Association of Disability Status and Type With Binge Drinking and Prescription Opioid Misuse Among Adults From a 3-State Sample.

BACKGROUND: Research examining at-risk substance use by disability status is limited, with little investigation into differences by disability type. We investigated binge drinking and prescription opioid misuse among adults with and without disabilities, and by type of disability, to inform need for assessment and intervention within these populations. METHODS: Secondary analyses of adults who completed the disability, alcohol, and prescription opioid misuse items in the 2018 Ohio, Florida, or Nebraska Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys (n = 28 341), the only states that included prescription opioid misuse in 2018. Self-reported disability status (yes/no) relied on 6 standardized questions assessing difficulties with: vision, hearing, mobility, cognition, self-care, and independent living (dichotomous, nonmutually exclusive, for each disability). Logistic regression models estimated the association of disability status and type with (1) past 30-day binge drinking and (2) past-year prescription opioid misuse. Additional models were restricted to separate subsamples of adults who: (a) currently drink, (b) received a past-year prescription opioid, and (c) did not receive a past-year prescription opioid. RESULTS: One-third reported at least one disability, with mobility (19.5%), cognitive (11.5%), and hearing (10.2%) disability being the most common. Disability status was associated with lower odds of binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.80, P ≤ .01). However, among adults who currently drink, people with disabilities had higher odds of binge drinking (AOR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, P ≤ .05]. Disability was associated with higher odds of past-year prescription opioid misuse (AOR = 2.51, 95% CI 2.17-2.91, P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with disabilities had higher odds of prescription opioid misuse, and among adults who currently drink, higher odds for binge drinking were observed. The magnitude of the association between disability status and prescription opioid misuse was particularly concerning. Providers should be trained to screen and treat for substance use problems for people with disabilities.

Expanding access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders: Findings from the Washington State hub and spoke effort.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a leading cause of preventable death and injury nationwide. Efforts to increase the use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are needed. In 2017, Washington State implemented a Hub and Spoke (HS) model of care with the primary goal of expanding access to MOUD. We examined changes in MOUD utilization among Washington State Medicaid beneficiaries before and after HS implementation. METHODS: We used Medicaid claims data to examine longitudinal changes in MOUD use for beneficiaries with OUD. We conducted a comparative interrupted time series analysis to examine the association between HS policy implementation and rates of MOUD utilization, overall and by type of medication. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2019, a period of increasing OUD prevalence, rates of MOUD utilization among Washington Medicaid beneficiaries increased overall from 39.7 to 50.5. Following HS implementation, rates of MOUD use grew at a significantly greater rate in the HS cohort than in the non-HS cohort (ß=0.54, SE=0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.49, 0.59). Analyses by medication type show that this rate increase was primarily due to buprenorphine use (ß= 0.61, SE= 0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.57, 0.65). CONCLUSION: Improved systems of care are needed to make MOUD accessible to all patients in need. The Washington HS model is one strategy that may facilitate and expand MOUD use, particularly buprenorphine. Over the study period, Washington State saw increased use of buprenorphine, which was an emphasis of their HS model.

Development of an addiction recovery patient-reported outcome measure: Response to Addiction Recovery (R2AR).

BACKGROUND: Recovery, a primary goal of addiction treatment, goes beyond abstinence. Incorporating broad domains with key elements that vary across individuals, recovery is a difficult concept to measure. Most addiction-related quality measurement has emphasized process measures, which limits evaluation of treatment quality and long-term outcomes, whereas patient-reported outcomes are richer and nuanced. To address these gaps, this study developed and tested a patient-reported outcome measure for addiction recovery, named Response to Addiction Recovery (R2AR). METHODS: A multi-stage mixed methods approach followed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measure development standard. People with lived experience (PWLE) of addiction, treatment providers, and other experts contributed to item distillation and iterative measure refinement. From an item bank of 356 unique items, 57 items were tested via survey and interviews, followed by focus groups and cognitive interviews. RESULTS: Face validity was demonstrated throughout. PWLE rated item importance higher and with greater variance than providers, yet both agreed that "There are more important things to me in my life than using substances" was the most important item. The final R2AR instrument has 19 items across 8 recovery domains, spanning early, active, and long-term recovery phases. Respondents assess agreement for each item as (1) a strength, and (2) importance to ongoing recovery. CONCLUSION: R2AR allows PWLE to define what is important to their recovery. It is designed to support treatment planning as part of clinical workflows and to track recovery progress. Inclusion of PWLE and providers in the development process enhances its face validity. Including PWLE in the development of R2AR and using the tool to guide recovery planning emphasizes the importance of patient-centeredness in designing clinical tools and involving patients in their own care.

Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment for Persons With and Without Disabling Conditions.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with opioid use disorder (OUD) are disproportionately high among people with disabilities (PWD) compared with those without disability. A gap remains in understanding the quality of OUD treatment for people with physical, sensory, cognitive, and developmental disabilities, specifically regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), a foundation of treatment. Objective: To examine the use and quality of OUD treatment in adults with diagnosed disabling conditions, compared with adults without these diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used Washington State Medicaid data from 2016 to 2019 (for use) and 2017 to 2018 (for continuity). Data were obtained for outpatient, residential, and inpatient settings with Medicaid claims. Participants included Washington State full-benefit Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years, continuously eligible for 12 months, with OUD during the study years and not enrolled in Medicare. Data analysis was performed from January to September 2022. Exposures: Disability status, including physical (spinal cord injury or mobility impairment), sensory (visual or hearing impairments), developmental (intellectual or developmental disability or autism), and cognitive (traumatic brain injury) disabilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures: (1) use of MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone) during each study year and (2) 6-month continuity of treatment (for those taking MOUD). Results: A total of 84 728 Washington Medicaid enrollees had claims evidence of OUD, representing 159 591 person-years (84 762 person-years [53.1%] for female participants, 116 145 person-years [72.8%] for non-Hispanic White participants, and 100 970 person-years [63.3%] for participants aged 18-39 years); 15.5% of the population (24 743 person-years) had evidence of a physical, sensory, developmental, or cognitive disability. PWD were 40% less likely than those without a disability to receive any MOUD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.61; P < .001). This was true for each disability type, with variations. Individuals with a developmental disability were least likely to use MOUD (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55; P < .001). Of those using MOUD, PWD were 13% less likely than people without disability to continue MOUD for 6 months (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of a Medicaid population, treatment differences were found between PWD and people without these disabilities; these differences cannot be explained clinically and highlight inequities in treatment. Policies and interventions to increase MOUD access are critical to reducing morbidity and mortality among PWD. Potential solutions include improved enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, workforce best practice training, and addressing stigma, accessibility, and the need for accommodations to improve OUD treatment for PWD.

Screening and Brief Intervention With Low-Income Youth in Community-Based Settings.

PURPOSE: We described screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) results and assessed whether SBIRT is associated with positive changes in substance use, risky use, and educational/employment outcomes for youth in community-based settings that are not healthcare focused. METHODS: YouthBuild USA serves youth of ages 16-24 who are neither in school nor employed. In an SBIRT intervention, youth completed substance use surveys and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Drug Abuse Screening Test screenings at entry and program completion. Staff reported on services provided in response to screening scores. Regression models compared changes in youth screening results and substance use from intake to follow-up and, with aggregate program-level data, youth outcomes across programs with and without the SBIRT intervention. RESULTS: Youth significantly reduced Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (3.1 vs. 2.3, p < .001) and Drug Abuse Screening Test (1.9 vs. 1.4, p < .001) scores, positive screens (64% vs. 54%, p < .001), and need for referrals to treatment (48% vs. 37%, p < .001), indicating less risky substance use, although self-reports of substance use in the past 30 days did not decrease. Proportionately more youth in SBIRT programs attained a high school diploma or equivalent (49% vs. 42%, p = .01) and were still in educational/job placements 3 months after program completion (67% vs. 59%, p = .02), compared to youth in non-SBIRT programs. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that community-based SBIRT is associated with positive outcomes-both reduced risky substance use and improved education and employment-that relate to longer-term positive development for youth. SBIRT appears to be an evidence-based approach to intervene and help youth.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings.

