Perceived impact of COVID-19 on prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services for opioid use disorder: National survey of local health departments.

Background: US local health departments (LHDs) have faced the COVID-19 pandemic and the opioid epidemic simultaneously. This article investigates the perceived impact of COVID-19 on the continuation of locally available services for addressing opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods: A national survey of US LHDs was conducted from November to December 2020. The survey asked key personnel in LHDs about the availability of OUD services in their jurisdiction, and how COVID-19 impacted such availability (i.e., whether terminated or continued at a reduced, the same, or an increased level after the arrival of COVID-19). Proportions for each impact category were estimated for prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services. Logistic regression tested for rural-urban and regional differences in perceived service impact. Results: An 11.4% (214 out of 1873) response rate was attained. Of the returned surveys, 187 were used in the analysis. Reported terminations were generally low, especially for treatment services. School-based prevention initiatives had the highest termination rate (17.2%, 95% CI = 11.4-25.1%). Prevention services had the highest proportions for continuing at a reduced level, except for recovery mutual help programs (53.9%, 95% CI = 45.2-62.4%). LHDs reported continuing services at an increased level at a higher frequency than terminating. Notably, 72.2% (95% CI = 62.7-80.0%) continued telehealth/telemedicine options for OUD at an increased level, and 23.8% (95% CI = 17.8-31.1%) and 10.0% (95% CI = 5.7-16.7%) reported doing the same for naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), respectively. More harm reduction services were continued at the same versus at a reduced level. Service continuation differed little between rural-urban LHDs or by region. Conclusions: The impacts of COVID-19 on OUD service availability in LHD jurisdictions may depend on the specific area of opioid response while the long-term consequences of these changes remain unknown.

Local Policy and Programmatic Activity to Address the US Opioid Crisis: A Cross-Sectional Survey of County Governments.

CONTEXT: Despite attention to federal and state governments' response to the US opioid crisis, few studies have systematically examined local governments' role in tackling this problem. OBJECTIVES: To determine what opioid policy and programmatic activities local governments are implementing, which activities are more challenging and require a greater latent ability to implement, and what community, environmental, and institutional factors shape such ability. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey and multistage sampling procedure. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Of all 358 county governments in 5 purposively selected states (Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington) surveyed, 171 counties (response rate = 47.8%) with complete data on self-reported policy and programmatic activities and predictor variables were eligible for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nineteen opioid policy and programmatic activities were analyzed individually and combined into a latent implementation ability index using empirical Bayes means estimates. RESULTS: Item response theory and bivariate analysis were applied. Item response theory estimates suggested that having police officers carry naloxone and establishing a task force of community leaders were easier to implement than more challenging activities such as establishing needle exchanges and allowing arrest alternatives for opioid offenses. Covering individuals' treatment costs was predicted to involve the highest ability. County population size (r = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.47), population density (r = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.47), and being a Pennsylvania county (r = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.56) showed the strongest associations with latent implementation ability. CONCLUSIONS: Counties appear engaged in opioid policy and programmatic activity, although some activities are likely more difficult and may require greater ability to implement than others. More sparsely populated counties appear more disadvantaged in implementing activities for tackling the opioid crisis and may need additional assistance to leverage their ability to build a comprehensive policy and programmatic infrastructure.

Racial/ethnic residential segregation and the availability of opioid and substance use treatment facilities in US counties, 2009-2019.

Deaths due to synthetic opioids have increased at higher rates for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites in the last decade. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics experience lower opioid treatment rates and have less availability of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) via office-based buprenorphine in their counties compared to Whites. Racial/ethnic residential segregation is a recognized barrier to equal availability of MAT, but little is known about how such segregation is associated with opioid and substance use treatment availability over time and across Census regions and urban-rural lines. We combined data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services for 2009, 2014, and 2019 with the 5-year American Community Surveys of 2009, 2014, and 2019 to examine associations between residential segregation indices of dissimilarity and interaction and substance use treatment facilities per 100,000 population, including those providing MAT, in US counties. Estimating county-level two-way fixed effects models and controlling for county-level covariates, we find modest evidence of associations. Despite mostly null findings, an increased likelihood of exposure of Whites to Blacks in a county is associated with fewer substance use treatment facilities per 100,000, particularly those providing MAT via buprenorphine and located in Northeastern and Midwestern counties. Also, a more unequal distribution of Hispanics is associated with fewer facilities per 100,000 providing MAT, and this association is strongest in Southern and Western counties. These associations are driven by recent years (2014-2019) when synthetic opioids became the leading cause of opioid mortality and Blacks and Hispanics began dying at faster rates than Whites. Mixed evidence, however, tempers conclusions for how residential segregation drives racial/ethnic disparities in MAT availability.

Urban-Rural Disparities in Opioid Use Disorder Prevention and Response Activities: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

PURPOSE: Urban and rural areas have been differentially impacted by opioid use disorder (OUD) and related adverse outcomes, yet little systematic study of the urban-rural divide in OUD prevention and response activities exists. This study compares policy and programmatic activities to tackle the opioid crisis in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan areas, and within their subclassifications. METHODS: All county governments in 5 purposively selected states were surveyed. Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, and their subclassifications, were compared in their reported implementation of 19 opioid policy and programmatic activities, using 2-sample proportion and 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with Bonferroni-corrected multiple comparisons. FINDINGS: Of the 358 counties surveyed, 171 (response rate = 48%) responses were obtained. The implementation rate of nonmetropolitan counties was lower than that of metropolitan counties for all activities, although not all differences were statistically significant. Within nonmetropolitan areas, the implementation rate of noncore counties was lower than that of micropolitan counties for all activities, and statistically significant differences were found for providing treatment and rehabilitation facilities, allowing arrest alternatives for opioid offenses, and providing opioid detection and treatment training to first responders, among other activities. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study corroborate claims that nonmetropolitan areas, and particularly noncore areas, face greater barriers to implementing opioid policy and programmatic activities. This study identifies activity areas where rural counties are especially lacking and federal and state governments could support efforts for bending the curve of the opioid crisis.