Temporary Financial Assistance for Housing Expenditures and Mortality and Suicide Outcomes Among US Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether interventions designed to increase housing stability can also lead to improved health outcomes such as reduced risk of death and suicide morbidity. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential impact of temporary financial assistance (TFA) for housing-related expenses from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on health outcomes including all-cause mortality, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective national cohort study of Veterans who entered the VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program between 10/2015 and 9/2018. We assessed the association between TFA and health outcomes using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression approach with inverse probability of treatment weighting. We conducted these analyses on our overall cohort as well as separately for those in the rapid re-housing (RRH) and homelessness prevention (HP) components of SSVF. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation at 365 and 730 days following enrollment in SSVF. RESULTS: Our analysis cohort consisted of 41,969 unique Veterans with a mean (SD) duration of 87.6 (57.4) days in the SSVF program. At 365 days following SSVF enrollment, TFA was associated with a decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.696, p < 0.001) and suicidal ideation (HR: 0.788, p < 0.001). We found similar results at 730 days (HR: 0.811, p = 0.007 for all-cause mortality and HR: 0.881, p = 0.037 for suicidal ideation). These results were driven primarily by individuals enrolled in the RRH component of SSVF. We found no association between TFA and suicide attempts. CONCLUSION: We find that providing housing-related financial assistance to individuals facing housing instability is associated with improvements in important health outcomes such as all-cause mortality and suicidal ideation. If causal, these results suggest that programs to provide housing assistance have positive spillover effects into other important aspects of individuals' lives.

Quality of Depression Care for Veterans Affairs Primary Care Patients with Experiences of Homelessness.

BACKGROUND: Persons who experience homelessness (PEH) have high rates of depression and incur challenges accessing high-quality health care. Some Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities offer homeless-tailored primary care clinics, although such tailoring is not required, within or outside VA. Whether services tailoring enhances care for depression is unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PEH in homeless-tailored primary care settings receive higher quality of depression care, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of depression treatment among a regional cohort of VA primary care patients (2016-2019). PARTICIPANTS: PEH diagnosed or treated for a depressive disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The quality measures were timely follow-up care (3 + completed visits with a primary care or mental health specialist provider, or 3 + psychotherapy sessions) within 84 days of a positive PHQ-2 screen result, timely follow-up care within 180 days, and minimally appropriate treatment (4 + mental health visits, 3 + psychotherapy visits, 60 + days antidepressant) within 365 days. We applied multivariable mixed-effect logistic regressions to model differences in care quality for PEH in homeless-tailored versus usual primary care settings. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen percent of PEH with depressive disorders received homeless-tailored primary care (n = 374), compared to usual VA primary care (n = 2469). Tailored clinics served more PEH who were Black, who were non-married, and who had low income, serious mental illness, and substance use disorders. Among all PEH, 48% received timely follow-up care within 84 days of depression screening, 67% within 180 days, and 83% received minimally appropriate treatment. Quality metric attainment was higher for PEH in homeless-tailored clinics, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care: follow-up within 84 days (63% versus 46%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p = .001), follow-up within 180 days (78% versus 66%; AOR = 1.51, p = .003), and minimally appropriate treatment (89% versus 82%; AOR = 1.58, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Homeless-tailored primary care approaches may improve depression care for PEH.

