Adult use cannabis legalization and cannabis use disorder treatment in California, 2010-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Many nations and jurisdictions have legalized non-medical adult use of cannabis, or are considering doing so. This paper contributes to knowledge of adult use legalization's associations with cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment utilization. METHODS: This study collected data from a dataset of all publicly funded substance use disorder treatment delivered in California from 2010 to 2021 (1,460,066 episodes). A logistic regression model estimates adult use legalization's impacts on CUD treatment utilization using an individual-level pre-post time series model, including individual and county-level characteristics and county and year-fixed effects. RESULTS: Adult use legalization was associated with a significant decrease in the probability of admission to CUD treatment (average marginal effect (AME): -0.005, 95 % CI: -0.009, 0.000). Adult use legalization was also associated with a decrease in the probability of admission to CUD treatment for males (AME: -0.025, 95 % CI: -0.027, -0.023) Medi-Cal beneficiaries (AME: -0.025, 95 % CI: -0.027, -0.023) adults ages 21+ (AME: -0.011, 95 % CI: -0.014, -0.009) and Whites (AME: -0.012, 95 % CI: -0.015, -0.010), and an increase in the probability of admission to CUD treatment for patients referred from the criminal justice system (AME: 0.017, 95 % CI: 0.015, 0.020) and Blacks (AME: 0.004, 95 % CI: 0.000, 0.007) and Hispanics (AME: 0.009, 95 % CI: 0.006, 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Adult use legalization is associated with declining CUD treatment admissions, even though cannabis-related problems are becoming more prevalent. Policies and practices that protect public health, and engage people with CUD in treatment are needed.

Recovery incentives program: California's contingency management benefit.

OBJECTIVE: The role of methamphetamine and cocaine use in California's drug poisoning (overdose) crisis has dramatically increased in the past five (5) years and has disproportionately affected American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black Californians. No FDA-approved medications currently exist for the treatment of individuals with stimulant use disorder (StimUD). Outside the Veteran's Administration, the Recovery Incentives Program: California's Contingency Management Benefit is the first large scale implementation of contingency management (CM). CM is the behavioral treatment with the most evidence and largest effect sizes for StimUD. METHODS: The Program uses a CM protocol where participants can receive a maximum of $599 over a six-month period, contingent upon 36 stimulant-negative urine test results. Urine tests are conducted using a set of approved, CLIA-waived, point-of-care urine drug tests (UDTs). To ensure fidelity to the CM protocol and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, all aspects of incentive accounting and distribution are managed electronically via a custom-developed software system. Incentive distribution utilizes electronic gift cards. A significant innovation of the project is the conceptualization of the CM Coordinator, a designated and highly trained and supervised individual responsible for all aspects of CM operation in a specific site. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The California Department of Health Care Services contracted with UCLA to develop and implement a robust evaluation of the Program; goals include evaluating the effectiveness of real-world implementation and facilitating quality improvement. The project will likely significantly impact the use of CM for StimUD nationally and may well reduce stimulant-related drug poisoning deaths.

The Effect of the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System 1115 Demonstration Waiver on Substance Use Disorder Treatment Access: Evidence from California.

BACKGROUND: In August 2015, the California Department of Health Care Services created the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System 1115 demonstration waiver (DMC-ODS waiver) to improve service delivery to Medi-Cal-eligible individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD). We examine if implementing the DMC-ODS waiver across California counties improved patient access to SUD treatment services. METHODS: We use administrative data from 2016 to 2020 from a reporting system for all publicly-funded SUD treatment services delivered in California and employ difference-in-differences and event study empirical strategies exploiting the differential timing of DMC-ODS waiver adoption across counties. RESULTS: Event study analyses show that eleven or more months after the introduction of the DMC-ODS waiver, the number of unique patient admissions significantly increase by nearly 20%. Residential treatment admissions significantly increase by roughly 25% in all months post-waiver introduction. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information for policymakers about implementing 1115 waivers, and the important public health implications. California's DMC-ODS waiver has demonstrated that 1115 waivers similar to it can likely increase access to SUD treatment.

