Association Between Cost-Sharing and Buprenorphine Prescription Abandonment.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled. PARTICIPANTS: Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.

Reprint of: Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Impact of outpatient pharmacist dispensing in an opioid use disorder clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder are effective in reducing opioid deaths, but access can be an issue. Relocating an outpatient pharmacist for weekly buprenorphine dispensing in an outpatient clinic may facilitate coverage for buprenorphine and mitigate access and counseling barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether staffing an outpatient resident pharmacist to dispense in the buprenorphine clinic had a positive impact on (1) mean cost per prescription charged to charity care and (2) basic elements of patient satisfaction with the on-site pharmacist. METHODS: Patient demographics, buprenorphine formulation, insurance type, and uncovered costs were abstracted from dispensing records in the 16 weeks before the pharmacist clinic presence and 16 weeks with the pharmacist present. The difference in insurance types across the 2 periods was tested using a chi-square test, and the mean uncovered prescription costs charged to charity care for the 2 periods was compared using an independent-samples t test. A brief survey was administered while the pharmacist was on-site to evaluate satisfaction, which was analyzed with frequencies of "yes" responses and free-text comments. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients received buprenorphine during both the pre- and postperiods. Once the pharmacist was on-site, more patients used Medicaid or private insurance, decreasing the mean uncovered cost per prescription from $55.00 (SD 68.7) to $36.97 (SD 60.1) (P = 0.002). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with most reporting they were more likely to ask questions, pick up their prescriptions, and take their medicine with the pharmacist in the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist successfully transitioned a portion of prescriptions previously covered by charity care to Medicaid or private insurance. This shift led to a decrease in charity care costs by $2950.20 and a reduction in the average uncovered cost per prescription. The pharmacist's presence in the clinic seemed to reduce barriers especially related to inconvenience.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design.

BACKGROUND: The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD. RESULTS: Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Associations Between Copays, Coverage Limits for Opioid Use Disorder Medications, and Prescribing in Medicaid, 2018.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) affects millions of Americans, but only a fraction receive treatment. Many patients with OUD are enrolled in Medicaid, but elements of different state Medicaid programs' drug benefit designs may impact patients' access to life-saving care. OBJECTIVE: To describe medication for OUD (mOUD) use in Medicaid and examine the relationship between mOUD use and state drug benefit design plans. DESIGN/SUBJECTS: Cross-sectional study using Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data from 2018 to quantify office-based mOUD and the Medicaid Behavioral Health Services Database to extract copay amounts and coverage limits for mOUD. We excluded states with <5% coverage and assessed for associations between copays or coverage limits and mOUD dispensing using simple linear regression. MEASURES: Proportion of mOUD prescriptions relative to all prescriptions, opioid prescriptions, and the state-level prevalence of pain reliever use disorder and association between copays, coverage limits and these proportions. RESULTS: There was substantial variability in mOUD use. Although state Medicaid drug benefit designs also varied, we found no significant relationship between copay requirements (yes/no), coverage limits (yes/no), copay amount ($0-$0.99 vs. $1 or more), and mOUD utilization measures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial state-level variation exists in mOUD use, but we did not find a significant association between copays or coverage limits and use in Medicaid. Further research is needed to assess other potential impacts of mOUD drug benefit design elements in Medicaid.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions. METHODS: We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News. RESULTS: Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.

Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature. METHODS: A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study. RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs. CONCLUSION: The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.

Changes in For-Profit Medication-Assisted Therapy Clinics in an Appalachian City.

OBJECTIVES: This study is a follow-up to previous research regarding buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in Johnson City, Tennessee. For-profit MAT clinics were surveyed to determine changes in tapering practice patterns and insurance coverage during the last 3 years. METHODS: Johnson City for-profit MAT clinics; also called office based opioid treatment centers, were surveyed by telephone. Clinic representatives were asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy, insurance coverage, counseling offered onsite, and opportunities for tapering while pregnant. RESULTS: All of the MAT clinics representatives indicated that tapering in pregnancy could be considered even though tapering in pregnancy is contrary to current national guidelines. Forty-three percent of the clinics now accept insurance as compared with 0% in the 2016 study. The average weekly cost per visit remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of tapering buprenorphine during pregnancy appears to have become a standard of care for this community, as representatives state it is offered at all of the clinics that were contacted. Representatives from three clinics stated the clinics require tapering, even though national organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine do not recommend this approach. Although patients who have government or other insurance are now able to obtain buprenorphine with no expense at numerous clinics, the high cost for uninsured patients continues to create an environment conducive to buprenorphine diversion.

