The payer's role in addressing the opioid epidemic: It's more than money

Enhancing Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Through External Coaching

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled trial tested whether external coaching influences addiction treatment providers' utilization of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUDs).

METHODS

This study recruited 75 unique clinical sites in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, including 61 sites in specialty treatment agencies and 14 behavioral health sites within health systems. The trial used external coaching to increase use of MOUDs in the context of a learning collaborative and compared it with no coaching and no learning collaborative (control condition). Outcome measures of MOUD capacity and utilization were monthly tabulations of licensed buprenorphine slots (i.e., the number of patients who could be treated based on the buprenorphine waiver limits of the site's providers), buprenorphine use, and injectable naltrexone administration.

RESULTS

The coaching and control arms showed no significant difference at baseline. Although buprenorphine slots increased in both arms during the 30-month trial, growth increased twice as fast at the coaching sites, compared with the control sites (average monthly rate of 6.1% vs. 3.0%, respectively, p<0.001). Buprenorphine use showed a similar pattern; the monthly growth rate in the coaching arm was more than twice the rate in the control arm (5.3% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001). Coaching did not have an impact on injectable naltrexone, which grew less than 1% in both arms over the trial period.

CONCLUSIONS

External coaching can increase organizational capacity for and growth of buprenorphine use. Future research should explore the dimensions of coaching practice, dose, and delivery modality to better understand and enhance the coaching function.

Adapting the stages of implementation completion to an evidence-based implementation strategy: The development of the NIATx stages of implementation completion

Background

Dissemination and implementation frameworks provide the scaffolding to explore the effectiveness of evidence-based practices (EBPs) targeting process of care and organizational outcomes. Few instruments, like the stages of implementation completion (SIC) examine implementation fidelity to EBP adoption and how organizations differ in their approach to implementation. Instruments to measure organizational competency in the utilization of implementation strategies are lacking.

Method

An iterative process was utilized to adapt the SIC to the NIATx implementation strategies. The new instrument, NIATx-SIC, was applied in a randomized controlled trial involving 53 addiction treatment agencies in Washington state to improve agency co-occurring capacity. NIATx-SIC data were reported by state staff and external facilitators and through participating agency documentation. Proportion and duration scores for each stage and phase of the NIATx-SIC were calculated for each agency. Competency was assessed using the NIATx fidelity tool. Comparisons of proportion, duration, and NIATx activities completed were determined using independent sample t-tests by agency competency level.

Results

The NIATx-SIC distinguished between agencies achieving competency (n  =  23) and those not achieving competency (n  =  26). Agencies achieving competency completed a greater proportion of implementation phase activities and had a significantly longer Stage 7 duration. These agencies participated in significantly more individual and group coaching calls, attended more in-person meetings, implemented more change projects, and spent approximately 64 more days, on average, engaging in all NIATx activities.

Conclusions

Organizational participation in dissemination and implementation research requires a significant investment of staff resources. The inability of an organization to achieve competency when utilizing a set of implementation strategies waste an opportunity to institutionalize knowledge of how to apply implementation strategies to future change efforts. The NIATx-SIC provides evidence that competency is not an attribute of the organization but rather a result of the application of the NIATx implementation strategies to improve agency co-occurring capacity.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03007940. Registered January 2, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03007940.

Healthcare Utilization of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder in US Hospitals from 2016 to 2019: Focusing on Racial and Regional Variances

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of US population-based research on healthcare utilization differences caused by opioid misuse.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore disparities in healthcare utilization by type of opioid use disorder, race, region, and other patient factors for a more targeted prevention and treatment program.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample of the United States was used to identify patients with opioid use disorder (n = 101,231, weighted n = 506,155) from 2016 to 2019. Type of opioid use disorder was defined as opioid dependence/unspecified use, adverse effects of opioids, opioid misuse, and opioid poisoning (also known as overdose). We examined the sample characteristics and the association between type of disorder, racial and regional variables, and healthcare utilization, measured by hospital charges and length of stay. The multivariate survey linear regression model was used.