Medical conditions of primary care patients with documented cannabis use and cannabis use disorder in electronic health records: a case control study from an academic health system in a medical marijuana state.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3.8% of adults worldwide have used cannabis in the past year. Understanding how cannabis use is associated with other health conditions is crucial for healthcare providers seeking to understand the needs of their patients, and for health policymakers. This paper analyzes the relationship between documented cannabis use disorders (CUD), cannabis use (CU) and other health diagnoses among primary care patients during a time when medical use of marijuana was permitted by state law in California, United States of America. METHODS: The study utilized primary care electronic health record (EHR) data from an academic health system, using a case-control design to compare diagnoses among individuals with CUD/CU to those of matched controls, and those of individuals with CUD diagnoses with individuals who had CU otherwise documented. Associations of documented CU and CUD with general medical conditions and health conditions associated with cannabis use (both medical and behavioral) were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1,047,463 patients with ambulatory encounters from 2013-2017, 729 (0.06%) had CUD diagnoses and 3,731 (0.36%) had CU documented in their EHR. Patients with documented CUD and CU patients had significantly (p < 0.01) higher odds of most medical and behavioral diagnoses analyzed. Compared to matched controls, CUD-documented patients had highest odds of other substance use disorders (OR = 21.44: 95% CI 9.43-48.73), any mental health disorder (OR = 6.99; 95% CI 5.03-9.70) social anxiety disorder (OR = 13.03; 95% CI 2.18-77.94), HIV/AIDS (OR = 7.88: 95% CI 2.58-24.08), post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 7.74: 95% CI 2.66-22.51); depression (OR = 7.01: 95% CI 4,79-10.27), and bipolar disorder (OR = 6.49: 95% CI 2.90-14.52). Compared to matched controls, CU-documented patients had highest odds of other substance use disorders (OR = 3.64; 95% CI 2.53-5.25) and post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 3.41; 95% CI 2.53-5.25). CUD-documented patients were significantly more likely than CU-documented patients to have HIV/AIDS (OR = 6.70; 95% CI 2.10-21.39), other substance use disorder (OR = 5.88; 95% CI 2.42-14.22), depression (OR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.90-4.26), and anxiety (OR = 2.19: 95% CI 1.57-3.05) diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CUD and CU notation in EHR data from an academic health system was low, highlighting the need for improved screening in primary care. CUD and CU documentation were associated with increased risk for many health conditions, with the most elevated risk for behavioral health disorders and HIV/AIDS (among CUD-documented, but not CU-documented patients). Given the strong associations of CUD and CU documentation with health problems, it is important for healthcare providers to be prepared to identify CU and CUD, discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use with patients thoughtfully and empathically, and address cannabis-related comorbidities among these patients.

Development and Measurement of the Treatment Perceptions Survey (TPS) for Clients with Substance Use Disorders.

Statistical reliability of the Treatment Perceptions Survey (TPS) questionnaire was examined using data from 19 California counties. The 14-item TPS was designed for clients receiving substance use disorder services at publicly funded community-based programs. The TPS is being used for evaluation of the State's 1115 Medicaid Waiver, external quality review of county-based systems of care, and quality improvement efforts. The survey addresses four domains of access to care, quality of care, care coordination, and general satisfaction that each include multiple items, plus a single item focused on self-reported outcome. Reliability test results of the four domains as composite measures were statistically significant. General satisfaction ratings were the best predictor of self-reported outcome in a path analysis model, followed by ratings of care coordination and quality of care. Separate analyses of TPS data from clients receiving specialty mental health services suggest the questionnaire can also be used reliably in mental health settings.

