Laws for expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder: a legal analysis of 16 states & Washington D.C.

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) are the gold standard for OUD treatment but are underused. To our knowledge, no published study has systematically identified and categorized state policy innovations for expanding MOUD utilization.Objective: We sought to identify and categorize state MOUD policy innovations.Methods: Within a stratified random sample of 16 U.S. states and Washington D.C. we searched for 2019 state statutes and regulations related to MOUD in Westlaw legal database. We then identified laws that appeared designed to increase MOUD utilization and categorized them using a template analysis approach.Results: We found 82 laws with one or more MOUD expansion policies. We identified six high-level MOUD expansion policy categories: 1) policies expanding the availability of waivered buprenorphine providers; 2) needs assessments and policies increasing public MOUD awareness; 3) criminal justice system policies; 4) Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and sober living facility policies; 5) insurance policies; and 6) hospital policies. SUD treatment and housing facility policies, as well as insurance policies, were most common.Conclusions: Multipronged approaches are being pursued by several states to increase MOUD access. Our results can inform policymakers of MOUD expansion approaches in other jurisdictions. Policy categories can serve as the basis for policy variables for future analyses of policy effects.

Stigmatization of medications for opioid use disorder in 12-step support groups and participant responses.

Background: 12-step groups are the most common approach to managing opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the most effective tool for preventing opioid misuse and relapse. Previous research has identified stigma of MOUD in 12-step groups. Objectives: We sought to identify how MOUD stigma is operationalized in 12-step groups and to identify responses to stigma. Methods: We recruited individuals with both MOUD experience and 12-step group experience from three syringe exchange programs in the U.S. using snowball sampling. We conducted individual telephone semi-structured interviews during 2018 and 2019. We coded data in Dedoose software and conducted thematic analysis using iterative categorization. Results: We recruited 30 individuals meeting our inclusion criteria. The following stigma operationalization methods were identified: prohibiting people using MOUD from speaking at meetings; encouraging shortened duration of MOUD treatment; refusing to sponsor people using MOUD; and refusing to let people using MOUD claim recovery time. Responses to stigma included the following: feeling shame; feeling anger; shopping around for different groups, leaving the group, or forming a new group; not revealing MOUD utilization or only telling a sponsor; speaking out on behalf of MOUD; and using cognitive approaches to avoid stigma internalization. Cognitive approaches included believing that anti-MOUD stigma is contrary to 12-step principles; disregarding statements as inaccurate based on one's experience of MOUD benefits; and accepting that all groups of humans have some ignorant people. Conclusion: Healthcare systems should help address MOUD stigma experienced by patients in 12-step groups, such as by offering non-12-step alternative groups and encouraging MOUD healthcare providers to prepare patients for potential stigma they may face. Some stigma response options, like shopping around for different groups, may not be feasible in rural areas or for participants newer to recovery.

Common themes in early state policy responses to substance use disorder treatment during COVID-19.

Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization.Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses.Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility.Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.

Designing an "Ideal" Substance Use Disorder Treatment Center: Perspectives of People Who Have Utilized Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

Treatment preferences of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have been underexplored, especially among those with a history of utilizing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Therefore, we sought to understand preferred characteristics of substance use disorder treatment centers among people recovering from OUD with a history of MOUD utilization. We recruited 30 individuals from eight states through snowball sampling initiated at three syringe exchange programs. Telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in 2018-2019. Inductive thematic analysis in Dedoose software occurred iteratively with recruitment. The following were "ideal" treatment center themes: a menu of treatment options, including MOUD and nonspiritual peer support groups; an integrated system with multiple care levels (e.g., outpatient, residential); a harm reduction approach, including for goal setting and success measures; adjunctive support services (e.g., housing); and employees with recovery experience and professional education. Many preferences directly related to core principles of person-centered care and harm reduction.

College students' perceived knowledge of and perceived helpfulness of treatments for opioid use disorder at two American universities.