ASA Physical Status Determination by General Internists and Impact on Cardiac Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimating cardiac risk is important for preoperative evaluation, and several risk calculators incorporate the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. The purpose of this study was to determine the concordance of ASA scores assigned by general internists and anesthesiologists and assess whether discrepancies affected cardiac risk estimation. METHODS: This observational study included military veterans evaluated in a preoperative evaluation clinic at a single center during a 12-month period. ASA scores were recorded by General Internal Medicine residents under the supervision of a General Internal Medicine attending, performing a preoperative medical consultation, and were compared with ASA scores assigned by an anesthesiologist on the day of surgery. ASA scores and Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores incorporating each ASA score were compared. RESULTS: Data were collected on 206 patients, 163 of whom had surgery within 90 days and were included. ASA scores were concordant in 60 patients (37.3%), whereas the ASA scores were rated lower by the general internist in 101 (62.0%) and higher in 2 (1.2%). Interrater reliability was low (κ = 0.08), and general internist scores were significantly lower than anesthesiologist scores (P < 0.01). Gupta Cardiac Risk Scores were calculated for 160 patients, and they exceeded 1% in 14 patients using the anesthesiologist ASA score, compared with 5 patients using the general internist score. CONCLUSIONS: ASA scores assigned by general internists in this study were significantly lower than those assigned by anesthesiologists, and these discrepancies in the ASA score can lead to substantially different conclusions about cardiac risk.

Coprescribing of opioids and psychotropic medications among Medicare-enrolled older adults on long-term opioid therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pressures to reduce opioid prescribing have potential to incentivize coprescribing of opioids (at lower dose) with psychotropic medications. Evidence concerning the extent of the problem is lacking. This study assessed trends in coprescribing and characterized coprescribing patterns among Medicare-enrolled older adults with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using 2012-2018 5% National Medicare claims data. Eligible beneficiaries were continuously enrolled and had no claims for cancer diagnoses or hospice use, and ≥ 2 claims with diagnoses for CNCP conditions within a 30-day period in the 12 months before the index date (LTOT initiation). Coprescribing was defined as an overlap between opioids and any class of psychotropic medication (antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics) based on their prescription fill dates and days of supply in a given year. The occurrence of coprescribing, coprescribing intensity, and number of days of overlap with psychotropic medications were calculated for each calendar year. RESULTS: The eligible study population of individuals on LTOT ranged from 2038 in 2013 to 1751 in 2018. The occurrence of coprescribing among eligible beneficiaries decreased from 73.41% in 2013 to 70.81% in 2015 and then increased slightly to 71.22% in 2018. Among eligible beneficiaries with at least one overlap day, the coprescribing intensity with any class of psychotropic medications showed minimal variation throughout the study period: 74.73% in 2013 and 72.67% in 2018. Across all the years, the coprescribing intensity was found to be highest with antidepressants (2013, 49.90%; 2018, 50.33%) followed by benzodiazepines (2013, 25.42%; 2018, 19.95%). CONCLUSION: Coprescribing was common among older adults with CNCP who initiated LTOT but did not rise substantially in the period studied. Future research should investigate drivers behind coprescribing and safety of various patterns of use.

Sensitivity of health records for self-reported nonfatal drug and alcohol overdose.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health surveillance for overdose sometimes depends on nonfatal drug overdoses recorded in health records. However, the proportion of total overdoses identified through health record systems is unclear. Comparison of overdoses from health records to those that are self-reported may provide insight on the proportion of nonfatal overdoses that are not identified. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study linking survey data on overdose from a national survey of Veterans to United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health records, including community care paid for by VA. Self-reported overdose in the prior 3 years was compared to diagnostic codes for overdoses and substance use disorders in the same time period. RESULTS: The sensitivity of diagnostic codes for overdose, compared to self-report as a reference standard for this analysis, varied by substance: 28.1% for alcohol, 23.1% for sedatives, 12.0% for opioids, and 5.5% for cocaine. There was a notable concordance between substance use disorder diagnoses and self-reported overdose (sensitivity range 17.9%-90.6%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic codes in health records may not identify a substantial proportion of drug overdoses. A health record diagnosis of substance use disorder may offer a stronger inference regarding the size of the population at risk. Alternatively, screening for self-reported overdose in routine clinical care could enhance overdose surveillance and targeted intervention. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that diagnostic codes for overdose are insensitive. These findings support consideration of alternative approaches to overdose surveillance in public health.