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

Peer Support at the Intersection of Disability and Opioid (Mis)Use: Key Stakeholders Provide Essential Considerations.

Individuals with disabilities may experience higher rates of opioid/substance use disorders (OUD/SUD) than other individuals and are likely vulnerable to unmet treatment needs. Peer support may be beneficial to these individuals, given the evidence of benefits in target populations with similar needs and the potential for overcoming barriers to treatment suggested in the available literature. The objective of this exploratory study was to specify essential considerations in adapting peer support for this population. Diverse key stakeholders (n = 16) were interviewed to explore the experiences, needs, and available supports for individuals with disabilities and OUD/SUD. A Peer Support Work Group including members with lived experience advised each component of the study. Semi-structured interview data were content analyzed and memos generated to summarize themes related to the research question. Participants reported extensive professional and personal experience in human services, disability, and recovery. Emergent themes included the importance of accessibility and model fit, the notion of "peerness" and peer match, and essential aspects of peer recruitment, training, and support. An accessible, acceptable, effective model of peer support requires particular attention to the needs of this diverse and varied population, and the contexts in which they are identified, referred, and engaged in services.

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.

Perspectives of adults with disabilities and opioid misuse: Qualitative findings illuminating experiences with stigma and substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a significant public health problem in the United States; however, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the experiences of individuals who have experienced both opioid misuse/opioid use disorder (OUD) and another disability. This gap in knowledge is particularly problematic because people with disabilities are more likely to have co-occurring serious mental illness, experience chronic pain, and be socially isolated, which are all independent risk factors for any substance use disorder (SUD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to illuminate the perspectives of individuals who have both opioid misuse/OUD and another disability, focusing on their experiences accessing and engaging in SUD treatment. METHODS: We recruited adults who had lived experience with both disability and an "opioid use problem." We conducted 17 individual interviews and facilitated two focus groups with 11 participants. The interview protocol included items related to individuals' experiences with OUD/SUD treatment as well as stigma. RESULTS: Respondents encountered many barriers to receiving SUD treatment related to their disability. People with disabilities experienced added layers of stigma and other systemic barriers (e.g., lack of accommodations) that complicated treatment quality and access. This was further compounded by intersecting identities (e.g., female gender, race, homelessness). CONCLUSION: SUD treatment providers should be trained to understand and adopt accommodations critical to the unique needs of individuals with disabilities, with cultural responsiveness, to encourage successful SUD treatment and recovery.

Substance use and misuse patterns and disability status in the 2020 US National Alcohol Survey: A contributing role for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about substance use and misuse among adults with disabilities is still emerging, despite increased risk of chronic pain and mental health problems, which are in turn risk factors for substance use and misuse. OBJECTIVE: We examined substance use and misuse among adults with selected self-reported disability (versus without), controlling for sociodemographics, depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, and assessed whether associations could be attributed to chronic pain. METHODS: Data are from the nationally representative 2020 US National Alcohol Survey. Disability indicators included sensory or mobility impairment, receiving Medicare before age 65, and/or unemployment due to disability. Regression analyses determined associations of disability with past-year substance use and misuse. Mediation analyses examined the role of chronic pain. RESULTS: Approximately 18% met 1+ disability criterion, representing 42.8 million adults. Disability was associated with reduced odds of current drinking (OR = 0.77, p < 0.01), but greater odds of daily nicotine use (OR = 1.43, p < 0.01), any drug use (OR = 1.32 p < 0.01), prescription drug misuse (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001), and other drug use (OR = 2.02, p < 0.001). Disability was not associated with high-intensity drinking or marijuana use. Chronic pain accounted for 17-38% of the association between disability and nicotine use, any drug use, prescription drug misuse, and other drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicated higher rates of substance use and misuse among people with disabilities, accounting for depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, with pain being a significant mediator. Substance use screening, brief intervention, and treatment should include appropriate accommodations for disabilities, inclusive of comprehensive pain management options.