Homelessness and publicly funded substance use disorder treatment in California, 2016-2019: Analysis of treatment needs, level of care placement, and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Both homelessness and substance use have increased in recent years. People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk for health problems and early mortality, both of which can be exacerbated by substance use disorders (SUD). Specialty SUD treatment is likely needed to address substance use among PEH, and more than 232,000 PEH received treatment from U.S. publicly funded SUD programs in 2015. The objective of this paper is to develop a better understanding of the SUD services that PEH receive in publicly funded treatment programs by (1) describing the characteristics and needs of the PEH population served in publicly funded SUD treatment programs, compared to non-PEH populations; (2) determining if differences exist in treatment placement (level of care) for PEH and non-PEH; and (3) gauging how successful programs are in treating PEH compared to non-PEH. METHODS: Observational study using a two-way fixed effect model to determine associations among homelessness, retention, and outcomes among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SUD treatment in California from 2016 to 2019 (n = 638,953). The study team used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to measure the degree to which homelessness was associated with baseline characteristics, SUD services received, and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: PEH were significantly more likely than non-PEH to be having methamphetamine or heroin as their primary substance. PEH had greater frequency of primary substance use prior to entering treatment, greater ER and hospital utilization, more criminal justice involvement, and greater prevalence of mental health diagnoses and unemployment. PEH were 9.82% more likely than non-PEH to receive residential treatment and 7.11% less likely than non-PEH to receive treatment intensive outpatient modalities. Homelessness was associated with an 11.90% decrease in retention, and a 19.40% decrease in successful discharge status. These trends were consistent across outpatient, intensive outpatient, and residential modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Developing SUD treatment capacity and housing supports can improve treatment outcomes for PEH. Potential strategies to improve SUD services for PEH include providing more contingency management, opioid pharmacotherapies, programming designed to treat individuals with co-occurring mental health disorders, and resources for housing options that can support PEH in their recovery.

Opening the "black box": Four common implementation strategies for expanding the use of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care.

Background: Despite the persistent increase in overdose deaths, access to medications for opioid use disorders remains limited. Recent federal funding aimed at increasing access prompts a need to understand if implementation strategies improve access. Methods: This is an analysis of data from 174 primary care clinics enrolled in a state-wide medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD) implementation effort in California. We examined clinic use of one of four implementation strategies: learning collaboratives, Project Extension for Community Health care Outcomes (ECHO), didactic webinars, and clinical skills trainings. The primary implementation outcome was categorical change in new patients prescribed buprenorphine. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine the impact of clinic attendance in all or individual implementation strategies, respectively, on patient growth. Results: Clinics attending learning collaboratives, Project ECHO, and clinical skills trainings had significantly higher odds of patient growth (odds ratio [OR] = 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78, 7.10, p < .001), (OR = 3.39; 95% CI = 1.59, 7.24, p < .01), (OR = 3.90, 95% CI = 1.64, 9.23, p < .01) than non-attending clinics. The impact of attendance at learning collaboratives (OR = 5.81, 95% CI = 1.89, 17.85; p < .01), didactic webinars (OR = 3.59; 95% CI = 1.04, 12.35; p < .05), and clinical skills trainings (OR = 3.53, 95% CI = 1.06, 11.78, p < .05) on patient growth was greater for Federally Qualified Health Centers. When comparing strategies in multivariate models, only the relationship between learning collaborative attendance and new patients prescribed buprenorphine remained significant (OR = 2.57; 95% CI = 1.12, 5.88; p < .05). Conclusions: This study reported on a large, statewide, implementation-as-usual project offering four typical implementation strategies. Clinic attendance at learning collaboratives, a multi-component strategy, had the most consistent impact on new patients prescribed buprenorphine. These results suggest that while a broad array of strategies was initially reasonable, optimizing the selection of implementation strategies could be more effective. Plain Language Summary: Access to life-saving medications for opioid use disorder, such as buprenorphine, remains limited despite strong evidence of effectiveness. Systems and organizations often select from a variety of implementation strategies aimed at expanding access to these medications. However, scant research exists to enable these organizations to select the most effective and efficient strategies. Our study-within a large state-wide system of care-examined the impact of primary care clinic attendance in four common implementation strategies on new patients prescribed buprenorphine. Learning collaboratives were the strategy that most consistently improved outcomes. These results highlight the challenges to strategy selection inherent in implementation-as-usual systems-level approaches. The field needs evidence-based information on which implementation strategies are most likely to yield desired implementation outcomes.

