjusted analyses found that only an association between older age and greater odds of 180-day retention was significant (aOR for patients aged 30-50 vs. <30: 1.83 [1.37-2.45]). There were no significant associations between sex, race/ethnicity, state, or rurality with retention.Conclusion: While we were unable to control for socioeconomic variables, we found retention within telehealth services for buprenorphine was high irrespective of geography or race/ethnicity, but disparities with age indicate a subset of patients who may benefit from more intensive services early in care.

Opioid use disorder Cascade of care framework design: A roadmap.

Unintentional overdose deaths, most involving opioids, have eclipsed all other causes of US deaths for individuals less than 50 years of age. An estimated 2.4 to 5 million individuals have opioid use disorder (OUD) yet a minority receive treatment in a given year. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the gold standard treatment for OUD however early dropout remains a major challenge for improving clinical outcomes. A Cascade of Care (CoC) framework, first popularized as a public health accountability strategy to stem the spread of HIV, has been adapted specifically for OUD. The CoC framework has been promoted by the NIH and several states and jurisdictions for organizing quality improvement efforts through clinical, policy, and administrative levers to improve OUD treatment initiation and retention. This roadmap details CoC design domains based on available data and potential linkages as individual state agencies and health systems typically rely on limited datasets subject to diverse legal and regulatory requirements constraining options for evaluations. Both graphical decision trees and catalogued studies are provided to help guide efforts by state agencies and health systems to improve data collection and monitoring efforts under the OUD CoC framework.

Care of the Patient Using Cannabis.

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in legal access to cannabis, driven largely by activists and business interests. As a result, the population of cannabis users nationwide-especially daily users-has grown significantly. An estimated 4.5-7 million persons in the United States now meet criteria for cannabis use disorder annually. This article focuses on the effects of cannabis use, intoxication, and withdrawal while also reviewing the developmental pathways of cannabis use disorder as well as evidence-based pharmacologic and psychosocial treatments.

Development of a Cascade of Care for responding to the opioid epidemic.

Amid worsening opioid overdose death rates, the nation continues to face a persistent addiction treatment gap limiting access to quality care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone) have high quality evidence demonstrating reductions in drug use and overdose events, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them. The development of a unified public health framework, such as a Cascade of Care, could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In response to feedback from many stakeholders over the past year, we have expanded upon the OUD treatment cascade, first published in 2017, with additional attention to prevention stages and both individual-level and population-based services to better inform efforts at the state and federal level. The proposed cascade framework has attracted considerable interest from federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) along with policy-makers nationwide. We have reviewed recent literature and evidence-based interventions related to prevention, identification, and treatment of individuals with OUD and modeled updated figures from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Many currently employed interventions (prescriber guidelines, prescription monitoring programs, naloxone rescue) address prevention of OUD or downstream complications but not treatment of the underlying disorder itself. An OUD Cascade of Care framework could help structure local and national efforts to combat the opioid epidemic by identifying key targets, interventions, and quality indicators across populations and settings to achieve these ends. Improved data collection and reporting methodology will be imperative.

Patient Barriers and Facilitators to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care.

Introduction: This study explored factors influencing patient access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), particularly for individuals eligible but historically suboptimal follow-up with in-house referrals to office-based opioid treatment (OBOT). Objectives: In-depth qualitative interviews among a mostly underserved sample of adults with OUD elicited: 1) knowledge and experiences across the OUD treatment cascade; and 2) more nuanced elements of patient-centered care, including shared decision making with providers, experiences in OBOT versus specialty addiction treatment, transitioning from methadone to buprenorphine or extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), and voluntary discontinuation of medications for OUD. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews between January and February of 2018 among adult inpatient detoxification program patients with OUD (n = 23). Preliminary analysis of interviews yielded key themes and ideas that were coded from a grounded theory approach. Results: Willingness to engage with OBOT was influenced by a complex array of practical considerations, including access to patient-centered care in OBOT settings, positive experiences with illicitly obtained buprenorphine, and differential experiences pertaining to OBOT versus specialty addiction treatment. Responses were generally favorable towards OBOT with buprenorphine, yet knowledge regarding extended-release naltrexone was limited. Respondents were often frustrated by clinicians when requesting to transition from methadone to buprenorphine or XR-NTX. Lastly, participants elucidated limited access to OBOT programs in underserved neighborhoods and suburban settings. Conclusion: Limited access to patient-centered care in OBOT with buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone may exacerbate challenges to retention and/or reengagement with OUD care.