Cost-Effectiveness of Individual Placement and Support Compared to Transitional Work Program for Veterans with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) leads to significant disability, unemployment, and substantial healthcare costs. The cost-effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) interventions is important to consider when determining which services to offer. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness and return on investment of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) compared to transitional work (TW) programs. Employment outcomes from a multisite randomized trial comparing IPS to TW in military veterans with PTSD (n = 541) were linked to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) archival medical record databases to examine the comparative cost-effectiveness and return on investment. Effectiveness was defined as hours worked and income earned in competitive jobs. Costs for VR, mental health, and medical care and income earned from competitive sources were annualized and adjusted to 2019 US dollars. The annualized mean cost per person of outpatient (including vocational services) were $3970 higher for IPS compared to TW ($23,245 vs. $19,276, respectively; P = 0.004). When TW income was included in costs, mean grand total costs per person per year were similar between groups ($29,828 IPS vs. $26,772 TW; P = 0.17). The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that while IPS is more costly, it is also more effective. The return on investment (excluding TW income) was 32.9% for IPS ($9762 mean income/$29,691 mean total costs) and 29.6% for TW ($7326 mean income/$24,781 mean total costs). IPS significantly improves employment outcomes for individuals with PTSD with negligible increase in healthcare costs and yields very good return on investment compared to non-IPS VR services.

Comparison of Patient Experience Between Primary Care Settings Tailored for Homeless Clientele and Mainstream Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: More than 1 million Americans receive primary care from federal homeless health care programs yearly. Vulnerabilities that can make care challenging include pain, addiction, psychological distress, and a lack of shelter. Research on the effectiveness of tailoring services for this population is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine whether homeless-tailored primary care programs offer a superior patient experience compared with nontailored ("mainstream") programs overall, and for highly vulnerable patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: National patient survey comparing 26 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers' homeless-tailored primary care ("H-PACT"s) to mainstream primary care ("mainstream PACT"s) at the same locations. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5766 homeless-experienced veterans. MEASURES: Primary care experience on 4 scales: Patient-Clinician Relationship, Cooperation, Accessibility/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs. Mean scores (range: 1-4) were calculated and dichotomized as unfavorable versus not. We counted key vulnerabilities (chronic pain, unsheltered homelessness, severe psychological distress, and history of overdose, 0-4), and categorized homeless-experienced veterans as having fewer (≤1) and more (≥2) vulnerabilities. RESULTS: H-PACTs outscored mainstream PACTs on all scales (all P<0.001). Unfavorable care experiences were more common in mainstream PACTs compared with H-PACTs, with adjusted risk differences of 11.9% (95% CI=6.3-17.4), 12.6% (6.2-19.1), 11.7% (6.0-17.3), and 12.6% (6.2-19.1) for Relationship, Cooperation, Access/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs, respectively. For the Relationship and Cooperation scales, H-PACTs were associated with a greater reduction in unfavorable experience for patients with ≥2 vulnerabilities versus ≤1 (interaction P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that offer primary care for persons experiencing homelessness can improve the primary care experience by tailoring the design and delivery of services.

Perceptions of Care Coordination Among Homeless Veterans Receiving Medical Care in the Veterans Health Administration and Community Care Settings: Results From a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Initiatives to expand Veterans' access to purchased health care outside Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities ("community care") present care coordination challenges for Veterans experiencing homelessness. OBJECTIVE: Among Veterans with homeless experiences, to evaluate community care use and satisfaction, and compare perceptions of care coordination among Veterans using VHA services and community care to those using VHA services without community care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of responses to a 2018 mailed survey. SUBJECTS: VHA outpatients with homeless experiences. MEASURES: Self-reported use of community care, Likert-style ratings of satisfaction with that care, and Access/Coordination experiences from the Primary Care Quality-Homeless (PCQ-H) survey. RESULTS: Of 4777 respondents, 1325 (26.7%) reported using community care; most of this subsample affirmed satisfaction with the community care they received (83%) and its timeliness (75%). After covariate adjustment, Veteran characteristics associated with greater community care use included female sex, being of retirement age and nonmarried, and having higher education, more financial hardship, ≥3 chronic conditions, psychological distress, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Satisfaction with community care was lower among patients with travel barriers, psychological distress, and less social support. Compared with those using the VHA without community care, Veterans using VHA services and community care were more likely to report unfavorable access/coordination experiences [odds ratio (OR)=1.34, confidence interval (CI)=1.15-1.57]. This included hassles following referral (OR=1.37, CI=1.14-1.65) and perceived delays in receiving health care (OR=1.38, CI=1.19-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with homeless experiences value community care options. Potential access benefits are balanced with risks of unfavorable coordination experiences for vulnerable Veterans with limited resources.