RESULTS

Among 506,155 patients, most were categorized as opioid dependence/unspecified use (56.3%) and opioid poisoning (42.7%). The number of opioid use disorder patients during the study decreased; however, overall total charges and length of stay continuously increased. Survey linear results showed that opioid poisoning, adverse effects, and abuse were associated with higher hospital charges than opioid dependence; however, length of stay was significantly lower for these groups. White patients compared with minorities, and West, Northeast, and South regions were associated with higher hospital charges and length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in healthcare utilization exist between type of disorder, race, and region. Such findings illustrate that tailored treatment regimens are required to bridge the gaps in care and combat the opioid crisis. Minorities with opioid use disorder utilize healthcare the least, possibly because of affordability, and need culturally sensitive and financially feasible treatment options.

Performance Metrics of Substance Use Disorder Care Among Medicaid Enrollees in New York, New York

Importance

There is limited evaluation of the performance of Medicaid managed care (MMC) private plans in covering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.

Objective

To compare the performance of MMC plans across 19 indicators of access, quality, and outcomes of SUD treatment.

Design Setting and Participants

This cross-sectional study used administrative claims and mandatory assignment to plans of up to 159 016 adult Medicaid recipients residing in 1 of the 5 counties (boroughs) of New York, New York, from January 2009 to December 2017 to identify differences in SUD treatment access, patterns, and outcomes among different types of MMC plans. Data from the latest years were received from the New York State Department of Health in October 2019, and analysis began soon thereafter. Approximately 17% did not make an active choice of plan, and a subset of these (approximately 4%) can be regarded as randomly assigned.

Exposures

Plan assignment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Percentage of the enrollees achieving performance measures across 19 indicators of access, process, and outcomes of SUD treatment.

Results

Medicaid claims data from 159 016 adults (mean [SD] age, 35.9 [12.7] years; 74 261 women [46.7%]; 8746 [5.5%] Asian, 73 783 [46.4%] Black, and 40 549 [25.5%] White individuals) who were auto assigned to an MMC plan were analyzed. Consistent with national patterns, all plans achieved less than 50% (range, 0%-62.1%) on most performance measures. Across all plans, there were low levels of treatment engagement for alcohol (range, 0%-0.4%) and tobacco treatment (range, 0.8%-7.2%), except for engagement for opioid disorder treatment (range, 41.5%-61.4%). For access measures, 4 of the 9 plans performed significantly higher than the mean on recognition of an SUD diagnosis, any service use for the first time, and tobacco use screening. Of the process measures, total monthly expenditures on SUD treatment was the only measure for which plans differed significantly from the mean. Outcome measures differed little across plans.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest the need for progress in engaging patients in SUD treatment and improvement in the low performance of SUD care and limited variation in MMC plans in New York, New York. Improvement in the overall performance of SUD treatment in Medicaid potentially depends on general program improvements, not moving recipients among plans.

Wait No Longer: Reducing Medication Wait-Times for Individuals with Co-Occurring Disorders

Objective: Community addiction treatment agencies have utilized Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx), a proven implementation strategy, to reduce appointment wait-times. However, its effectiveness at reducing medication access wait-times has not been explored. Thus, we conducted an exploratory analysis to evaluate the impact of the NIATx implementation strategies on reduced wait-times to addiction, psychotropic or both medications for individuals with co-occurring disorders (COD). Methods: In a cluster-randomized waitlist control group design, community addiction treatment agencies (n = 49) were randomized to receive the NIATx strategy (Cohort 1, n = 25) or to a Waitlist control (Cohort 2, n = 24). All agencies had a 12-month active intervention period. The primary outcome was the medication encounter wait-time. A univariate general linear model analysis utilizing a logarithmic (log10) transformation examined medication wait-times improvements. Results: The intent-to-treat analysis for psychotropic medications and both medications (reflecting integrated treatment) showed significant main effects for intervention and time, especially comparing Baseline and Year 1 to Year 2. Conversely, only the main effect for time was significant for addiction medications. Wait-time reductions in Cohort 1 agencies was delayed and occurred in the sustainment phase. Wait-times to a psychotropic, addiction, or both medications encounter declined by 3 days, 4.9 days, and 6.8 days, respectively. For Cohort 2 agencies, reduced wait-times were seen for psychotropic (3.4 days), addiction (6 days), and both medications (4.9 days) during their active implementation period. Same- or next-day medication access also improved. Conclusions: NIATx implementation strategies reduced medication encounter wait-times but timing of agency improvements varied. Despite a significant improvement, a three-week wait-time to receive integrated pharmacological interventions is clinically suboptimal for individuals with a COD in need of immediate intervention. Community addiction treatment agencies should identify barriers and implement changes to improve medication access so that their patients "wait no longer" to receive integrated treatment and medications for their COD.

