Implementing a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of medication treatment for opioid use disorder in primary care: study design and methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists remain an underutilized resource in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although studies have engaged pharmacists in dispensing medications for OUD (MOUD), few studies have evaluated collaborative care models in which pharmacists are an active, integrated part of a primary care team offering OUD care. METHODS: This study seeks to implement a pharmacist integrated MOUD clinical model (called PrIMO) and evaluate its feasibility, acceptability, and impact across four diverse primary care sites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research is used as an organizing framework for study development and interpretation of findings. Implementation Facilitation is used to support PrIMO adoption. We assess the primary outcome, the feasibility of implementing PrIMO, using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). We evaluate the acceptability and impact of the PrIMO model at the sites using mixed-methods and combine survey and interview data from providers, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, administrators, and patients receiving MOUD at the primary care sites with patient electronic health record data. We hypothesize that it is feasible to launch delivery of the PrIMO model (reach SIC Stage 6), and that it is acceptable, will positively impact patient outcomes 1 year post model launch (e.g., increased MOUD treatment retention, medication regimen adherence, service utilization for co-morbid conditions, and decreased substance use), and will increase each site's capacity to care for patients with MOUD (e.g., increased number of patients, number of prescribers, and rate of patients per prescriber). DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of care for the treatment of OUD that may be feasible, acceptable to both site staff and patients and may favorably impact patients' access to MOUD and treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05310786) on April 5, 2022, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05310786?id=NCT05310786&rank=1.

Alcohol-Related Care Among Veterans With Unhealthy Alcohol Use: The Role of Long-term Opioid Therapy Receipt.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is potentially dangerous among patients with unhealthy alcohol use because of possible adverse interactions. We examined receipt of alcohol-related care among patients with unhealthy alcohol use receiving LTOT and without opioid receipt. METHODS: We use data collected from 2009 to 2017 in the Women Veterans Cohort Study, a national cohort of Veterans engaged in Veterans Health Administration care. We included patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (score ≥5) using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption questionnaire. Our primary exposure was LTOT (receipt of prescribed opioids for ≥90 days) versus no opioid receipt at the time of the first positive Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption. Our primary outcome was receipt of brief intervention within 14 days of positive alcohol screen. Unadjusted and 4 adjusted modified Poisson regression models assessed prevalence and relative rates (RRs) of outcomes. RESULTS: Among eligible veterans, 6222 of 113,628 (5.5%) received LTOT at screening. Among patients receiving LTOT, 67.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.3%-68.6%) had a documented brief intervention within 14 days of positive screen, compared with 70.1% (95% CI, 69.8%-70.4%) among patients without opioid receipt (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98; P < 0.001). Within adjusted models, the rate of brief intervention among patients receiving LTOT remained lower than patients without opioid receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unhealthy alcohol use, patients receiving LTOT had significantly lower rates of brief intervention receipt compared with those without opioid receipt, and they should be a focus for interventions to improve alcohol-related care and safer opioid prescribing.

Associations between Patient Experience and Addiction Treatment Facility Services: Results of the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards Surveys.

OBJECTIVES: Patient experience and presence of evidence-based facility services are 2 dimensions of assessing quality of addiction treatment facilities. However, the relationship between these two is not well described. The objective of this study was to explore associations between patient experience measures and service offerings at addiction treatment facilities. METHODS: We used data from cross-sectional surveys of addiction treatment facilities and persons involved in treatment at corresponding facilities to identify facility services (eg, availability of medications for alcohol use disorder, assistance with obtaining social services, etc) and patient experience measures (overall facility rating, extent helped by treatment, ability to deal with daily problems after treatment), respectively. We used hierarchical multiple logistic regression to test for associations between top-box scores for each patient experience outcome and facility services. RESULTS: We analyzed 9191 patient experience surveys from 149 facilities. Assistance with obtaining social services (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.43 [0.28-0.66]) was associated with lower overall treatment facility ratings. Childcare (2.00 [1.04-3.84]) was associated with top-box scores for extent helped. Availability of cognitive behavioral therapy (2.67 [1.25-5.73]) and childcare (1.77 [1.08-2.92]) were associated with top-box scores for ability to deal with daily problems after treatment. Assistance with obtaining social services (0.61 [0.41-0.90]) was associated with lower scores for ability to deal with problems after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Few addiction treatment facility services were associated with patient experience measures. Future work should explore bridging the gap between evidence-based services and positive patient experiences.