Opioid use disorder-related emergency department visits among deaf or hard of hearing adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the devastating consequences of the opioid epidemic, little is known about its impact on the deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) community. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk of OUD-related ED visits, ED visits involving a prescription or non-prescription opioid overdose, and mortality during OUD-related ED visits among DHH adults, compared to non-DHH adults. METHODS: We analyzed the combined 2016-2017 National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). We identified DHH adults using ICD-10-CM codes, extracting 63,865 case records of ED visits among DHH adults ages 18-64. The control group of non-DHH adult ED visits was age-, sex-, and admission year-matched in a 1:3 case-control ratio. We conducted multi-level logistic regression models for the binary dependent variables. Covariates included sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In our unadjusted models, compared to non-DHH adults, DHH adults had significantly higher risk for OUD-related ED visits (OR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.59-1.80, p < 0.001), ED visits involving prescription (OR = 1.80, 95%CI: 1.47-2.20, p < 0.001) and non-prescription opioid overdose (OR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.05-1.63, p < 0.05), and mortality during OUD-related ED visits (OR = 2.22, 95%CI: 1.21-4.08, p < 0.05). However, after adjustment for confounding variables, including comorbid chronic pain and psychiatric conditions, except OUD-related ED visits, the risk for ED visits involving prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose, and OUD-related mortality became non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults without hearing loss, DHH non-elderly adults are at a higher risk of OUD-related ED visits. Future research is needed to understand the interplay between chronic pain, psychiatric conditions, and OUD among DHH adults.

The complexities of substance use disorder and people with disabilities: Current perspectives.

This Supplement of the Disability and Health Journal presents research at the intersection of disability and substance use disorders (SUD). A better understanding of their complex relationship is needed to (1) inform the development of culturally relevant, accessible, and inclusive prevention and intervention efforts aimed at eliminating disparities in SUD prevalence among people with disabilities; and (2) improve access, quality and outcomes of SUD treatment and other recovery support services for people with disabilities. These eleven articles include themes around prevalence and identification of disability-related disparities, perspectives of people with lived experience of disability, and adaptations to substance use measures and interventions. They highlight the importance of a public health focus on the unique needs of people with disabilities and development of accessible and person-centered interventions. Integrative and holistic SUD prevention and treatment efforts, including pain management, are essential to address the complex needs of people with both disability and SUD.

Association of facility characteristics and substance use disorder outcomes at discharge from residential treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) may benefit from services and supports delivered in residential settings. Prior research in this area has primarily focused on individual-level factors that affect outcomes, with little focus on the relationship between facility-level characteristics and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Administrative data from 2713 individuals with an index enrollment in publicly funded residential treatment in Massachusetts during 2015 were linked with facility-level survey data from 33 treatment providers. This study conducted multilevel linear and logisitc regression analysis, adjusting for resident demographic, socioeconomic, and substance use history and severity, to examine relationships between facility-level characteristics, treatment duration and completion, and housing and employment status at discharge. RESULTS: Residents stayed longer when they made and enforced rules (ß = 30.22, p = 0.006). Residents were less likely to complete treatment as the number of non-clinical services increased (aOR = 0.918, p = 0.029), or in facilities where residents ate together family style (aOR = 0.485, p = 0.039). Being employed at discharge was more likely when house meetings were held less than once per week (aOR = 3.37, p = 0.005) and less likely when held more than once per week (aOR = 0.385, p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Overall, increased resident governance and fewer contingencies for successful treatment participation were associated with positive treatment outcomes. Future research should examine the internal processes of residential settings, including peer-to-peer interactions, to better understand how within-residence features affect outcomes.