Ending the HIV Epidemic Among Persons Who Inject Drugs: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Six US Cities.

BACKGROUND: Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at a disproportionately high risk of HIV infection. We aimed to determine the highest-valued combination implementation strategies to reduce the burden of HIV among PWID in 6 US cities. METHODS: Using a dynamic HIV transmission model calibrated for Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and Seattle, we assessed the value of implementing combinations of evidence-based interventions at optimistic (drawn from best available evidence) or ideal (90% coverage) scale-up. We estimated reduction in HIV incidence among PWID, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each city (10-year implementation; 20-year horizon; 2018 $ US). RESULTS: Combinations that maximized health benefits contained between 6 (Atlanta and Seattle) and 12 (Miami) interventions with ICER values ranging from $94 069/QALY in Los Angeles to $146 256/QALY in Miami. These strategies reduced HIV incidence by 8.1% (credible interval [CI], 2.8%-13.2%) in Seattle and 54.4% (CI, 37.6%-73.9%) in Miami. Incidence reduction reached 16.1%-75.5% at ideal scale. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based interventions targeted to PWID can deliver considerable value; however, ending the HIV epidemic among PWID will require innovative implementation strategies and supporting programs to reduce social and structural barriers to care.

Relative Cost Differences of Initial Treatment Strategies for Newly Diagnosed Opioid Use Disorder: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relative costs of care among treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are unknown. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 40,885 individuals with a new diagnosis of OUD in a large national de-identified claims database covering commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. We assigned individuals to 1 of 6 mutually exclusive initial treatment pathways: (1) Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center; (2) Behavioral Health Intensive, intensive outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services; (3) Methadone or Buprenorphine; (4) Naltrexone; (5) Behavioral Health Outpatient Services, or; (6) No Treatment. We assessed total costs of care in the initial 90 day treatment period for each strategy using a differences in differences approach controlling for baseline costs. RESULTS: Within 90 days of diagnosis, 94.8% of individuals received treatment, with the initial treatments being: 15.8% for Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center, 4.8% for Behavioral Health Intensive, Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services, 12.5% for buprenorphine/methadone, 2.4% for naltrexone, and 59.3% for Behavioral Health Outpatient Services. Average unadjusted costs increased from $3250 per member per month (SD $7846) at baseline to $5047 per member per month (SD $11,856) in the 90 day follow-up period. Compared with no treatment, initial 90 day costs were lower for buprenorphine/methadone [Adjusted Difference in Differences Cost Ratio (ADIDCR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.80], naltrexone (ADIDCR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.67), and behavioral health outpatient (ADIDCR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66). Costs were higher for inpatient detox (ADIDCR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83). CONCLUSION: Improving health system capacity and insurance coverage and incentives for outpatient management of OUD may reduce health care costs.

Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: We interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas. RESULTS: The 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Buprenorphine-Naloxone Versus Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse.

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine-naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine-naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine-naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Cost-Effectiveness of Publicly Funded Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in California.

Background: Only 1 in 5 of the nearly 2.4 million Americans with an opioid use disorder received treatment in 2015. Fewer than half of Californians who received treatment in 2014 received opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and regulations for admission to OAT in California are more stringent than federal regulations. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of OAT for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care for patients presenting with opioid use disorder to California's publicly funded treatment facilities. Design: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Data Sources: Linked population-level administrative databases capturing treatment and criminal justice records for California (2006 to 2010); published literature. Target Population: Persons initially presenting for publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Immediate access to OAT with methadone for all treatment recipients compared with the observed standard of care (54.3% initiate opioid use disorder treatment with medically managed withdrawal). Outcome Measures: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and discounted costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Immediate access to OAT for all treatment recipients costs less (by $78 257), with patients accumulating more QALYs (by 0.42) than with the observed standard of care. In a hypothetical scenario where all Californians starting treatment of opioid use disorder in 2014 had immediate access to OAT, total lifetime savings for this cohort could be as high as $3.8 billion. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: 99.6% of the 2000 simulations resulted in lower costs and more QALYs. Limitation: Nonrandomized delivery of OAT or medically managed withdrawal. Conclusion: The value of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California is maximized when OAT is delivered to all patients presenting for treatment, providing greater health benefits and cost savings than the observed standard of care. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Sociodemographic characteristics of patients with children in a methadone maintenance program: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Ever-increasing numbers of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada has created the recent opioid crisis. One common treatment for OUD is methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Various factors, including being a parent which entails specific stressors, may increase susceptibility to negative treatment outcomes. This study aims to investigate differences between OUD patients with and without children in socio-demographic and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data for this study are part of a larger program. All participants are 18+ years old with OUD, provided consent, and receiving MMT. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to examine the differences between participants' parental status, sociodemographic variables, and clinical parameters including MMT outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses on individuals with children younger than 18. RESULTS: A total of 1099 participants were included, with 64% having children. Participants with children were older (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04, 1.08), more likely to be female (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.75, 3.27), living with a partner (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.27, 2.41), first exposed to opioids through a prescription (OR 1.517, 95% CI 1.13, 2.04) and had lower levels of education (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.20, 2.87). There was no significant difference in illicit opioid use patterns between groups. Same results held true in the subgroup analyses based on the age of the children except for participant age. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate social and demographic differences between parents and non-parents receiving MMT. These differences highlight the need to understand necessary additional support for parents such as child support and other necessary therapies.