Drive Time to Addiction Treatment Facilities Providing Contingency Management across Rural and Urban Census Tracts in 6 US States.

OBJECTIVE: We examined drive times to outpatient substance use disorder treatment providers that provide contingency management (CM) and those that integrate CM with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services in 6 US states. METHODS: We completed cross-sectional geospatial analysis among census tracts in Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and West Virginia. We excluded census tracts with a population of zero. Using data from the 2020 Shatterproof substance use treatment facility survey, our outcome was the minimum drive time in minutes from the census tract mean center of population to the nearest outpatient CM provider, outpatient CM provider with MOUD services, and federally qualified health centers (FQHC). We stratified census tracts by 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes and by state. RESULTS: The population was greater than zero in 11,719 of 11,899 census tracts. The median drive time to the nearest CM provider was 12.2 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.0-23.5) minutes and the median drive time to the nearest CM provider increased from 9.7 (IQR, 6.0-15.0) minutes in urban census tracts to 38.8 (IQR, 25.4-53.0) minutes in rural ( H = 3683, P < 0.001). The median drive time increased to the nearest CM provider with MOUD services [14.2 (IQR, 7.9-29.5) minutes, W = 18,877, P < 0.001] and decreased to the nearest FQHC [7.9 (IQR, 4.3-13.6) minutes, W = 11,555,894, P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest limited availability of CM, particularly within rural communities and for patients needing concurrent CM and MOUD treatment. Our results suggest greater adoption of CM within FQHCs could reduce urban-rural disparities in CM availability.

"As safe as possible": a qualitative study of opioid withdrawal and risk behavior among people who use illegal opioids.

BACKGROUND: Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence among many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) that has also been shown to increase their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior. The proliferation of fentanyl in the illicit opioid market may have amplified this relationship, potentially putting PWUIO at greater risk of negative health outcomes. Understanding the relationship between withdrawal and risk-involved behavior may also have important implications for the ways that problematic drug use is conceptualized, particularly in disease models of addiction, which position risk behavior as evidence of pathology that helps to justify ontological distinctions between addicts and non-addicts. Examining withdrawal, and its role in PWUIO's willingness to engage in risk, may aid in the development of alternative theories of risk involvement and create discursive spaces for de-medicalizing and de-othering people who use illegal drugs. METHODS: This article is based on 32 semi-structured interviews with PWUIO in the New York City area who also reported recent withdrawal experience. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and August 2022 and recorded for later transcription. Data were then coded and analyzed based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature. RESULTS: Participants described a strong relationship between withdrawal and their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior that was exacerbated by the proliferation of fentanyl. Yet, their descriptions did not align with narratives of risk as a product of bad decisions made by individuals. Rather, data demonstrated the substantial role of social and structural context, particularly drug policies like prohibition and criminalization, in the kinds of risks that PWUIO faced and their ability to respond to them. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal should be taken more seriously both from an ethical perspective and as an important catalyst of risk behavior. However, theories that position activities taken to avoid withdrawal as irrational and as evidence of pathology are poorly aligned with the complexity of PWUIO's actual lives. We recommend the use of less deterministic and less medicalized theories of risk that better account for differences between how people view the world, and for the role of socio-structural forces in the production of risk.

Availability of Specific Programs and Medications for Addiction Treatment to Vulnerable Populations: Results from the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards (ATLAS) Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe addiction treatment facilities by their offerings of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) and/or for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and by their offering services to groups with barriers to care: uninsured and publicly insured, youth, seniors, individuals preferring to receive care in Spanish, and sexual minority individuals. METHODS: We examined addiction treatment facility survey data in 6 US states. We performed bivariate analyses comparing facilities that offered MAUD, MOUD, and both (main outcomes). We then constructed a multivariable model to identify predictors of offering MAUD, MOUD, or both, including exposures that demonstrate programming for special populations. RESULTS: Among 2474 facilities, 1228 (50%) responded between October 2019 and January 2020. Programs were offered for youth (30%), elderly (40%), Spanish-speaking (37%), and sexual minority populations (39%), with 58% providing MAUD, 67% providing MOUD, and 56% providing both. Among those providing MAUD, MOUD, or both, a majority (>60% for all exposures) offered programming to vulnerable populations. With Delaware as reference, Louisiana (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.67) and North Carolina (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) facilities had lesser odds of offering both MAUD and MOUD. All exposures identifying facilities offering treatment to vulnerable groups were associated with offerings of MAUD and/or MOUD except for offerings to youth; these facilities had less odds of offering MOUD (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: There are facility-level disparities in providing MAUD and MOUD by state, and facilities with youth programming have lesser odds of offering MOUD than other facilities.