Mental health service use in a national sample of college students with co-occurring depression or anxiety and substance use.

Introduction: Campus health systems can provide timely and accessible resources for students with co-occurring substance use and mental illness, but little is known about the degree to which students use these systems. This study examined mental health service utilization among students with symptoms of anxiety or depression, stratified by substance use. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data came from the 2017-2020 Healthy Minds Study. Mental health service use was examined among students with clinically significant anxiety or depression (N = 65,969), stratified by substance use type (no use, alcohol or tobacco use, marijuana use, other drug use). We performed a series of weighted logistic regressions to assess the adjusted association of substance use type with past year use of campus, off-campus outpatient, emergency department, and hospital mental health services. Results: Among students, 39.3% reported exclusive use of alcohol or tobacco, 22.9% reported use of marijuana, and 5.9% reported use of other drugs. Use of alcohol or tobacco was not associated with mental health service utilization, while students who use marijuana faced increased odds of campus (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01, 1.20) and off-campus outpatient mental health service utilization (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17, 1.37). Other drug use was associated with increased odds of off-campus outpatient (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14, 1.48), emergency department (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.50, 3.03) and hospital service utilization (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.13, 2.04). Conclusions: Universities should consider screening for substance use and common mental illnesses to support the health of high-risk students.

Association of Lifetime History of Traumatic Brain Injury With Prescription Opioid Use and Misuse Among Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations of lifetime history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) with prescription opioid use and misuse among noninstitutionalized adults. PARTICIPANTS: Ohio Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) participants in the 2018 cohort who completed the prescription opioid and lifetime history of TBI modules (n = 3448). DESIGN: Secondary analyses of a statewide population-based cross-sectional survey. MAIN MEASURES: Self-report of a lifetime history of TBI using an adaptation of the Ohio State University TBI-Identification Method. Self-report of past year: (1) prescription pain medication use (ie, prescription opioid use); and (2) prescription opioid misuse, defined as using opioids more frequently or in higher doses than prescribed and/or using a prescription opioid not prescribed to the respondent. RESULTS: In total, 22.8% of adults in the sample screened positive for a lifetime history of TBI. A quarter (25.5%) reported past year prescription opioid use, and 3.1% met criteria for prescription opioid misuse. A lifetime history of TBI was associated with increased odds of both past year prescription opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27-1.83; P < .01) and prescription opioid misuse (AOR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08-2.52; P < .05), controlling for sex, age, race/ethnicity, and marital status. CONCLUSION: Results from this study support the "perfect storm" hypothesis-that persons with a history of TBI are at an increased risk for exposure to prescription opioids and advancing to prescription opioid misuse compared with those without a history of TBI. Routine screening for a lifetime history of TBI may help target efforts to prevent opioid misuse among adults.

Examining differences in prescription opioid use behaviors among U.S. adults with and without disabilities.

We aimed to identify differences in prescription opioid-related behaviors between adults with and without disabilities in the U.S. We analyzed data from the 2015-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (128,740 individuals; weighted N of 244,831,740) to examine disability-based differences in (1) reasons and sources of last prescription opioid misuse and, in multivariate models overall and stratified by disability, the likelihood of (2) prescription opioid use, and if used, (3) misuse and prescription opioid use disorder (OUD), overall and stratified by disability. Adults with disabilities were 11% more likely than adults without disabilities to report any past-year prescription opioid use, adjusted for sociodemographic, health, and behavioral health characteristics. However, among adults with any prescription opioid use, which is more common among people with disabilities, likelihood of prescription OUD did not vary by disability status. Pain relief as the reason for last misuse was associated with 18% increased likelihood of prescription OUD, if any use. To reduce risk of opioid misuse among people with disabilities, accessible and inclusive chronic pain management services are essential. Further, the substance use treatment field should provide accessible and inclusive services, and be aware of the need for pain management by many people with disabilities, which may include the use of prescription opioids. These findings highlight essential opportunities for public health and policies to improve access, accommodations, and quality of health and behavioral health care for people with disabilities, and to encourage a holistic perspective of people with disabilities and their needs.

