Methadone dosing at New York State opioid treatment programs following initial revisions to federal regulations.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, a temporary federal regulatory exemption for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) was issued, allowing for a greater number of take-home methadone doses than was previously permitted. In the same month, to address financial sustainability, New York State (NYS) Medicaid also transitioned to a bundle reimbursement methodology for OTPs. We examined methadone dosing schedules in NYS before and after these regulatory and financing changes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using NYS OTP patient data from two sources: the client data system for a baseline period (February 2020) and survey data collected after regulatory and financing changes (May 2020 to August 2021, 64 weekly surveys). We compared methadone dosing schedules over time using chi-square tests and Poisson regression. RESULT: At baseline, data were available for 78% (n=77/99) of OTPs including 90.9% (n=26,225/28,839) of their enrolled patients. During the survey period, 99 OTPs completed 93.1% (n=5901/6336) of weekly surveys, with a mean statewide weekly patient census of 38,904 (SD=1214.5). Between February and May 2020, daily dosing significantly decreased from 55.4% to 16.3% of patients (-39.1 percentage points [95%CI: -39.8 to -38.4]), although it significantly increased subsequently (3.33%/4-weeks [95%CI: 3.28, 3.39]). In addition, weekly-to-monthly dosing significantly increased from 26.9% to 54.5% of patients (27.6 percentage points [95%CI: 26.9, 28.4]), although it significantly decreased subsequently (-1.19%/4-weeks [95%CI: -1.23, -1.15]). DISCUSSION: Despite large initial changes, we found a trend toward gradual return to more restrictive dosing schedules. OTPs need further support in leveraging new opportunities to improve methadone treatment and outcomes.

Referral to and engagement in substance use disorder treatment within opioid intervention courts in New York: a qualitative study of implementation barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are frequently in contact with the court system and have markedly higher rates of fatal opioid overdose. Opioid intervention courts (OIC) were developed to address increasing rates of opioid overdose among court defendants by engaging court staff in identification of treatment need and referral for opioid-related services and building collaborations between the court and OUD treatment systems. The study goal was to understand implementation barriers and facilitators in referring and engaging OIC clients in OUD treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with OIC stakeholders (n = 46) in 10 New York counties in the United States, including court coordinators, court case managers, and substance use disorder treatment clinic counselors, administrators, and peers. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted, guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework, employing both inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Results were conceptualized using EPIS inner (i.e., courts) and outer (i.e., OUD treatment providers) implementation contexts and bridging factors that impacted referral and engagement to OUD treatment from the OIC. Inner factors that facilitated OIC implementation included OIC philosophy (e.g., non-punitive, access-oriented), court organizational structure (e.g., strong court staff connectedness), and OIC court staff and client characteristics (e.g., positive medications for OUD [MOUD] attitudes). The latter two also served as barriers (e.g., lack of formalized procedures; stigma toward MOUD). Two outer context entities impacted OIC implementation as both barriers and facilitators: substance use disorder treatment programs (e.g., attitudes toward the OIC and MOUD; operational characteristics) and community environments (e.g., attitudes toward the opioid epidemic). The COVID-19 pandemic and bail reform were macro-outer context factors that negatively impacted OIC implementation. Facilitating bridging factors included staffing practices that bridged court and treatment systems (e.g., peers); barriers included communication and cultural differences between systems (e.g., differing expectations about OIC client success). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key barriers and facilitators that OICs may consider as this model expands in the United States. Referral to and engagement in OUD treatment within the OIC context requires ongoing efforts to bridge the treatment and court systems, and reduce stigma around MOUD.

Performance Metrics of Substance Use Disorder Care Among Medicaid Enrollees in New York, New York.

Importance: There is limited evaluation of the performance of Medicaid managed care (MMC) private plans in covering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Objective: To compare the performance of MMC plans across 19 indicators of access, quality, and outcomes of SUD treatment. Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional study used administrative claims and mandatory assignment to plans of up to 159 016 adult Medicaid recipients residing in 1 of the 5 counties (boroughs) of New York, New York, from January 2009 to December 2017 to identify differences in SUD treatment access, patterns, and outcomes among different types of MMC plans. Data from the latest years were received from the New York State Department of Health in October 2019, and analysis began soon thereafter. Approximately 17% did not make an active choice of plan, and a subset of these (approximately 4%) can be regarded as randomly assigned. Exposures: Plan assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of the enrollees achieving performance measures across 19 indicators of access, process, and outcomes of SUD treatment. Results: Medicaid claims data from 159 016 adults (mean [SD] age, 35.9 [12.7] years; 74 261 women [46.7%]; 8746 [5.5%] Asian, 73 783 [46.4%] Black, and 40 549 [25.5%] White individuals) who were auto assigned to an MMC plan were analyzed. Consistent with national patterns, all plans achieved less than 50% (range, 0%-62.1%) on most performance measures. Across all plans, there were low levels of treatment engagement for alcohol (range, 0%-0.4%) and tobacco treatment (range, 0.8%-7.2%), except for engagement for opioid disorder treatment (range, 41.5%-61.4%). For access measures, 4 of the 9 plans performed significantly higher than the mean on recognition of an SUD diagnosis, any service use for the first time, and tobacco use screening. Of the process measures, total monthly expenditures on SUD treatment was the only measure for which plans differed significantly from the mean. Outcome measures differed little across plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest the need for progress in engaging patients in SUD treatment and improvement in the low performance of SUD care and limited variation in MMC plans in New York, New York. Improvement in the overall performance of SUD treatment in Medicaid potentially depends on general program improvements, not moving recipients among plans.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Substance Use Treatment in Medicaid Managed Care in New York City: The Role of Plan and Geography.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the magnitude of health care disparities in treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) and the role of health plan membership and place of residence in observed disparities in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) plans in New York City (NYC). DATA SOURCE: Medicaid claims and managed care plan enrollment files for 2015-2017 in NYC. RESEARCH DESIGN: We studied Medicaid enrollees with a SUD diagnosis during their first 6 months of enrollment in a managed care plan in 2015-2017. A series of linear regression models quantified service disparities across race/ethnicity for 5 outcome indicators: treatment engagement, receipt of psychosocial treatment, follow-up after withdrawal, rapid readmission, and treatment continuation. We assessed the degree to which plan membership and place of residence contributed to observed disparities. RESULTS: We found disparities in access to treatment but the magnitude of the disparities in most cases was small. Plan membership and geography of residence explained little of the observed disparities. One exception is geography of residence among Asian Americans, which appears to mediate disparities for 2 of our 5 outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Reallocating enrollees among MMC plans in NYC or evolving trends in group place of residence are unlikely to reduce disparities in treatment for SUD. System-wide reforms are needed to mitigate disparities.