Racial dynamics among clients in a residential substance use disorder treatment program in South Los Angeles and its impact on clients' treatment experiences.

This study seeks to investigate racial dynamics among clients in a female-only residential substance use disorder treatment facility in South Los Angeles and its effects on treatment experiences. Clients were interviewed about their interracial interactions, perceptions of clients of races and ethnicities different from their own and how racial dynamics might affect their experiences in treatment. Nine interviews were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants recounted that racial differences do not play a significant role in their treatment experiences, although racial identities shape social group formation. Motivation to recover from addiction and other shared lived experiences facilitate interracial harmony.

Preliminary results of the evaluation of the California Hub and Spoke Program.

In August 2017, California launched the Hub and Spoke Program to address the growing number of opioid overdose deaths in the state. The program connects opioid treatment programs ("hubs") with office based opioid treatment settings, like primary care clinics ("spokes") to build a network of treatment expertise and referral resources. A key objective of this program is to expand access to medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD), with a particular focus on getting more buprenorphine into spokes. This article describes the preliminary results of the evaluation of the California Hub and Spoke program. Using a mixed methods approach, this portion of the evaluation measures changes in numbers of MOUD patients and providers, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Findings reveal that, in the first 15 months of the program, 3480 new patients started buprenorphine in 118 spokes, increasing treatment initiations by 94.7% over baseline. The number of waivered spoke providers also increased 52.4% to 268. Although these data demonstrate promising growth in the network, challenges to expanding treatment access remain. Provider activity was among the most notable. Despite growth in the number of spoke providers with waivers to prescribe buprenorphine, only 68.7% (n = 184) were actively prescribing to patients. A survey of providers found that those who were not yet using their waivers lacked the confidence and mentorship they needed to prescribe. Provider knowledge and attitudes toward MOUD, fear of legal consequences, and limited patient outreach were also contributing factors. Recommendations for strengthening Hub and Spoke program implementation include facilitating mentor linkage for prescribers, expanding the support offered to spoke providers, and offering additional training and technical assistance aimed at provider stigma. Efforts to address these recommendations are described in a companion paper (Miele et al., under review).

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.

The costs of crime during and after publicly funded treatment for opioid use disorders: a population-level study for the state of California.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) reduces the risk of mortality and infectious disease transmission; however, opportunities to quantify the potential economic benefits of associated decreases in drug-related crime are scarce. This paper aimed to estimate the costs of crime during and after periods of engagement in publicly funded treatment for OUD to compare total costs of crime during a hypothetical 6-month period following initiation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) versus detoxification. DESIGN: Retrospective, administrative data-based cohort study with comprehensive information on drug treatment and criminal justice systems interactions. SETTING: Publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA (2006-10). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 31 659 individuals admitted for the first time to treatment for OUD, and who were linked with criminal justice and mortality data, were followed during a median 2.3 years. Median age at first treatment admission was 32, 35.8% were women and 37.1% primarily used prescription opioids. MEASUREMENTS: Daily costs of crime (US$2014) were calculated from a societal perspective and were composed of the costs of policing, court, corrections and criminal victimization. We estimated the average marginal effect of treatment engagement in OAT or detoxification adjusting for potential fixed and time-varying confounders, including drug use and criminal justice system involvement prior to treatment initiation. FINDINGS: Daily costs of crime during treatment compared with after treatment were $126 lower for OAT [95% confidence interval (CI) = $116, $136] and $144 lower for detoxification (95% CI = $135, $154). Summing the costs of crime during and after treatment over a hypothetical 6-month period using the observed median durations of OAT (161 days) and detoxification (19 days), we estimated that enrolling an individual in OAT as opposed to detoxification would save $17 550 ($16 840, $18 383). CONCLUSIONS: In publicly funded drug treatment facilities in California, USA, engagement in treatment for opioid use disorders is associated with lower costs of crime in the 6 months following initiation of treatment, and the economic benefits were far greater for individuals receiving time-unlimited treatment.