The Role of Patient Payment Method in Premature Discharge from Methadone Maintenance Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Premature discharge is a pervasive problem in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), and is associated with numerous adverse outcomes. Although a number of demographic variables have consistently been found to impact MMT retention, method of payment has received considerably less attention. A notable limitation of prior work is that most studies classify all patients who leave treatment early, irrespective of reason, as treatment dropouts and fail to account for specific reasons. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine whether method of payment for MMT services was associated with differential reasons for premature discharge. METHODS: The sample was comprised of 4158 patients prematurely discharged from 33 MMT facilities located throughout the U.S. from 2009 to 2012. Patients were classified into two groups based on their method of payment: self-pay and insurance (largely Medicaid). Patients were studied through retrospective electronic chart review. RESULTS: Binary logistic regression indicated that insurance patients who were prematurely discharged were significantly more likely to be discharged due to a program-initiated reason (administrative), while self-pay patients were more likely to be discharged due to a patient-initiated reason (against medical advice) after controlling for significant intake demographic and clinical covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine whether insurance patients may require different supports in place compared to self-pay patients in order to improve compliance with program guidelines (e.g. behavioral contracts providing a detailed description of rules both at admission and throughout treatment with an emphasis on the potential consequences of noncompliance), and whether self-pay patients may benefit from motivational incentives and interventions to remain engaged in treatment.

Opioid agonist therapy during residential treatment of opioid use disorder: Cohort study on access and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for those entering residential treatment for opioid use disorder; to report on treatment outcomes for those taking OAT and those not taking OAT; and to determine the association between OAT use and residential treatment completion. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with opioid use disorder admitted to publicly funded residential treatment programs in the province of Ontario between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access to OAT during residential treatment using descriptive statistics. Treatment outcomes (ie, completed the program, voluntarily left early, involuntary discharged, and other) for the entire cohort and for the OAT and non-OAT groups using descriptive statistics. Association between OAT use at admission and treatment completion (a binary outcome) using bivariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Among an identified cohort of 1910 patients with opioid use disorder, 52.8% entered programs that permitted access to OAT. Overall, 56.8% of patients completed treatment, 23.3% voluntarily left early (eg, were no-shows, dropped out), 17.0% were involuntarily discharged, and 2.9% were discharged early for other reasons. Those taking OAT were as likely to complete treatment as those not taking OAT (53.9% vs 57.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio of 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates 2 large gaps in care for patients with opioid use disorder. First, these patients have poor access to OAT-the first-line treatment of opioid use disorder-while in publicly funded residential treatment programs; and second, many are involuntarily discharged from treatment. Additionally, this study indicates that patients taking OAT have similar likelihood of completing residential treatment as those not taking OAT do. Limitations of this study are that it is based on observational data for patients who self-selected before admission to use OAT or not, and it is likely not all confounders were accounted for.

Feasibility of reaching world health organization targets for hepatitis C and the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies.