Top 10 presenting diagnoses of homeless veterans seeking care at emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The health concerns that spur care-seeking in emergency departments (EDs) among homeless populations are not well described. The Veterans Affairs (VA) comprehensive healthcare system does not require health insurance and thus offers a unique window into ED service use by homeless veterans. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the top 10 diagnostic categories for ED use among homeless and non-homeless veterans classified by age, gender, and race/ethnicity. DESIGN: An observational study was conducted using national VA administrative data from 2016 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Data on 260,783 homeless veterans and 2,295,704 non-homeless veterans were analyzed. MAIN MEASURES: Homelessness was defined as a documented diagnostic code or use of any VA homeless program. Presenting diagnoses to the ED were grouped based on Clinical Classifications Software Refined (CCSR) categories endorsed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). KEY RESULTS: The most common diagnostic categories for ED use among homeless veterans were, in order, musculoskeletal pain, alcohol-related disorders, suicidal behaviors, low back pain, and non-specified conditions, which together accounted for 22-24% of all ED visits. Among non-homeless veterans, alcohol-related disorders, suicidal behaviors, and depressive disorders did not number in the top 10 diagnostic categories for ED use. Some differences between homeless and non-homeless veterans presenting for ED care, such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity largely mirrored known epidemiological differences between these groups in general. But respiratory infections and symptoms were only in the top 10 for black veterans and depressive disorder was only in the top 10 for Hispanic veterans. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that addressing psychosocial factors and optimizing healthcare for behavioral health and pain conditions among veterans experiencing homelessness has the potential to reduce emergency care-seeking.

Promoting Patient-Centeredness in Opioid Deprescribing: a Blueprint for De-implementation Science.

A downward trend in opioid prescribing between 2011 and 2018 has brought per-capita opioid prescriptions below the levels of 2006, the earliest year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published data. That trend has affected roughly ten million patients who previously received long-term opioid therapy. Any effort to reduce or replace a prior health practice is termed de-implementation. We suggest that the evaluation of opioid prescribing de-implementation has been misdirected, within US policy and health research, resulting in detrimental impacts on patients, their families and clinicians. Policymakers and implementation scientists can address these deficiencies in how we study and how we perform opioid de-implementation by applying an implementation science framework: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Consolidated Framework lays out relevant domains of activity (internal, external, etc.) that influence implementation processes and outcomes. It can deepen our understanding of how policies are chosen, communicated, and carried out. Policymakers and researchers who embrace this framework will need a better approach to measuring success and failure in health care where both pain and opioids are concerned. This would involve shifting from a reductive focus on opioid prescription counts toward measures that are more effective, holistic, and patient-centered.