Estimating State Transitions for Opioid Use Disorders.

AIM: The aim was to estimate transitions between periods in and out of treatment, incarceration, and legal supervision, for prescription opioid (PO) and heroin users. METHODS: We captured all individuals admitted for the first time for publicly funded treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in California (2006 to 2010) with linked mortality and criminal justice data. We used Cox proportional hazards and competing risks models to assess the effect of primary PO use (v. heroin) on the hazard of transitioning among 5 states: (1) opioid detoxification treatment; (2) opioid agonist treatment (OAT); (3) legal supervision (probation or parole); (4) incarceration (jail or prison); and (5) out-of-treatment. Transitions were conditional on survival, and death was modeled as an absorbing state. RESULTS: Both primary PO (n = 11,733) and heroin (n = 19,926) users spent most of their median 2.3 y of observation out of treatment. Primary PO users were significantly younger (median age 30 v. 34 y), and a higher percentage were female (43.1% v. 31.5%; P < 0.001), white (74.6% v. 63.1%; P < 0.001), and had completed high school (31.8% v. 18.9%; P < 0.001). When compared to primary heroin users, PO users had a higher hazard of transitioning from detoxification to OAT (Hazard Ratio (HR), 1.65; 95% CI, 1.54 to 1.77), and had a lower hazard of transitioning from out-of-treatment to either detoxification (0.75 [0.70, 0.81]) or OAT (0.90 [0.85, 0.96]). CONCLUSION: Our findings can be applied directly in state transition modeling to improve the validity of health economic evaluations. Although PO users tended to remain in treatment for longer durations than heroin users, they also tended to remain out of treatment for longer after transitioning to an out-of-treatment state. Despite the proven effectiveness of time-unlimited treatment, individuals with OUD spend most of their time out of treatment.

Organizing Publicly Funded Substance Use Disorder Treatment in the United States: Moving Toward a Service System Approach.

Historically, publicly funded substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services in the United States have been disorganized and inefficient. By reconfiguring and linking services to create systems of care-services, structures, and processes that are purposively interconnected to treat SUD systematically-health systems can transform discrete service components into cohesive service systems that comprehensively and efficiently treat SUDs. In this article we: (1) articulate the potential benefits of organizing publicly funded SUD services into systems of care; (2) review basic principles underlying theories of SUD system organization; (3) describe the mix and configuration of services needed to create comprehensive, integrated systems of publicly funded SUD care; (4) elucidate how patients can flow through systems of SUD services in a clinically sound and cost-efficient manner, and; (5) propose eight steps that can be taken to create systems of care by identifying and leveraging the strengths, assets, and capacities of SUD service providers already operating within their health care systems. In July 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced opportunities for states to redesign their Medicaid-funded SUD service systems. This paper provides considerations for SUD system design and development.

Substance use disorder patient privacy and comprehensive care in integrated health care settings.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands health insurance coverage for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, underscoring the value of improving SUD service integration in primarily physical health care settings. It is not yet known to what degree specialized privacy regulations-Code of Federal Regulations Title 42, Part 2 (42 CFR Part 2), in particular-will affect access to or the utilization and delivery of SUD treatment in primary care. In addition to exploring the emerging benefits and barriers that specialized confidentiality regulations pose to treatment in early adopting integrated health care settings, this article introduces and explicates 42 CFR Part 2 to support provider and administrator implementation of SUD privacy regulations in integrated settings. The authors also argue that, although intended to protect patients with SUD, special SUD information protection may inadvertently reinforce stigma against patients by purporting the belief that SUD is different from other health problems and must be kept private. In turn, this stigma may inhibit the delivery of comprehensive integrated care.

The Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health Protocols In Primary Care Settings in Project Care.