Availability of timely methadone treatment in the United States and Canada during COVID-19: A census tract-level analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare timely access to methadone treatment in the United States (US) and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of census tracts and aggregated dissemination areas (used for rural Canada) within 14 US and 3 Canadian jurisdictions in 2020. We excluded census tracts or areas with a population density of less than one person per square km. Data from a 2020 audit of timely medication access was used to determine clinics accepting new patients within 48 h. Unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to examine the relationship between area population density and sociodemographic covariates and three outcome variables: 1) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients, 2) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients for medication initiation within 48 h, and 3) the difference in the driving distance between the first and second outcome. RESULTS: We included 17,611 census tracts and areas with a population density greater than one person per square kilometer. After adjusting for area covariates, US jurisdictions were a median of 11.6 miles (p value <0.001) further from a methadone clinic accepting new patients and 25.1 miles (p value <0.001) further from a clinic accepting new patients within 48 h than Canadian jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the more flexible Canadian regulatory approach to methadone treatment is associated with a greater availability of timely methadone treatment and reduced urban-rural disparity in availability, compared to the US.

Multidimensional assessment of access to medications for opioid use disorder across urban and rural communities: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with opioid use disorder do not receive medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), especially in rural areas. The patient-centered access to healthcare framework posits access as a multidimensional phenomenon impacted by five healthcare system and five patient ability dimensions. Interventions to improve local MOUD treatment outcomes require an understanding of how these dimensions differ across urban and rural communities. This scoping review sought to systematically appraise the literature on MOUD access across urban and rural communities (i.e., rurality) in the US using the patient-centered access framework. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of 1) electronic databases, 2) grey literature, and 3) correspondence with content experts (March 2021). We included articles specifying the study sample by rurality and examining at least one dimension of access to MOUD. The analysis and qualitative synthesis of study results examined study characteristics and categorized key findings by access dimensions. RESULTS: The search produced 3963 unique articles, of which 147 met inclusion criteria. Among included studies, 96% (142/147) examined healthcare system dimensions of access while less than 20% (25/147) examined any of the five dimensions of patient ability. Additionally, 49% (72/147) of studies compared access dimensions by rurality. Across studies, increasing rurality was associated with fewer available MOUD services, but little was known about geographic variation in other critical dimensions of access. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of studies examined healthcare system dimensions of MOUD access and few studies made comparisons by rurality or prioritized the patient's perspective, limiting our understanding of how access differs by rurality in the US. As COVID-19 spurs novel changes in MOUD delivery, this inadequate multidimensional understanding of MOUD access may impede the tailoring of interventions to local needs. There is an urgent need for mixed-methods and community-engaged research prioritizing the patient's perspective of MOUD access by rurality. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/wk6b9/).

Recent modifications to the US methadone treatment system are a Band-Aid-not a solution-to the nation's broken opioid use disorder treatment system.

For 5 decades, US federal regulations have segregated methadone treatment for opioid use disorder from the rest of the health care system, confining its availability to specialty treatment programs that are highly regulated. These regulations have led to severe shortages in the availability of methadone and grave underutilization of this lifesaving medication despite a worsening overdose crisis. In this commentary, we discuss current barriers to methadone in the US opioid treatment system and how recent changes to federal regulations fall short of the reforms needed to significantly expand access to this treatment. Instead, we propose the urgent need to expand methadone to mainstream health care settings by allowing for office-based prescribing and pharmacy dispensing of methadone, the norm in many other developed countries.

Methadone prescribing by addiction specialists likely to leave communities without available methadone treatment.

Methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is not available in most suburban and rural US communities. We examined 2 options to expand methadone availability: (1) addiction specialty physician or (2) all clinician prescribing. Using 2022 Health Resources and Services Administration data, we used mental health professional shortage areas to indicate the potential of addiction specialty physician prescribing and the location of federally qualified health centers (ie, federally certified primary care clinics) to indicate the potential of all clinician prescribing. We examined how many census tracts without an available opioid treatment program (ie, methadone clinic) are (1) located within a mental health professional shortage area and (2) are also without an available federally qualified health center. Methadone was available in 49% of tracts under current regulations, 63% of tracts in the case of specialist physician prescribing, and 86% of tracts in the case of all clinician prescribing. Specialist physician prescribing would expand availability to an additional 12% of urban, 18% of suburban, and 16% of rural tracts, while clinician prescribing would expand to an additional 30% of urban, 53% of suburban, and 58% of rural tracts relative to current availability. Results support enabling broader methadone prescribing privileges to ensure equitable treatment access, particularly for rural communities.

