State guidance and system changes related to COVID-19: Impact on opioid treatment programs.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, methadone treatment may only be provided through opioid treatment programs (OTPs), which operate under a complex system of federal and state regulations. During the pandemic, federal regulators relaxed several longstanding restrictions for OTPs by permitting expanded eligibility for take-home medication and allowing counseling and medication management through telehealth. The purpose of this study was to assess the guidance provided by states regarding the revised guidelines and efforts to protect staff and patients in response to the pandemic. METHODS: Between September and October of 2020, The National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD) and Friends Research Institute, fielded a web-based qualitative survey of state opioid treatment authorities (SOTAs) across the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The study conducted the survey prior to the availability of the COVID vaccines. It queried 42 SOTAs concerning state guidance provided to OTPs on treatment operations and practices for existing patients and new admissions; actions to protect staff and patients; changes in treatment need and operational capacity; and administrative practices regarding treatment. This study examines the responses of 42 SOTAs (65 %) who completed the survey. RESULTS: Using content analysis, responses to the survey indicate that most states provided guidance to OTPs in response to the revised federal regulations and the need to protect staff and patients. All respondents reported that their states permitted increased number of take-homes doses for existing patients (100 %) and most reported doing so for new admissions (69 %; N=29). Ninety-eight percent (98 %; N=41) reported permitting remote counseling for existing patients and 90 % (N=38) permitting this for new admissions. SOTAs reported providing guidance on staff safety, operational procedures, oversight, and reforming billing practices to align with new models of service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: SOTAs generally reported that federal guidance increased patient access, engagement, and retention. Increased take-home flexibilities were viewed as important for expanding access and continuity of treatment, with the majority of SOTAs stating that the revised treatment practices (e.g., expansion of telehealth, flexible medication dispensing practices) were beneficial. These regulatory flexibilities, many believe, promoted the continuation of treatment and successful patient outcomes during the pandemic.

Opioid treatment program culture and philosophy: Views of OTP staff and state officials on implementing interim methadone treatment.

INTRODUCTION: People seeking treatment at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) can face admission delays. Interim methadone (IM) treatment, an effective approach to expedite admissions when programs lack sufficient counseling staff, has been seldom implemented. A study of implementation facilitation to spur the use of IM was conducted among six OTPs and their state opioid treatment authorities (SOTAs) in four US states. Between study recruitment and launch, organizational changes at three OTPs eliminated their need for IM. Two OTPs' requests to their states to provide IM (one prior to study launch and one following launch) were deferred by the states due to internal issues that required resolution to comply with federal IM regulations. During the study, another OTP's delays resolved, and one OTP streamlined its admissions procedures. METHODS: Virtual interviews were conducted with 16 OTP staff and SOTAs from six OTPs in four US states following their participation in the parent study. Interviews focused on the feasibility and acceptability of the implementation intervention for IM. We analyzed data using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Two overarching themes emerged from the qualitative data with respect to the role that organizational culture plays in OTP staff views of efforts to implement interim methadone: (1) the contrasting views of interim methadone based on whether staff adopt a traditional treatment vs. harm reduction philosophy and (2) the importance of reconciling these philosophies in addressing the culture shift that would accompany the process of implementing IM. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational treatment philosophy and program culture emerged as important factors determining the OTPs' staff's willingness to adopt new approaches to expedite admissions. Participants noted a tension between traditional treatment and harm reduction philosophies that impacted their views of IM, in part based on when they entered the drug treatment field. While understanding and addressing treatment philosophy and organizational culture and willingness to change is of importance when implementing new approaches in OTPs, leadership at the state and OTP level are powerful drivers of change.

Impact of COVID-19-related methadone regulatory flexibilities: views of state opioid treatment authorities and program staff.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations in the USA for methadone treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) were temporarily revised to reduce clinic crowding and promote access to treatment. METHODS: As part of a study seeking to implement interim methadone without routine counseling to hasten treatment access in Opioid Treatment Programs with admission delays, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted via Zoom with participating staff (N = 11) in six OTPs and their State Opioid Treatment Authorities (SOTAs; N = 5) responsible for overseeing the OTPs' federal regulatory compliance. Participants discussed their views on the response of OTPs in their states to the pandemic and the impact of the COVID-related regulatory flexibilities on staff, established patients, and new program applicants. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and a content analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: All SOTAs requested the blanket take-home exemption and supported the use of telehealth for counseling. Participants noted that these changes were more beneficial for established patients than program applicants. Established patients were able to obtain a greater number of take-homes and attend individual counseling remotely. Patients with limited resources had greater difficulty or were unable to access remote counseling. The convenience of intake through telehealth did not extend to new program applicants because the admission physical exam requirement was not waived. CONCLUSIONS: The experienced reflections of SOTAs and OTP providers on methadone practice changes during the COVID-19 pandemic offer insights on SAMHSA's proposed revisions to its OTP regulations. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT04188977.

State-Level Support for Recovery Housing: Results from a National Collaborative Study of U.S. Single State Agencies.

Single State Agencies (SSAs) are responsible for managing the publicly funded alcohol and other drug prevention, treatment, and recovery service system. Recovery housing (RH) is an important recovery support service (RSS) for individuals experiencing substance use disorder (SUD). Despite its effectiveness, information on state utilization and support is limited. To assess state-level support for RH and its incorporation within the SSA-managed SUD service systems, we administered a survey with SSAs in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. In total, 48 out of the 51 SSAs responded, yielding a 94% response rate. Findings indicate strong state-level support for RH in terms of it being an integral RSS (98%), part of state-level strategic plans (73%) and prioritized for funding (87.5%). States are making progress to formalize RH with 68% reporting RH had been defined formally or within their agency. However, activities around understanding the capacity and need for RH are limited, with 44% indicating a needs assessment had not been conducted. At the same time, states perceive RH as a priority RSS, with growing recognition of its positive impact on long-term SUD recovery. This research identifies the opportunities for stakeholders to further evolve and expand RH at the federal, state, and local levels.