PURPOSE: The majority of adults with mental health (MH) and substance use (SU) disorders in the United States do not receive treatment. The Affordable Care Act will create incentives for primary care centers to begin providing behavioral health (MH and SU) services, thus promising to address the MH and SU treatment gaps. This paper examines the implementation of integrated care protocols by three primary care organizations. METHODS: The Behavioral Health Integration in Medical Care (BHIMC) tool was used to evaluate the integrated care capacity of primary care organizations that chose to participate in the Kern County (California) Mental Health Department's Project Care annually for 3years. For a subsample of clinics, change over time was measured. Informed by the Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors, inner and outer contextual factors impacting implementation were identified and analyzed using multiple data sources and qualitative analytic methods. RESULTS: The primary care organizations all offered partially integrated (PI) services throughout the study period. At baseline, organizations offered minimally integrated/partially integrated (MI/PI) services in the Program Milieu, Clinical Process - Treatment, and Staffing domains of the BHIMC, and scores on all domains were at the partially integrated (PI) level or higher in the first and second follow-ups. Integrated care services emphasized the identification and management of MH more than SU in 52.2% of evaluated domains, but did not emphasize SU more than MH in any of them. Many of the gaps between MH and SU emphases were associated with limited capacities related to SU medications. Several outer (socio-political context, funding, leadership) and inner (organizational characteristics, individual adopter characteristics, leadership, innovation-values fit) contextual factors impacted the development of integrated care capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This study of a small sample of primary care organizations showed that it is possible to improve their integrated care capacity as measured by the BHIMC, though it may be difficult or unfeasible for them to provide fully integrated behavioral health services. Integrated services emphasized MH more than SU, and enhancing primary care clinic capacities related to SU medications may help close this gap. Both inner and outer contextual factors may impact integrated service capacity development in primary care clinics. Study findings may be used to inform future research on integrated care and inform the implementation of efforts to enhance integrated care capacity in primary care clinics.

Mortality among individuals accessing pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence in California, 2006-10.

AIMS: To estimate mortality rates among treated opioid-dependent individuals by cause and in relation to the general population, and to estimate the instantaneous effects of opioid detoxification and maintenance treatment (MMT) on the hazard of all-cause and cause-specific mortality. DESIGN: Population-based treatment cohort study. SETTING: Linked mortality data on all individuals first enrolled in publicly funded pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence in California, USA from 2006 to 2010. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 32 322 individuals, among whom there were 1031 deaths (3.2%) over a median follow-up of 2.6 years (interquartile range = 1.4-3.7). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was mortality, indicated by time to death, crude mortality rates (CMR) and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). FINDINGS: Individuals being treated for opioid dependence had a more than fourfold increase of mortality risk compared with the general population [SMR = 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2, 4.8]. Mortality risk was higher (1) when individuals were out-of-treatment (SMR = 6.1, 95% CI = 5.7, 6.5) than in-treatment (SMR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.6, 2.1) and (2) during detoxification (SMR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5, 3.8) than during MMT (SMR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.5, 2.1), especially in the 2 weeks post-treatment entry (SMR = 5.5, 95% CI = 2.7, 9.8 versus SMR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.7, 4.9). Detoxification and MMT both independently reduced the instantaneous hazard of all-cause and drug-related mortality. MMT preceded by detoxification was associated with lower all-cause and other cause-specific mortality than MMT alone. CONCLUSIONS: In people with opiate dependence, detoxification and methadone maintenance treatment both independently reduce the instantaneous hazard of all-cause and drug-related mortality.

Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching.

California's voter-initiated Proposition 36 (Prop 36) program is often unfavorably compared to drug courts, but little is empirically known about the comparative effectiveness of the two approaches. Using statewide administrative data, analyses were conducted on all Prop 36 and drug court offenders with official records of arrest and drug treatment. Propensity score matching was used to create equivalent groups, enabling comparisons of success at treatment discharge, recidivism over 12 months post-treatment entry, and magnitude of behavioral changes. Significant behavioral improvements occurred for both Prop 36 and drug court offenders, but while more Prop 36 offenders were successful at discharge, more recidivated over 12 months. Core programmatic differences likely contributed to differences in outcomes. Policy implications are discussed.