Background The U.S. is experiencing an opioid overdose health crisis, largely driven by opioid use disorder (OUD). College students have relatively high rates of substance use disorders. Objectives To identify perceived knowledge of and perceived helpfulness of various OUD treatments, including medications for OUD (MOUD), among college students. Methods A convenience sample of students enrolled at two public universities during Fall 2018/Spring 2019 were recruited for an online cross-sectional survey. Questions examined reported knowledge of and perceived helpfulness of MOUD (i.e. methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) and non-MOUD treatments for OUD (e.g. peer support groups, individual counseling, group counseling, outpatient treatment). Logistic regression examined associations between knowledge, perceived helpfulness, and demographic variables. Results We received 1,439 responses and kept 1,280 (39% male; 61% female). Respondents were significantly more likely to report knowledge about non-MOUD treatments than MOUD treatments (48.7% of respondents reported being very knowledgeable about individual counseling, 4.4% about methadone, 3.8% about naltrexone, and 3.4% about buprenorphine). Among those reporting at least some MOUD knowledge, few perceived MOUD as helpful/very helpful (methadone 14%, naltrexone 14%, and buprenorphine 11%). Among those reporting at least some counseling knowledge, 71% felt counseling was helpful/very helpful. Perceived treatment knowledge was significantly and positively associated with perceived treatment helpfulness. Conclusions Students had more positive attitudes toward non-MOUD treatments than toward MOUD despite greater efficacy of the latter for OUD. Colleges could provide information about MOUD during orientation, in course work, through student extracurricular organizations, or through college health clinics.

Predicting drug court graduation: Examining the role of individual and programmatic characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Although existing research suggests drug courts reduce recidivism and substance use, a large portion of drug court participants do not graduate. According to a conceptual framework, severity of need and program intensity may help to explain variation in drug court effectiveness. Understanding variation in drug court graduation can help to identify high risk participants and effective programmatic elements. METHODS: Our sample included 247 drug court participants from an adult felony-level drug court located in a large metropolitan area of the southeastern United States that either graduated (n = 113) or were terminated (n = 134) from the program. We used participant and program characteristics from drug court program records to predict drug court graduation. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, several participant and program characteristics were significantly associated with drug court graduation. In the final multivariate model, only one participant-level characteristic was significantly related to graduation: emotional/personal risk and needs (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.93). Alternatively, three program characteristics remained statistically significant predictors of drug court graduation in the final multivariate model. Receiving more individual counseling sessions was positively associated with drug court graduation (aOR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.41), while jail and monetary fine sanctions were negatively associated with drug court graduation (aOR jail: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.68; aOR fine: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that drug court programs may benefit by tailoring services for individuals with high emotional/personal risk and participants who receive certain types of sanctions. More rigorous research should explore the causal relationship between individual counseling and drug court graduation to determine if wide-scale programmatic changes are warranted.

Toward a Typology of Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment Laws: Themes From a Review of State Laws.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine is a gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Some US states have passed laws regulating office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) for OUD, with requirements beyond those required in federal law. We sought to identify themes in state OBBT laws. METHODS: Using search terms related to medications for OUD, we searched Westlaw software for state regulations and statutes in 51 US jurisdictions from 2005 to 2019. We identified and inductively analyzed OBBT laws for themes. RESULTS: Since 2005, 10 states have passed a total of 181 OBBT laws. We identified the following themes: (1) provider credentials: state licensure for OBBT providers and continuing medical education requirements; (2) new patients: objective symptoms patients must have before receiving OBBT and exceptions for special populations; (3) educating patients: general informed consent requirements, and specific information to provide; (4) counseling: minimum counselor credentials, minimum counseling frequency, counseling alternatives; (5) patient monitoring: required prescription drug monitoring checks, frequency of drug screening, and responses to lost/stolen medications; (6) enhanced clinician monitoring: evidence-based treatment protocols, minimum clinician-patient contact frequency, health assessment requirements, and individualized treatment planning; and (7) patient safety: reconciling prescriptions, dosage limitations, naloxone coprescribing, tapering, and office closures. CONCLUSIONS: Some laws codify practices for which scientific consensus is lacking. Additionally, some OBBT laws resemble opioid treatment programs and pain management regulations. Results could serve as the basis for a typology of office-based treatment laws, which could facilitate empirical examination of policy impacts on treatment access and quality.