Improving Medication Access within Integrated Treatment for Individuals with Co-Occurring Disorders in Substance Use Treatment Agencies

BACKGROUND

The best approach to provide comprehensive care for individuals with co-occurring disorders (CODs) related to substance use and mental health is to address both disorders through an integrated treatment approach. However, only 25% of behavioral health agencies offer integrated care and less than 7% of individuals who need integrated treatment receive it. A project used a cluster-randomized waitlist control group design to evaluate the effectiveness of Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) implementation strategies to improve access to addiction and psychotropic medications.

METHODS

This study represents a secondary analysis of data from the NIATx project. Forty-nine agencies were randomized to Cohort1 (active implementation group, receiving the NIATx strategy [n=25]) or Cohort2 (waitlist control group [n=24]). Data were collected at three time points (Baseline, Year1 and Year2). A two-level (patient within agency) multinomial logistic regression model investigated the effects of implementation strategy condition on one of four medication outcomes: both medication types, only psychotropic medication, only addiction medication, or neither medication type. A per-protocol analysis included time, NIATx fidelity, and agency focus as predictors.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat analysis found a statistically significant change in access to addiction versus neither medication, but Cohort1 compared to Cohort2 at Year1 showed no differences. Changes were associated with the experimental intervention and occurred in the transition from Year 1 to Year 2, where greater increases were seen for agencies in Cohort2 versus Cohort1. The per-protocol analysis showed increased access to both medications and addiction medications from pre- to post-intervention for agencies in both cohorts; however, differences in change between high- and low-implementation agencies were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to integrated services for people with CODs is a long-standing problem. NIATx implementation strategies had limited effectiveness in improving medication access for individuals with CODs. Implementation strategy adherence is associated with increased medication access.

Differences in Availability and Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Residential Treatment Settings in the United States

Importance

While many individuals with opioid use disorder seek treatment at residential facilities to initiate long-term recovery, the availability and use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) in these facilities is unclear.

Objective

To examine differences in MOUD availability and use in residential facilities as a function of Medicaid policy, facility-level factors associated with MOUD availability, and admissions-level factors associated with MOUD use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used deidentified facility-level and admissions-level data from 2863 residential treatment facilities and 232 414 admissions in the United States in 2017. Facility-level data were extracted from the 2017 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, and admissions-level data were extracted from the 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions. Statistical analyses were conducted from June to November 2019.

Exposures

Admissions for opioid use disorder at residential treatment facilities in the United States that identified opioids as the patient's primary drug of choice.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Availability and use of 3 MOUDs (ie, extended-release naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone).

Results

Of 232 414 admissions, 205 612 (88.5%) contained complete demographic data (166 213 [80.8%] aged 25-54 years; 136 854 [66.6%] men; 151 867 [73.9%] white). Among all admissions, MOUDs were used in only 34 058 of 192 336 (17.7%) in states that expanded Medicaid and 775 of 40 078 (1.9%) in states that did not expand Medicaid (P < .001). A relatively low percentage of the 2863 residential treatment facilities in this study offered extended-release naltrexone (854 [29.8%]), buprenorphine (953 [33.3%]), or methadone (60 [2.1%]). Compared with residential facilities that offered at least 1 MOUD, those that offered no MOUDs had lower odds of also offering psychiatric medications (odds ratio [OR], 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08; Wald χ21 = 542.09; P < .001), being licensed by a state or hospital authority (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; Wald χ21 = 24.28; P < .001), or being accredited by a health organization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.23-0.33; Wald χ21 = 180.91; P < .001). Residential facilities that did not offer any MOUDs had higher odds of accepting cash-only payments than those that offered at least 1 MOUD (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.47-6.64; Wald χ21 = 89.65; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of residential addiction treatment facilities in the United States, MOUD availability and use were sparse. Public health and policy efforts to improve access to and use of MOUDs in residential treatment facilities could improve treatment outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder who are initiating recovery.