Impact of Patient-Clinical Team Secure Messaging on Communication Patterns and Patient Experience: Randomized Encouragement Design Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although secure messaging (SM) between patients and clinical team members is a recommended component of continuous care, uptake by patients remains relatively low. We designed a multicomponent Supported Adoption Program (SAP) to increase SM adoption among patients using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for primary care. OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to (1) conduct a multisite, randomized, encouragement design trial to test the effectiveness of an SAP designed to increase patient engagement with SM through VHA's online patient portal (My HealtheVet [MHV]) and (2) evaluate the impact of the SAP and patient-level SM adoption on perceived provider autonomy support and communication. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption were also assessed. METHODS: We randomized 1195 patients at 3 VHA facilities who had MHV portal accounts but had never used SM. Half were randomized to receive the SAP, and half served as controls receiving usual care. The SAP consisted of encouragement to adopt SM via mailed educational materials, proactive SM sent to patients, and telephone-based motivational interviews. We examined differences in SM adoption rates between SAP recipients and controls at 9 months and 21 months. Follow-up telephone surveys were conducted to assess perceived provider autonomy support and self-report of telephone communication with clinical teams. RESULTS: Patients randomized to the SAP had significantly higher rates of SM adoption than the control group (101/595, 17.0% vs 40/600, 6.7%; P<.001). Most adopters in the SAP sent their first message without a motivational interview (71/101, 70.3%). The 10-percentage point difference in adoption persisted a full year after the encouragement ended (23.7%, 142/600 in the SAP group vs 13.5%, 80/595 in the control group, P<.001). We obtained follow-up survey data from 49.54% (592/1195) of the participants. SAP participants reported higher perceived provider autonomy support (5.7 vs 5.4, P=.007) and less telephone use to communicate with their provider (68.8% vs 76.0%, P=.05), compared to patients in the control group. Patient-reported barriers to SM adoption included self-efficacy (eg, not comfortable using a computer, 24%), no perceived need for SM (22%), and difficulties with portal password or login (17%). CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent SAP was successful in increasing use of SM 10 percentage points above standard care; new SM adopters reported improved perceptions of provider autonomy support and less use of the telephone to communicate with their providers. Still, despite the encouragement and technical assistance provided through the SAP, adoption rates were lower than anticipated, reaching only 24% at 21 months (10% above controls). Common barriers to adoption such as limited perceived need for SM may be more challenging to address and require different interventions than barriers related to patient self-efficacy or technical difficulties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02665468; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02665468.

Exploring Quality of Primary Care for Patients Who Experience Homelessness and the Clinicians Who Serve Them: What Are Their Aspirations?

To develop and evaluate an effective model of patient-centered, high-quality, homeless-focused primary care, our team explored key domains of primary care that may be important to patients. We anchored our conceptual framework in two reports from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that defined components of primary care and quality of care. Using questions developed from this framework, we conducted semistructured interviews with 36 homeless-experienced individuals with past-year primary care engagement and 24 health care professionals (clinicians and researchers) who serve homeless-experienced patients in the primary care setting. Template analysis revealed factors important to this population. These included stigma, respect, and perspectives on patient control of medical decision-making in regard to both pain and addiction. For patients experiencing homelessness, the results suggest that quality primary care may have different meanings for patients and professionals, and that services should be tailored to meet homeless-specific needs.

Providing Positive Primary Care Experiences for Homeless Veterans Through Tailored Medical Homes: The Veterans Health Administration's Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, select Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities implemented a homeless-tailored medical home model, called Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACT), to improve care processes and outcomes for homeless Veterans. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to determine whether H-PACT offers a better patient experience than standard VHA primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used multivariable logistic regressions to estimate differences in the probability of reporting positive primary care experiences on a national survey. SUBJECTS: Homeless-experienced survey respondents enrolled in H-PACT (n=251) or standard primary care in facilities with H-PACT available (n=1527) and facilities without H-PACT (n=10,079). MEASURES: Patient experiences in 8 domains from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider and Systems surveys. Domain scores were categorized as positive versus nonpositive. RESULTS: H-PACT patients were less likely than standard primary care patients to be female, have 4-year college degrees, or to have served in recent military conflicts; they received more primary care visits and social services. H-PACT patients were more likely than standard primary care patients in the same facilities to report positive experiences with access [adjusted risk difference (RD)=17.4], communication (RD=13.9), office staff (RD=13.1), provider ratings (RD=11.0), and comprehensiveness (RD=9.3). Standard primary care patients in facilities with H-PACT available were more likely than those from facilities without H-PACT to report positive experiences with communication (RD=4.7) and self-management support (RD=4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered medical homes designed to address the social determinants of health offer a better care experience for homeless patients, when compared with standard primary care approaches. The lessons learned from H-PACT can be applied throughout VHA and to other health care settings.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Opioid discontinuation as an institutional mandate: Questions and answers on why we wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On March 6, 2019, a self-designated committee sent a public letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging the agency to address the widespread misapplication of its 2016 guideline on prescribing opioids. Three hundred and eighteen health care professionals, and three former Directors of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (Drug Czars) signed the letter, as did the parent organization for Substance Abuse Journal, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research on Substance use and Addiction. The letter reflected concern about a wide range of initiatives and policies by payers, quality metric agencies, health care organizations, and other regulators enforced to strongly incentivize or mandate forced opioid dose reductions on long-term opioid recipients who were otherwise stable. In April of 2019, both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the CDC's Director issued statements that could help to reduce ongoing harms resulting from such forced reductions, provided they are taken seriously. This commentary explains the rationale for the original letter, and the optimum course of action now that the CDC has responded.