A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts.

BACKGROUND: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as "state laws") in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts. RESULTS: Since 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants. DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants.

A pilot study of U.S. college students' 12-step orientation and the relationship with medications for opioid use disorder.

Objective: To examine undergraduate college students' attitudes toward 12-step support group utilization for opioid use disorder (OUD) and associations with previous experience with medications for OUD (MOUD). Participants: A convenience sample of undergraduate students at two major U.S. universities during Fall 2018 and Spring 2019. Method: A cross-sectional online survey of agreement with three 12-step orientation measures, MOUD experience, and demographic variables. Results: 1,281 students responded. Among 12-step orientation measures, respondents were most likely to agree that people with OUD should reach out to others in recovery. MOUD experience was significantly and negatively associated with agreement on each 12-step orientation measure. Religiosity/spirituality was positively associated with agreement that people with OUD should accept lack of control over OUD while placing trust in a higher power. Conclusion: Students with MOUD experience may be aware of anti-MOUD stigma in peer support groups and thus less likely to agree with 12-step orientation measures.

Beyond state scope of practice laws for advanced practitioners: Additional supervision requirements for buprenorphine prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a life-saving medication for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). U.S. federal law allows advanced practice clinicians (APCs), such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in office-based practices. However, states regulate APCs' scope of practice (SOP) variously, including requirements for physician supervision. States may also have laws entirely banning NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing or requiring that supervising physicians have a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We sought to identify prevalence of state laws other than SOP laws that either 1) prohibit NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing entirely, or 2) require supervision by a federally waivered physician. METHODS: We searched for state statutes and regulations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. regulating prescribing of buprenorphine for OUD by APCs during summer 2021. We excluded general scope of practice laws, laws only applicable to Medicaid-funded clinicians, laws not applicable to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and laws only applicable to NPs/PAs serving licensed SUD treatment facilities. We then conducted content analysis. RESULTS: One state prohibits all APCs from prescribing buprenorphine for OUD, even though the state's general SOP laws permit APC buprenorphine prescribing. Five states require PA supervision by a federally waivered physician. Three states require NP supervision by a federally waivered physician. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from general scope of practice laws, several states have created laws explicitly regulating buprenorphine prescribing by APCs outside of licensed state SUD facilities.

Comparing Reasons for Starting and Stopping Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone Treatment Among a Sample of White Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Despite their efficacy, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are underutilized in the United States. Nonetheless, few studies have explored reasons why individuals choose to start MOUD or discontinue MOUD after starting, especially extended-release naltrexone. We sought to identify reasons why individuals start and stop MOUD, including the differences between starting and stopping the 3 most common formulations: methadone, sublingual buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone. METHODS: We conducted 31 semistructured interviews over the phone with a sample of white individuals with a history of MOUD utilization. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling from 8 US states. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded in Dedoose software, and analyzed using thematic analysis and modified event structure analysis. RESULTS: Participants primarily learned about methadone and buprenorphine from other individuals with OUD. Participants primarily became interested in starting buprenorphine and methadone after seeing the medications work effectively in peers, though methadone was perceived as a last resort. In contrast, participants primarily learned about and became interested in naltrexone after receiving information from health practitioners. Participants frequently stopped MOUD to prevent medication or health service dependence. Participants also felt stigma and external pressure to stop buprenorphine and methadone, but not naltrexone. Some participants identified relapse and medication termination by health providers or the criminal justice system as reasons for stopping MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Given the frequency with which participants identified informal peer education as a reason for starting methadone and buprenorphine, peers with MOUD experience may be a trusted source of information for individuals seeking OUD treatment. Further research is needed to assess whether incorporating peer support specialists with MOUD experience into formal SUD treatment would expand MOUD utilization, retain patients in treatment, and/or improve OUD treatment outcomes.