Long-term follow-up study of community-based patients receiving XR-NTX for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is FDA-approved to prevent relapse in patients with Opioid Use Disorder. However little is known about long-term use among community-based outpatients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review and long-term follow-up survey among individuals (N = 168) who entered an outpatient XR-NTX trial between 2011 and 2015, during which participants were offered three monthly injections of XR-NTX at no cost. The survey consisted of 35 questions covering a total of four domains: (1) substance use; (2) treatment continuation; (3) barriers; and (4) attitudes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven respondents were successfully surveyed, including 50% of those initially receiving all three XR-NTX injections ("study completers") in the parent study. Study completion was associated with superior outcomes and less likely relapse (defined as daily use), with a much greater time to relapse despite higher rates of concurrent non-opioid substance use. However the majority of participants discontinued treatment with XR-NTX at study completion, largely due to attitudes of "feeling cured" and "wanting to do it on my own" rather than external barriers such as cost or side effects. CONCLUSION: Patients who initiate treatment with XR-NTX might benefit from anticipatory guidance and motivational techniques to encourage long-term adherence as many will experience internal barriers to continuation. Our findings are reassuring that few patients experience side effects or adverse events complicating the effectiveness or safety of long-term use of XR-NTX. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Among outpatients who successfully receive 3 monthly XR-NTX injections, many will prematurely discontinue treatment due to internal attitudes, such as "feeling cured." (Am J Addict 2017;26:319-325).

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.

Use of in-network insurance benefits is critical for improving retention in telehealth-based buprenorphine treatment.

An empiric evidence base is lacking regarding the relationship between insurance status, payment source, and outcomes among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) on telehealth platforms. Such information gaps may lead to unintended impacts of policy changes. Following the phase-out of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, states were allowed to redetermine Medicaid eligibility and disenroll individuals. Yet, financial barriers remain a common and significant hurdle for patients with OUD and are associated with worse outcomes. We studied 3842 patients entering care in 2022 at Ophelia Health, one of the nation's largest OUD telehealth companies, to assess associations between insurance status and 6-month retention. In multivariable analyses, in-network patients who could use insurance benefits were more likely to be retained compared with cash-pay patients (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.40-1.62; P < .001). Among a subsample of 882 patients for whom more detailed insurance data were available (due to phased-in electronic health record updates), in-network patients were also more likely to be retained at 6 months compared with insured, yet out-of-network patients (aRR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.54-2.23; P < .001). Findings show that insurance status, and specifically the use of in-network benefits, is associated with superior retention and suggest that Medicaid disenrollment and insurance plan hesitation to engage with telehealth providers may undermine the nation's response to the opioid crisis.

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.