Support for COVID-19-Related Substance Use Services Policy Changes: a New York State-Wide Survey.

This study aims to describe which substance use service (SUS) organizations and who within these organizations support the maintenance of policies targeted at improving substance use treatment services. An online survey assessing respondent, organizational and program demographics, and knowledge and support regarding policy changes was distributed to all certified SUS and harm reduction programs in NYS. Bivariate and latent class analyses were used to identify patterns and associations to policy choices. Across the 227 respondents, there was a support for maintaining expansion of insurance coverage, virtual behavioral health/counseling and medication initiation/maintenance visits, reductions in prior authorizations, and access to prevention/harm reduction services. Three classes of support for policies were derived: (1) high-supporters (n = 49; 21%), (2) low-supporters (n = 66; 29%), and (3) selective-supporters. Having knowledge of policy changes was associated with membership in the high-supporters class. Implications regarding the role of knowledge in behavioral health policies dissemination structures, decision-making, and long-term expansion of SUS are discussed.

COVID-19 related substance use services policy changes: Policymaker perspectives on policy development & implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, regulations for substance use services changed to accommodate stay-at-home orders and physical distancing guidelines. METHODS: Using in-depth interviews (N = 14) and framework analysis, we describe how policymakers developed, adopted, and implemented regulations governing services for substance use disorders during COVID-19, and how policymakers' perceived the impacts of these regulations in New York State. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers shifted to more inclusive approaches of knowledge generation and co-production of recommendations. Barriers to adoption and implementation of new regulations included medication/services supply, lack of integration, stigma, and overcriminalization. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study highlight the potential feasibility and benefits of co-produced policies for substance use services and the need for consistent service supply, better integration with health care services, reduced stigma, improved funding structures, best practice guidelines, criminal justice reform, and harm reduction support. These considerations should inform future policy maintenance and modifications to substance use services related to COVID-19.

Predictive validity of the New York State Level of Care for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referral (LOCADTR) for continuous engagement in treatment among individuals recommended for outpatient care.

BACKGROUND: The New York State (NYS) Level of Care for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referral (LOCADTR) was launched in 2015 to determine the most appropriate level of care for individuals seeking addiction treatment. However, research has not studied its predictive validity. We examined the predictive validity of the LOCADTR recommendation for outpatient treatment by determining whether those who entered a level of care (LOC) concordant with the LOCADTR recommendation differed in continuous engagement in treatment compared to those who entered a discordant LOC. METHODS: The study combined data from two NYS administrative sources, the LOCADTR database and a treatment registry. The study examined characteristics of the clients who entered concordant and discordant LOCs as well as tested for differences in continuous engagement of clients who entered discordant care compared to a propensity score-matched comparison group of clients who entered the concordant LOC. RESULTS: Among clients for whom the LOCADTR recommended the outpatient LOC, concordant clients who entered the outpatient LOC were more likely to be retained in care than discordant clients who entered the inpatient LOC (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.77). We did not observe statistical differences in continuous engagement among clients who were recommended for outpatient and entered that LOC versus those who entered the outpatient rehabilitation LOC instead (aOR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.30). CONCLUSION: This study provides support for predictive validity of recommendations stemming from the LOCADTR. Clients, treatment providers, and payers benefited from a tool that provides clear guidance and predictively valid recommendations for treatment placement. The study found that clients were more likely to be retained in treatment for 6 months or longer if admitted to outpatient care, as recommended by the LOCADTR algorithm, rather than to inpatient treatment. One factor accounting for the longer engagement in outpatient care is the low level of continuity of care among patients being discharged from inpatient treatment.

A Partnership to Develop Behavioral Health Quality and Performance Measures.

The New York State Medicaid program is pursuing reforms that would shift reimbursement from fee-for-service to value-based models. Behavioral health populations and services are key to these reforms, but important gaps exist in the breadth and relevance of available quality measures for the behavioral health field. This column describes how the state addressed these gaps by using both inter- and intra-agency collaborations. As part of this effort, the state convened a panel of consultants, including academics, providers, and consumers, to develop a behavioral health quality measurement agenda. Panel recommendations and ongoing partnerships are described as a model for states considering similar value-based reform initiatives.