New drugs for treating hepatitis C have considerably increased the probability of being cured. Treatment uptake, however, is still low. The objectives of this study were to analyse the impact of initiatives that may increase the proportion of infected people on treatment and interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of new infection among people who inject drugs. A compartmental model for Norway was used to simulate hepatitis C and related complications. We analysed 2 different screening initiatives aimed to increase the proportion of infected people on treatment. Interventions aiming at reducing the hepatitis C incidence analysed were opioid substitution therapy (OST), a clean needle and syringe programme and a combination of both. The most cost-effective strategy for increasing hepatitis C treatment uptake was screening by general practitioners while simultaneously allowing for all infected people to be treated. We estimated that this intervention reduces the incidence of hepatitis C by 2030 by 63% compared with the current incidence. The 2 harm reduction strategies both reduced the incidence of hepatitis C by about 70%. Combining an increase in the current clean needles and syringe programme with OST was clearly the most cost-effective option. This strategy would reduce the incidence of hepatitis C by 80% compared with the current incidence by 2030. Thus, interventions to reduce the burden and spread of hepatitis C are cost-effective. Reaching the WHO target of a 90% reduction in hepatitis C incidence by 2030 may be difficult without combining different initiatives.

Coverage of Medications That Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Opioids for Pain Management in Marketplace Plans, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Efficacious medications to treat opioid use disorders (OUDs) have been slow to diffuse into practice, and insurance coverage limits may be one important barrier. OBJECTIVES: To compare coverage for medications used to treat OUDs and opioids commonly prescribed for pain management in plans offered on the 2017 Health Insurance Marketplace exchanges. RESEARCH DESIGN: We identified a sample of 100 plans offered in urban and in rural counties on the 2017 Marketplaces, weighting by population. We accessed publicly available plan coverage information on healthcare.gov for states with a federally facilitated exchange, the state exchange website for state-based exchanges, and insurer websites. RESULTS: About 14% of plans do not cover any formulations of buprenorphine/naloxone. Plans were more likely to require prior authorization for any of the covered office-based buprenorphine or naltrexone formulations preferred for maintenance OUD treatment (ie, buprenorphine/naloxone, buprenorphine implants, injectable long-acting naltrexone) than of short-acting opioid pain medications (63.6% vs. 19.4%; P<0.0001). Only 10.6% of plans cover implantable buprenorphine, 26.1% cover injectable naltrexone, and 73.4% cover at least 1 abuse-deterrent opioid pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: Many Marketplace plans either do not cover or require prior authorization for coverage of OUD medications, and these restrictions are often more common for OUD medications than for short-acting opioid pain medications. Regulators tasked with enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires that standards for formulary design for mental health and substance use disorder drugs be comparable to those for other medications, should focus attention on formulary coverage of OUD medications.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Access to Opioid Analgesic Medications and Medication-Assisted Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the expansion of Medicaid eligibility in the United States on the opioid epidemic, as measured through increased access to opioid analgesic medications and medication-assisted treatment. METHODS: Using Medicaid enrollment and reimbursement data from 2011 to 2016 in all states, we evaluated prescribing patterns of opioids and the 3 Food and Drug Administration-approved medications used in treating opioid use disorders by using 2 statistical models. We used difference-in-differences and interrupted time series models to measure prescribing rates before and after state expansions. RESULTS: Although opioid prescribing per Medicaid enrollee increased overall, we observed no statistical difference between expansion and nonexpansion states. By contrast, per-enrollee rates of buprenorphine and naltrexone prescribing increased more than 200% after states expanded eligibility, while increasing by less than 50% in states that did not expand. Methadone prescribing decreased in all states in this period, with larger decreases in expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: The Medicaid expansion enrolled a population no more likely to be prescribed opioids than the base Medicaid population while significantly increasing uptake of 2 drugs used in medication-assisted treatment.

Perceived barriers to methadone maintenance treatment among Iranian opioid users.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use is a severe problem in Iran. Despite methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) programs being one of the most important treatment strategies for reducing individual and public harms associated with opioid use, a large proportion of Iranian patients refuse to participate in such treatment programs. METHODS: The present study aims to explore the beliefs and attitudes toward MMT programs of opioid-dependent patients who were participating or had participated in methadone therapy. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 opioid users between 27 and 58 years of age from Kurdistan provinces. RESULTS: Overall, six themes were discovered to be key barriers relating to methadone treatment, including financial barriers related to methadone treatment, lack of awareness about methadone treatment, negative attitudes regarding using methadone, worries about methadone's side effects, social stigma ascribed to methadone therapy, and systemic barriers to methadone treatment. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that the cost of treatment is a major obstacle to attending and continuing at MMT programs and that addicts and their families are not always accurately informed about the duration of MMT programs and the side effects of methadone treatment.