Referral to and engagement in substance use disorder treatment within opioid intervention courts in New York: a qualitative study of implementation barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are frequently in contact with the court system and have markedly higher rates of fatal opioid overdose. Opioid intervention courts (OIC) were developed to address increasing rates of opioid overdose among court defendants by engaging court staff in identification of treatment need and referral for opioid-related services and building collaborations between the court and OUD treatment systems. The study goal was to understand implementation barriers and facilitators in referring and engaging OIC clients in OUD treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with OIC stakeholders (n = 46) in 10 New York counties in the United States, including court coordinators, court case managers, and substance use disorder treatment clinic counselors, administrators, and peers. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted, guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework, employing both inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Results were conceptualized using EPIS inner (i.e., courts) and outer (i.e., OUD treatment providers) implementation contexts and bridging factors that impacted referral and engagement to OUD treatment from the OIC. Inner factors that facilitated OIC implementation included OIC philosophy (e.g., non-punitive, access-oriented), court organizational structure (e.g., strong court staff connectedness), and OIC court staff and client characteristics (e.g., positive medications for OUD [MOUD] attitudes). The latter two also served as barriers (e.g., lack of formalized procedures; stigma toward MOUD). Two outer context entities impacted OIC implementation as both barriers and facilitators: substance use disorder treatment programs (e.g., attitudes toward the OIC and MOUD; operational characteristics) and community environments (e.g., attitudes toward the opioid epidemic). The COVID-19 pandemic and bail reform were macro-outer context factors that negatively impacted OIC implementation. Facilitating bridging factors included staffing practices that bridged court and treatment systems (e.g., peers); barriers included communication and cultural differences between systems (e.g., differing expectations about OIC client success). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key barriers and facilitators that OICs may consider as this model expands in the United States. Referral to and engagement in OUD treatment within the OIC context requires ongoing efforts to bridge the treatment and court systems, and reduce stigma around MOUD.

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.

Urine Drug Screening in a Telehealth Setting for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Amid rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth-based opioid treatment (TBOT), there is an urgent need for rigorous studies exploring the feasibility and characteristics of urine drug screening (UDS). Objective: To investigate administration patterns and results of UDS to assess feasibility of UDS and patient outcomes in a TBOT setting. Design: This observational cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2021, and December 6, 2022, and included patients with opioid use disorder treated in Ophelia, a TBOT treatment platform in 14 states. Data analysis was performed from January to March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and percentage of patients with UDS within 30, 90, and 180 days of intake, grouped by adherence to clinical protocols. Associations were assessed between baseline characteristics and UDS completion and opioid positivity in first 30 days using χ2 tests. Baseline and 180-day follow-up UDS results were compared using McNemar tests. Results: Among 3395 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [9.3] years, mostly male [54.1%], non-Hispanic White [81.5%], urban-residing [80.3%], and cash-pay at intake [74.0%]), 2782 (83.3%) completed a UDS within 30 days (90.0% among protocol-adherent patients, 67.0% among protocol-nonadherent patients). A total of 2750 of 2817 (97.6%) patients retained more than 90 days completed 1 or more UDS, as did 2307 of 2314 (99.7%) patients retained more than 180 days. Younger patients, patients of a racial and ethnic minority group, those living in urban areas, and cash-pay patients were less likely to complete a UDS in the first 30 days. Buprenorphine positivity increased (from 96.9% to 98.4%, P = .004) and opioid positivity declined (from 7.9% to 3.3%, P < .001) over time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with opioid use disorder receiving buprenorphine in a remote care environment, UDS was highly feasible, though early UDS completion rates varied across demographic subgroups. The prevalence of unexpected UDS results was low and declined over time in treatment.

Application of an Opioid Use Disorder Cascade of Care in a Large Public Health System.

Background: Over the past decade, hospitals and health systems have increasingly adopted interventions to address the needs of patients with substance use disorders. The Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) Cascade of Care provides a framework for organizing and tracking patient health milestones over time, and can assist health systems in identifying areas of intervention to prevent overdose and maximize the impact of evidence-based services for patients with OUD. However, detailed protocols are needed to guide health systems in how to operationalize the OUD Cascade and track outcomes using their systems' electronic medical records (EMR). Objective: In this paper, we describe the process of operationalizing and implementing the OUD Cascade in one large, urban, public hospital system. Methods: Through this case example, we describe the technical processes around data mining, as well as the decision-making processes, challenges encountered, and lessons learned from compiling patient data and defining stages and outcome measures for the OUD Cascade of Care. The current established framework and process will set the stage for subsequent research studies that quantify and evaluate patient progression through each stage of OUD treatment across the health system and identify target areas for quality improvement initiatives to better engage patients in care and improve health outcomes. Results: The current paper can therefore serve as a primer for other health systems seeking to implement a data-informed approach to guide more efficient care and improved substance use-related outcomes. Conclusion: An OUD Cascade of Care must be tailored to local systems based on inherent data limitations and services design.

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.