Improving quality and performance in substance use treatment programs: What is being done and why is it so hard?

SUMMARY: As states plan to implement system-wide change of any kind, it is important to understand program directors' perspectives on challenges they face. This is especially true with quality improvement reforms. Much research has focused on quality improvement in medicine, but there is a gap in our knowledge about programs that treat individuals with drug or alcohol use. From 2007 to 2016, Maine contracted with selected substance use treatment programs using financial incentives to improve quality, with focus on treatment access, engagement, retention, and completion as measures of quality. Using surveys and in-depth interviews, this research documents strategies that programs used to improve performance and challenges faced in implementing reforms. Only programs that received federal block grant funding through the state to provide substance use treatment were eligible for an incentive contract, creating a natural experiment with non-block grant programs (non-incentive). Directors were interviewed in incentive (n=13) and non-incentive programs (n=12). FINDINGS: Thematic analysis revealed that: 1) programs focused on QI, but those eligible for incentives focused on different quality measures, 2) most of the reforms in both groups targeted improving treatment access and retention, and 3) programs faced substantial challenges in undertaking reforms. Despite efforts, many programs could not meet quality measures consistently over time and faced barriers over which they had little control. APPLICATIONS: Policy makers and program administrators will benefit from knowing the challenges of undertaking QI initiatives and provide support for the programs.

Effectiveness of value-based purchasing for substance use treatment engagement and retention.

INTRODUCTION: Many people drop out of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment within the first few sessions, which suggests the need for innovative strategies to address this. We examined the effectiveness of incentive-based contracting for Maine's publicly funded outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) SUD treatment, to determine its potential for improving treatment engagement and retention. METHODS: Maine's incentive-based contract with federally block grant-funded OP and IOP treatment agencies created a natural experiment, in which we could compare treatment engagement and retention with a group of state-licensed treatment agencies that were not part of the incentive-based contract. We used administrative data for OP (N = 18,375) and IOP (N = 5986) SUD treatment admissions from FY2005-FY2011 to capture trends prior to and after the FY2008 contract implementation date. We performed multivariable difference-in-difference logistic regression models following propensity score matching of clients. RESULTS: Two-thirds (66%) of OP admissions engaged in treatment, defined as 4+ treatment sessions, and 85% of IOP admissions satisfied the similar criteria of 4+ treatment days. About 40-45% of OP admissions reached the threshold for retention, defined as 90 days in treatment. IOP treatment completion was attained by 50-58% of admissions. For OP, the incentive and nonincentive groups had no significant differences in percentages with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.28, DID = 5.9%, p = .19), and 90-day retention was significant in the opposite direction of what we hypothesized (AOR = 0.80, DID = -4.6%, p = .0003). For IOP, the incentive group had a significant, but still small, increase in percentage with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.52, DID = 5.5%, p = .003), but the corresponding increase in treatment completion was not similarly significant (AOR = 1.12, DID = 2.7%, p = .53). In all models, individual-level variables were strong predictors of outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found little to no impact of the incentive-based contract on the treatment engagement, retention, and completion measures, adding to the body of evidence that shows few or null results for value-based purchasing in SUD treatment programs. The limited success of such efforts is likely to reflect the bandwidth that providers and programs have to focus on new endeavors, the importance of the incentive funding to their bottom line, and forces beyond their immediate control.

Medication Utilization for Alcohol Use Disorder in a Commercially Insured Population.