Assessment of Community-Level Vulnerability and Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Given that COVID-19 and recent natural disasters exacerbated the shortage of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services and were associated with increased opioid overdose mortality, it is important to examine how a community's ability to respond to natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks is associated with MOUD access. Objective: To examine the association of community vulnerability to disasters and pandemics with geographic access to each of the 3 MOUDs and whether this association differs by urban, suburban, or rural classification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) in the continental United States excluding Washington, DC, conducted a geospatial analysis of 2020 treatment location data. Exposures: Social vulnerability index (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measure of vulnerability to disasters or pandemics). Main Outcomes and Measures: Drive time in minutes from the population-weighted center of the ZCTA to the ZCTA of the nearest treatment location for each treatment type (buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone). Results: Among 32 604 ZCTAs within the continental US, 170 within Washington, DC, and 20 without an urban-rural classification were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 32 434 ZCTAs. Greater social vulnerability was correlated with longer drive times for methadone (correlation, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.11), but it was not correlated with access to other MOUDs. Among rural ZCTAs, increasing social vulnerability was correlated with shorter drive times to buprenorphine (correlation, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.08) but vulnerability was not correlated with other measures of access. Among suburban ZCTAs, greater vulnerability was correlated with both longer drive times to methadone (correlation, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.24) and extended-release naltrexone (correlation, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, communities with greater vulnerability did not have greater geographic access to MOUD, and the mismatch between vulnerability and medication access was greatest in suburban communities. Rural communities had poor geographic access regardless of vulnerability status. Future disaster preparedness planning should match the location of services to communities with greater vulnerability to prevent inequities in overdose deaths.

Availability of medical cannabis services by racial, social, and geographic characteristics of neighborhoods in New York: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Within the United States (US), because racial/ethnic disparities in cannabis arrests continue, and cannabis legalization is expanding, understanding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services is important. Few studies report mixed findings regarding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services; none examined New York. We examined disparities in availability of medical cannabis services in New York. We hypothesized that New York census tracts with few Black or Hispanic residents, high incomes, high education levels, and greater urbanicity would have more medical cannabis services. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the 2018 US Census Bureau 5-year American Community Survey and New York Medical Marijuana Program. Main exposures were census tract characteristics, including urban-rural classification, percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, and median household income. Main outcomes were presence of at least one medical cannabis certifying provider and dispensary in each census tract. To compare census tracts' characteristics with (vs. without) certifying providers and dispensaries, we used chi-square tests and t-tests. To examine characteristics independently associated with (vs. without) certifying providers, we used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 4858 New York census tracts, 1073 (22.1%) had medical cannabis certifying providers and 37 (0.8%) had dispensaries. Compared to urban census tracts, suburban census tracts were 62% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.25-0.57). For every 10% increase in the proportion of Black residents, a census tract was 5% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92-0.99). For every 10% increase in the proportion of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, a census tract was 30% more likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.21-1.38). Census tracts with (vs. without) dispensaries were more likely to have a higher percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher (43.7% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In New York, medical cannabis services are least available in neighborhoods with Black residents and most available in urban neighborhoods with highly educated residents. Benefits of legal cannabis must be shared by communities disproportionately harmed by illegal cannabis.

Changes in methadone take-home dosing before and after COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal exemption allowed stable and less stable patients greater take-home doses of methadone. We assessed the adoption of increased take-home medication during COVID-19 and whether increased take-home doses is associated with clients' characteristics. METHODOLOGY: We completed a pre-post study of adults receiving methadone for OUD from an OTP in Spokane, Washington. Our outcome was the change in the number of take-home methadone doses three months before and three months after the March 2020 take-home medication exemption. Clients' characteristics included age, gender, ethnicity, education level, homelessness, spatial access to the clinic, and methamphetamine use. RESULTS: The study included 194 clients in treatment for a median of three years. All study participants experienced an average increase in take-home medication of 41.4 in the three-month period after the COVID-19 exemption. In the final adjusted models, clients who reported using methamphetamine in the last 30 days experienced a significantly larger increase in take-home dosage (55.6 days) compare to clients who did not use methamphetamine (p ≤0.001). Most of the clients who reported using methamphetamine were also likely to be homeless. All other variables were not associated with a change in take-home doses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Spokane OTP quickly expanded take-home medication dosing in response to the COVID-19 exemption and broadly expanded take-home dosing among established clients. Clients with concurrent methamphetamine use were allowed fewer take-home doses prior to COVID-19, but after the exemption the clinic provided them the same number of take-home doses as clients who had not used methamphetamine.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report.

