Policy Pathways to Address Provider Workforce Barriers to Buprenorphine Treatment

Legal and policy changes urgently needed to increase access to opioid agonist therapy in the United States

The United States continues to face a public health crisis of opioid-related harm, the effects of which could be dramatically reduced through increased access to opioid agonist therapy with the medications methadone and buprenorphine. Despite overwhelming evidence of their efficacy, unduly restrictive federal, state, and local regulation significantly impedes access to these life-saving medications. We outline immediate, concrete steps that federal, state, and local governments can take to change law from barrier to facilitator of evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. These include removing onerous restrictions on the prescription and dispensing of buprenorphine and methadone for opioid agonist therapy, requiring insurance coverage of these medications, and mandating that they be provided in correctional settings and promoted by drug courts. Finally, we argue that jurisdictions should proactively offer opioid agonist therapy to individuals at high risk of overdose, remove barriers to establishing methadone treatment facilities, and address underlying social determinants and barriers to treatment. These changes have the ability to save thousands of lives annually.

Implementation and evaluation of Missouri's Medication First treatment approach for opioid use disorder in publicly-funded substance use treatment programs

BACKGROUND

Leaders of Missouri's State Targeted Response to the opioid crisis (STR) grant have prioritized increasing access to treatment medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) through a "Medication First" approach. This conceptual framework prioritizes rapid, sustained, low-barrier access to MOUD for optimal impact on decreased illicit drug use and mortality. Medication First principles and practices were facilitated through state-level structural changes and disseminated to participating community treatment programs via a multi-pronged, multi-disciplinary approach. In the first nine months of STR, 14 state-contracted treatment agencies operating 38 sites used STR funding to implement the Medication First model.

METHODS

We utilized state billing and service data to make comparisons before and during STR on the following outcomes: MOUD utilization, timely access to MOUD, amount of psychosocial services delivered, treatment retention at 1, 3, and 6 months, and monthly price of treatment. We conducted follow-up analyses examining differences across MOUD types (no medication, methadone, buprenorphine, oral naltrexone, mixed antagonist + agonist, and extended release naltrexone).

RESULTS

During STR, MOUD utilization increased (44.8% to 85.3%), timeliness of MOUD receipt improved (Median of 8 days vs. 0 days), there were fewer psychosocial services delivered, treatment retention improved at one, three, and six month timeframes, and the median cost per month was 21% lower than in the year prior to STR. All differences were driven by increased utilization of buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest Medication First implementation through STR was successful in all targeted domains. Though much more work is needed to further reduce logistical, financial, and cultural barriers to improved access to maintenance MOUD, the steps taken through Missouri's STR grant show significant promise at making swift and drastic transformations to a system of care in response to a growing public health emergency.

Characteristics of US Counties With High Opioid Overdose Mortality and Low Capacity to Deliver Medications for Opioid Use Disorder

IMPORTANCE

Opioid overdose deaths in the United States continue to increase, reflecting a growing need to treat those with opioid use disorder (OUD). Little is known about counties with high rates of opioid overdose mortality but low availability of OUD treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics of US counties with persistently high rates of opioid overdose mortality and low capacity to deliver OUD medications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study of data from 3142 US counties from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, rates of opioid overdose mortality were compared with availability in 2017 of OUD medication providers (24 851 buprenorphine-waivered clinicians [physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants], 1517 opioid treatment programs [providing methadone], and 5222 health care professionals who could prescribe extended-release naltrexone). Statistical analysis was performed from April 20, 2018, to May 8, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Demographic, workforce, lack of insurance, road density, urbanicity, opioid prescribing, and regional division county-level characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The outcome variable, "opioid high-risk county," was a binary indicator of a high (above national) rate of opioid overdose mortality with a low (below national) rate of provider availability to deliver OUD medication. Spatial logistic regression models were used to determine associations with being an opioid high-risk county.

RESULTS

Of 3142 counties, 751 (23.9%) had high rates of opioid overdose mortality. A total of 1457 counties (46.4%), and 946 of 1328 rural counties (71.2%), lacked a publicly available OUD medication provider in 2017. In adjusted models, compared with the West North Central division, counties in the East North Central, Mountain, and South Atlantic divisions had increased odds of being opioid high-risk counties (East North Central: odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.19-4.12; Mountain: OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.34-12.89; and South Atlantic: OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.26-7.11). A 1% increase in unemployment was associated with increased odds (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15) of a county being an opioid high-risk county. Counties with an additional 10 primary care clinicians per 100 000 population had a reduced risk of being opioid high-risk counties (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93), as did counties that were micropolitan (vs metropolitan) (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90) and those that had an additional 1% of the population younger than 25 years (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Counties with low availability of OUD medication providers and high rates of opioid overdose mortality were less likely to be micropolitan and have lower primary care clinician density, but were more likely to be in the East North Central, South Atlantic, or Mountain division and have higher rates of unemployment. Strategies to increase medication treatment must account for these factors.

The importance of buprenorphine research in the opioid crisis

With the urgency to treat patients more effectively for opioid use disorder in the midst of the opioid epidemic, a key area for precision medicine is to improve individualized medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. The expansion of medication-assisted treatment is a key to reducing illicit opioid use, preventing opioid overdose deaths, and reducing the comorbidities and societal impacts of opioid use disorder. The most common medication for opioid use disorder will soon be buprenorphine. Research to date shows the successful impact of buprenorphine treatment, including the pharmacogenomics of buprenorphine response and treatment efficacy. Buprenorphine is also a promising treatment for depression and anxiety, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS). However, the rates of success with medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, particularly at the beginning of treatment, still show many individuals relapsing to illicit opioid use. With the scope of the opioid crisis, there is an urgent need for expansion of buprenorphine treatment research to provide critical information for improving outcomes of opioid use disorder. Implementing the best strategies for opioid use disorder treatment is of dire urgency and will save lives.

Provider perceptions of system-level opioid prescribing and addiction treatment policies

Stakeholders have implemented a multitude of system-level policies to address the U.S. opioid overdose epidemic. Because opioid prescribing partly fueled the crisis and because prescribing of medications for opioid addiction treatment is a key prevention strategy, it is critical to understand prescriber perceptions of policies in these domains. This article reviews prescriber awareness and opinions of the following system-level policies: opioid prescribing guidelines, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), medications for addiction treatment, and naloxone distribution programs. Most providers are aware of these policies, especially PDMPs, albeit a smaller proportion actively participate in their implementation. Low engagement in certain system-level policies is concerning and deserves attention, given that prescribers play an integral role in achieving optimal impact and mitigating the crisis.