OBJECTIVE: Examine patterns of alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication use and identify factors associated with prescription fill among commercially insured individuals with an index AUD visit. DESIGN: Using 2008-2018 claims data from a large national insurer, estimate days to first AUD medication using cause-specific hazards approach to account for competing risk of benefits loss. PARTICIPANTS: Aged 17-64 with ≥ 1 AUD visit. MAIN MEASURE: Days to AUD medication fill. KEY RESULTS: A total of 13.3% of the 151,128 with an index visit filled an AUD prescription after that visit, while 69.8% lost benefits before filling and 17.0% remained enrolled but did not fill (median days observed = 305). Almost half (46.3%) of those who filled a prescription received substance use disorder (SUD) inpatient care within 7 days before the fill, and 63.4% received SUD outpatient care. Likelihood of medication use was higher for those aged 26-35, 36-45, and 46-55 years relative to 56-64 years (e.g., 26-35: hazard ratio = 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.23-1.36]); those diagnosed with moderate/severe AUD (2.05 [1.98-2.12]), co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) (1.33 [1.26-1.39]), or severe mental illness (1.31 [1.27-1.35]); those with a chronic alcohol-related diagnosis (1.08 [1.04-1.12]); and those whose index visit was in an inpatient/emergency department (1.27 [1.23-1.31]) or intermediate care setting (1.13 [1.07-1.20]) relative to outpatient. Likelihood of use was higher in later years relative to 2008 (e.g., 2018:2.02 [1.89-2.15]) and higher for those who received the majority of AUD care in a practice with a psychiatrist/addiction medicine specialist (1.13 [1.10-1.16]). Likelihood of use was lower for those diagnosed with a SUD other than AUD or OUD (0.88 [0.85-0.92]), those with an acute alcohol-related condition (0.79 [0.75-0.84]), and males (0.71 [0.69-0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: While AUD medication use increased and was more common among individuals with greater severity, few patients who could benefit from medications are using them. More efforts are needed to identify and treat individuals in non-acute care settings earlier in their course of AUD.

Outpatient care for opioid use disorder among the commercially insured: Use of medication and psychosocial treatment.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) consists of medications that treat OUD (MOUD) and psychosocial treatments (e.g., psychotherapy or counseling, case management). Prior studies have not examined the use of these components of care in a commercially insured population. METHODS: We analyzed claims data from a large national commercial insurer of enrollees age 17-64 identified with OUD (2008-2016, N = 87,877 persons and 122,708 person-years). Multinomial logistic regression models identified factors associated with receiving in a given year: 1) both MOUD and psychosocial visits, 2) MOUD without psychosocial visits, 3) psychosocial visits without MOUD, or 4) neither. We estimated predicted probabilities for key variables of interest. RESULTS: Identification of OUD nearly tripled during the observation period (0.17% in 2008, 0.45% in 2016). Among person-years identified as having OUD, 36.3% included MOUD (8.1% both MOUD and psychosocial visits and 28.2% MOUD without psychosocial visits). In adjusted analyses, women had a lower probability of receiving either treatment alone or in combination (e.g.,MOUD plus psychosocial visits: women = 6.7% [6.5%-6.9%] vs. men = 9.2% [9.0%-9.4%]). Moderate/severe vs. mild OUD was associated with a higher probability of receiving MOUD (e.g., MOUD plus psychosocial visits: 8.7% [8.6%-8.9%] vs. 0.9% [0.7%-1.0%]). In contrast, an OUD overdose was associated with a greater probability of receiving neither treatment (78.2% [77.4%-79.0%] vs. 55.5% [55.2%-55.8%]). Over time, the probability of receiving each MOUD and psychosocial treatment category increased relative to 2008, but reached a peak and then plateaued or declined, by the end of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: A significant treatment gap exists among individuals identified with OUD in this commercially insured population, with greater risks of receiving no treatment for women and for individuals with mild versus moderate or severe OUD. Overdose is associated with receiving neither MOUD nor psychosocial treatment. While treated prevalence initially increased relative to 2008, rates of treatment subsequently plateaued. Additional study and monitoring to elucidate barriers to OUD treatment in commercially insured populations are warranted.