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. RESULTS: Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.

Methadone Access for Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic Within the United States and Canada.

Importance: Methadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs. Objective: To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment. Results: Among 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.

Law enforcement assisted diversion: Qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators of program implementation.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread interest in adoption, there has been limited systematic examination of Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) implementation, a model for police-led arrest diversion for those with substance use disorders (SUD). In the fall of 2017, the City of New Haven started a LEAD program. During the first 9 months of the pilot, only 2 clients were successfully diverted from arrest. Therefore, we examined the and barriers and facilitators of LEAD implementation. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and field observations of LEAD police officers and health care providers between August 2018 and June 2019. Interviews and field observations were analyzed using directed content analysis and guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. RESULTS: Lead professionals participated in 19 semi-structured interviews and three field observations. Barriers to arrest diversion implementation included procedural complexity of arrest diversion, concerns about reduced penalties for substance use among officers, stigma of SUDs, and a belief in a punitive role for policing. Facilitators included a positive longitudinal relationship with potential clients and an understanding of SUD as a chronic disease. CONCLUSION: We identified several barriers to LEAD implementation. Our results suggest promotion of SUD as a chronic disease, ongoing training of officers, and positive incentives for entering substance use treatment should be utilized to facilitate implementation.

Expanding access to methadone treatment in Ohio through federally qualified health centers and a chain pharmacy: A geospatial modeling analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, methadone provision for opioid use disorder (OUD) occurs at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Ohio recently enacted a policy to expand methadone administration to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC). We compared how the provision of methadone at current OTPs or the proposed expansion to FQHCs and pharmacies meets the urban and rural need for OUD treatment. METHODS: Cross-sectional geospatial analysis of zip codes within Ohio with at least one 2017 opioid overdose death stratified by Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. Our primary outcome was the proportion of need by zip code (using opioid overdose deaths as a proxy for need) within a 15- or 30- minute drive time of an OTP. RESULTS: Among 581 zip codes, sixty four percent of treatment need was within a 15-minute drive time and 81 %, within a 30-minute drive time. The proportion of need within a 15-minute drive decreased with increasing rural classification (urban 78 %, suburban 20 %, large rural 9%, and small rural 1%;p<.001). The portion of need within a 15-minute drive time increased with the addition of FQHCs (96 %) and the addition of chain pharmacies (99 %) relative to OTPs alone among all zip codes and for all urban-rural strata (p<.001). CONCLUSION: Over one-third of OUD treatment need was not covered by existing OTPs and coverage decreased with rural classification of zip codes. Most of the gap between supply and need could be mitigated with FQHC methadone provision, which would expand both urban and rural access.

Reporting of substance use treatment quality in United States adult drug courts.

BACKGROUND: Adult drug courts are growing in popularity within the Unites States, but the quality of substance use treatment within drug court programs and the impact of drug courts on health and substance use treatment outcomes is largely unknown. We appraised the quality of United States adult drug court process evaluations and the inclusion of measures of substance use treatment quality. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the adult drug court evaluations between 2008 and 2018 in accordance with recommended strategies for systematic gray literature search. We appraised evaluation quality using the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordination Center tool for process evaluations. We extracted recommended measures of substance use treatment quality, including measures related to screening and monitoring, diagnosis, service availability, service utilization, and outcomes. RESULTS: Our search identified 112 evaluations. Process measures were included within 68 evaluations, 45% of which had poor data reliability. We found that less than 10% of evaluations reported substance use treatment quality measures related to service utilization, overdose, and mortality, while more than 75% contained criminal justice measures, including program graduation (completion of criminal justice proceedings) and participant recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: We found low uptake of measures of substance use treatment quality. The absence of data call into question the ability of drug courts to stem harmful substance use related health outcomes.