Disparities in access to opioid treatment programs and buprenorphine providers by race and ethnicity in the contiguous U.S.

BACKGROUND: The burden of drug overdose mortality varies by race and ethnicity, with American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), Black, and White people experiencing the largest burden. We analyzed census block group data to evaluate differences in travel distance to opioid treatment programs (OTP) and buprenorphine providers by race and ethnicity. METHODS: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration provided the addresses of OTPs and buprenorphine providers. The study classified block groups as majority (≥50 %) AI/AN, Black, Asian, White, no single racial majority, or Hispanic. We classified deprivation and rurality using the Area Deprivation Index and Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. The study applied generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Among all block groups, the median road distance to the nearest OTPs and buprenorphine providers was 8 and 2 miles, respectively. AI/AN-majority block groups had the longest median distances to OTPs (88 miles versus 4-10 miles) and buprenorphine providers (17 miles versus 1-3 miles) compared to other racial or ethnic majority block groups. For OTPs and buprenorphine providers, travel distances were slightly greater in more deprived block groups compared to less deprived block groups. The median distance to the nearest OTPs and buprenorphine providers were larger in micropolitan and small town/rural block groups compared to metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities exist in travel distance to OTPs and buprenorphine providers. People in block groups with AI/AN-majority, nonmetropolitan, or more deprived designation experience travel disparities accessing treatment. Future research should develop targeted interventions to reduce access to care disparities for individuals with opioid use disorder.

Opioid use and COVID-19: a secondary analysis of the impact of relaxation of methadone take-home dosing guidelines on use of illicit opioids.

Background: An exemption to existing U.S. regulation of methadone maintenance therapy after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic permitted increased take-home doses beginning March 2020.Objectives: We assessed the impact of this exemption on opioid use.Methods: A pre/post study of 187 clients recruited from an OTP who completed a survey and consented to share their urine drug testing (UDT) data. Use of fentanyl, morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, and heroin was assessed via UDT. Receipt of take-home methadone doses was assessed from clinic records for 142 working days pre- and post-COVID exemption. Analysis was conducted using a linear regression model to assess the association between increased take-home doses and use of illicit opioids.Results: In the pre- vs. post-COVID-19 SAMHSA exemption periods, 26.2% vs. 36.3% of UDTs were positive for 6-acetylmorphine respectively, 32.6% vs. 40.6% positive for codeine, 34.2% vs 44.2% positive for hydromorphone, 39.5% vs. 48.1% positive for morphine, 8.0% vs. 14.4% positive for fentanyl (p-value < .001). However, in the unadjusted descriptive data, when grouped by change in substance use, those clients who experienced a decrease in the use of morphine, codeine, and heroin post-COVID-19 were given significantly more take-home doses than the groups that had no change or an increase in the use of these substances. In the adjusted model, there was no significant relationship between change in opioid use and increased receipt of take-home methadone doses.Conclusions: Although take-home doses post-COVID-19 nearly doubled, this increase was not associated with a significant change in use of illicit opioids.

Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics. CONCLUSION: Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.

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.

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.

Identifying Health Differences Between Transgender and Cisgender Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men Using a Community-Based Approach.

In this article, we describe a community-based research (CBR) approach to making a national online survey of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) inclusive of transgender GBMSM by working with members of the transgender community at all stages of the research process. This collaboration resulted in 209 transgender GBMSM completing our survey and we contrasted their health experiences with 7439 cisgender GBMSM. We found that transgender GBMSM were less likely than cisgender GBMSM to report intercourse without a condom (AOR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.28-0.66) and to have had an HIV test (AOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.85). Transgender GBMSM were more likely to report discrimination in the health care system in their lifetime (AOR 4.17; 95% CI 3.03-5.73), to self-rate their health as poor (AOR 3.47; 95% CI 2.52-4.80), and to have discussed depression (AOR 3.47; 95% CI 262-4.59) or anxiety (AOR 3.27; 95% CI 2.47-4.33) with a health care provider. Our experience highlights the feasibility of including transgender individuals in GBMSM research, while the results affirm the need for GBMSM health services to take into account the unique experiences of transgender GBMSM.