Turning the tide or riptide? The changing opioid epidemic.

The US opioid epidemic has changed profoundly in the last 3 years, in ways that require substantial recalibration of the US policy response. This report summarizes the changing nature of overdose deaths in Jefferson County (home to Birmingham, Alabama) using data updated through June 30, 2016. Heroin and fentanyl have come to dominate an escalating epidemic of lethal opioid overdose, whereas opioids commonly obtained by prescription play a minor role, accounting for no more than 15% of reported deaths in 2015. Such local data, along with similar reports from other localities, augment the insights available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's current overdose summary, which lacks data from 2015-2016 and lacks information regarding fentanyl in particular. The observed changes in the opioid epidemic are particularly remarkable because they have emerged despite sustained reductions in opioid prescribing and sustained reductions in prescription opioid misuse. Among US adults, past-year prescription opioid misuse is at its lowest level since 2002. Among 12th graders it is at its lowest level in 20 years. A credible epidemiologic account of the opioid epidemic is as follows: although opioid prescribing by physicians appears to have unleashed the epidemic prior to 2012, physician prescribing no longer plays a major role in sustaining it. The accelerating pace of the opioid epidemic in 2015-2016 requires a serious reconsideration of governmental policy initiatives that continue to focus on reductions in opioid prescribing. The dominant priority should be the assurance of subsidized access to evidence-based medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. Such treatment is lacking across much of the United States at this time. Further aggressive focus on prescription reduction is likely to obtain diminishing returns while creating significant risks for patients.

Substance use among persons with homeless experience in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Community survey data suggest high prevalence of substance use disorders among currently homeless individuals. There are less data regarding illicit drug and alcohol use problems of homeless-experienced persons engaged in primary care. They may have less severe use and require different care responses from primary care teams. METHODS: The authors surveyed currently and formerly homeless, i.e., homeless-experienced, persons engaged in primary care at five federally funded programs in the United States, administering the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The ASSIST definitions of lower, moderate, and high risk were used to assess a spectrum of lifetime and recent substance use, from any use to likely dependence, and to identify sociodemographic and health status characteristics associated with severity of use. RESULTS: Almost one half of the sample (N = 601) had recently (within the past three months) used alcohol, and one third had recently used an illicit drug. The most commonly used illicit drugs in the past three months were cannabis (19%), cocaine (16%), and opioids (7.5%). Over one half (59%) of respondents had ASSIST-defined moderate- or high-risk substance use. A significant proportion (31%) of those identified as at moderate risk had no recent substance use, but did report past problematic use. Ten percent of the lower-risk group had past problematic use of alcohol. Severity of use was associated with worse health status, but not with housing status or type of homelessness experienced. CONCLUSIONS: Less severe (moderate-risk) use and past problematic use, potentially indicative of remitted substance use disorders, were more common than high-risk use in this primary care, homeless-experienced sample. These findings highlight the urgency of identifying effective ways to reduce risky substance use and prevent relapse in homeless-experienced persons.