Utilization and outcomes of detoxification and maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in publicly-funded facilities in California, USA: 1991-2012.

BACKGROUND: California treats the largest population of opioid dependent individuals in the USA and is among a small group of states that applies regulations for opioid treatment that are more stringent than existing federal regulations. We aim to characterize changes in patient characteristics and treatment utilization over time, and identify determinants of successful completion of detoxification and MMT retention in repeated attempts. METHODS: State-wide administrative data was obtained from California Outcome Measurement System during the period: January 1st, 1991-March 31st, 2012. Short-term detoxification treatment and long-term maintenance treatment, primarily with methadone, was available to study participants. Mixed effects regression models were used to define determinants of successful completion of the detoxification treatment protocol (as classified by treatment staff) and duration of maintenance treatment. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 237,709 unique individuals and 885,971 treatment episodes; 837% were detoxification treatment episodes in 1994, dropping to 40.5% in 2010. Among individuals accessing only detoxification, the adjusted odds of success declined with each successive attempt (vs. 1st attempt: 2nd: OR: 0.679; 95% CI (0.610, 0.755); 3rd: 0.557 (0.484, 0.641); 4th: 0.526 (0.445, 0.622); 5th: 0.407 (0.334, 0.497); ≥6th: 0.339 (0.288, 0.399). For those ever accessing maintenance treatment, later subsequent attempts were longer in duration, and those with two or more prior attempts at detoxification had marginally longer subsequent maintenance episodes (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). Finally, only 10.9% of all detoxification episodes were followed by admission into maintenance treatment within 14 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study has revealed high rates of detoxification treatment for opioid dependence in California throughout the study period, and decreasing odds of success in repeated attempts at detoxification.

Integration of substance use disorder services with primary care: health center surveys and qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Each year, nearly 20 million Americans with alcohol or illicit drug dependence do not receive treatment. The Affordable Care Act and parity laws are expected to result in increased access to treatment through integration of substance use disorder (SUD) services with primary care. However, relatively little research exists on the integration of SUD services into primary care settings. Our goal was to assess SUD service integration in California primary care settings and to identify the practice and policy facilitators and barriers encountered by providers who have attempted to integrate these services. METHODS: Primary survey and qualitative interview data were collected from the population of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in five California counties known to be engaged in SUD integration efforts was surveyed. From among the organizations that responded to the survey (78% response rate), four were purposively sampled based on their level of integration. Interviews were conducted with management, staff, and patients (n=18) from these organizations to collect further qualitative information on the barriers and facilitators of integration. RESULTS: Compared to mental health services, there was a trend for SUD services to be less integrated with primary care, and SUD services were rated significantly less effective. The perceived difference in effectiveness appeared to be due to provider training. Policy suggestions included expanding the SUD workforce that can bill Medicaid, allowing same-day billing of two services, facilitating easier reimbursement for medications, developing the workforce, and increasing community SUD specialty care capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to integrate SUD services with primary care face significant barriers, many of which arise at the policy level and are addressable.

Offender diversion into substance use disorder treatment: the economic impact of California's proposition 36.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the costs and savings attributable to the California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), which mandated probation or continued parole with substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration for adult offenders convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and probation and parole violators. METHODS: We used individually linked, population-level administrative data to define intervention and control cohorts of offenders meeting SACPA eligibility criteria. Using multivariate difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated the effect of SACPA implementation on the total and domain-specific costs to state and county governments, controlling for fixed individual and county characteristics and changes in crime at the county level. RESULTS: The additional costs of treatment were more than offset by savings in other domains, primarily in the costs of incarceration. We estimated the statewide policy effect as an adjusted savings of $2317 (95% confidence interval = $1905, $2730) per offender over a 30-month postconviction period. SACPA implementation resulted in greater incremental cost savings for Blacks and Hispanics, who had markedly higher rates of conviction and incarceration. CONCLUSIONS: The monetary benefits to government exceeded the additional costs of SACPA implementation and provision of treatment.