Geographic access to buprenorphine prescribers for patients who use public transit

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder after Entering Residential Treatment: Evidence from Louisiana Medicaid

OBJECTIVE

Policies have attempted to increase the use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during an admission to a residential treatment program, but little is known about the association of residential admission with subsequent MOUD use.

METHODS

In a cohort study of Louisiana Medicaid beneficiaries age 18-64 with diagnosed opioid use disorder (OUD), weekly MOUD use and overdose for 20 weeks before and after an admission to residential treatment was analyzed using comparative interrupted time series regression. Participants with residential treatment admission between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020 (N = 12,222) were compared against a demographically similar group of people with OUD without residential treatment during the study period.

RESULTS

The samples with residential treatment were largely male (61.9%), White (47.2%), and aged 30 to 39 years (41.4%). At baseline, people admitted to residential treatment were much less likely to use MOUD than the comparison group (4.2% lower, CI: 3.8%, 4.5%, P < 0.01). After admission, use of any MOUD initially increased by 3.1% (P < 0.01) relative to the comparison group, which reverted to the counterfactual trend by 20 weeks. Post-admission MOUD use differed widely by medication. Overdose incidence was highest in the weeks right before admission, but otherwise, it did not change during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Admission to residential treatment for OUD was associated with a temporary increase in MOUD use. Policy initiatives should focus on both boosting use of MOUD during residential treatment and sustaining access to MOUD in outpatient care in the weeks following discharge.

Association between buprenorphine capacity rates and percentages of ethnic/racial minorities at the county level in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the association between patient treatment capacity rates and the percentage of racial/ethnic minorities at the county level.

DESIGN

Ecological study at the county level.

EXPOSURE

The percentages of racial/ethnic minorities and the people living in poverty in 3,140 counties serve as the main exposure and confounder variables.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

"No or low patient capacity" was defined as a patient capacity rate less than or equal to the 40th percentile of the distribution. Patient capacity rates were calculated by adding the maximum number of patients X-waivered providers could potentially treat in each county.

RESULT

Counties in higher racial/ethnic minority quintiles had significantly lower odds of "no or low patient capacity" than those in the lowest quintile in multiple logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95 percent CI, 0.14-0.61).

CONCLUSION

Since racial/ethnic minorities continue to have limited access to buprenorphine, as shown in individual-level studies, merely increasing treatment capacity is largely insufficient.

Mobile treatment for opioid use disorder: Implementation of community-based, same-day medication access interventions

BACKGROUND

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are lifesaving, but <20 % of individuals in the US who could benefit receive them. As part of the NIH-supported HEALing Communities Study (HCS), coalitions in several communities in Massachusetts and Ohio implemented mobile MOUD programs to overcome barriers to MOUD receipt. We defined mobile MOUD programs as units that provide same-day access to MOUD at remote sites. We aimed to (1) document the design and organizational structure of mobile programs providing same-day or next-day MOUD, and (2) explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation as well as the successes and challenges of ongoing operation.

METHODS

Program staff from five programs in two states (n = 11) participated in semi-structured interviews. Two authors conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts based on the domains of the social-ecological model and the semi-structured interview guide.

RESULTS

Mobile MOUD units sought to improve immediate access to MOUD ("Our answer is pretty much always, 'Yes, we'll get you started right here, right now,'"), advance equity ("making sure that we have staff who speak other languages, who are on the unit and have some resources that are in different languages,"), and decrease opioid overdose deaths. Salient program characteristics included diverse staff, including staff with lived experience of substance use ("She just had that personal knowledge of where we should be going"). Mobile units offered harm reduction services, broad medical services (in particular, wound care), and connection to transportation programs and incorporated consistency in service provision and telemedicine access. Implementation facilitators included trusting relationships with partner organizations (particularly pharmacies and correctional facilities), nuanced understanding of local politics, advertising, protocol flexibility, and on-unit prescriber hours. Barriers included unclear licensing requirements, staffing shortages and competing priorities for staff, funding challenges due to inconsistency in grant funding and low reimbursement ("It's not really possible that billing in and of itself is going to be able to sustain it"), and community stigma toward addiction services generally.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite organizational, community, and policy barriers, participants described mobile MOUD units as an innovative way to expand access to life-saving medications, promote equity in MOUD treatment, and overcome stigma.

Transit and treatment: Aligning systems to address substance use in Connecticut

OBJECTIVE

Test hypotheses that proximity to new transit improves substance use disorder treatment provider cost efficiency (i.e., economies of scale and scope).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Connecticut substance uses disorder treatment providers/programs. A 2015 rapid transit line opening with 10 stations, near some providers/programs. Providers' annual operating costs from publicly available federal tax forms (2013-2018). Annual client counts, service-type (including substance use disorder and/or mental health, among others), and location data, for 50 providers and their programs, from Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, with an unbalanced panel of 285 provider-years.

STUDY DESIGN

Economies of scale occur when the percent change in operating costs is less than the percentage change in clients. Economies of scope occur when operating costs fall as providers treat clients with multiple service needs. With our quasi-experimental, multivariate regressions approach, we test hypotheses that proximity to a new transit line enhances economies of scale and scope (i.e., lowers unit operating costs).

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Annual provider-level operating costs merged with new transit station locations and Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services program/provider-level secondary data (locations, client counts/completions/dates, service types, and average demographics).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

For providers with programs within 1-mile of new transit (compared with a "control" sample beyond 1-mile of new transit), (i) a 10% increase in clients leads to a 0.12% lower operating costs per client; (ii) a 10% increase in clients completing treatment results in a 1.5% decrease in operating costs per client; (iii) a 10% increase in clients receiving treatment for multiple services causes a 0.81% lower operating costs per client; (iv) offering multiple services leads to 6.3% lower operating costs.

CONCLUSIONS

New transit proximity causes operating cost savings for substance use disorder/mental health treatment providers. System alignment may benefit transit and health care sectors.

Methadone prescribing by addiction specialists likely to leave communities without available methadone treatment

Methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is not available in most suburban and rural US communities. We examined 2 options to expand methadone availability: (1) addiction specialty physician or (2) all clinician prescribing. Using 2022 Health Resources and Services Administration data, we used mental health professional shortage areas to indicate the potential of addiction specialty physician prescribing and the location of federally qualified health centers (ie, federally certified primary care clinics) to indicate the potential of all clinician prescribing. We examined how many census tracts without an available opioid treatment program (ie, methadone clinic) are (1) located within a mental health professional shortage area and (2) are also without an available federally qualified health center. Methadone was available in 49% of tracts under current regulations, 63% of tracts in the case of specialist physician prescribing, and 86% of tracts in the case of all clinician prescribing. Specialist physician prescribing would expand availability to an additional 12% of urban, 18% of suburban, and 16% of rural tracts, while clinician prescribing would expand to an additional 30% of urban, 53% of suburban, and 58% of rural tracts relative to current availability. Results support enabling broader methadone prescribing privileges to ensure equitable treatment access, particularly for rural communities.

Sorting through life: evaluating patient-important measures of success in a medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment program

BACKGROUND

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder. Traditionally, "success" in MOUD treatment is measured in terms of program retention, adherence to MOUD, and abstinence from opioid and other drug use. While clinically meaningful, these metrics may overlook other aspects of the lives of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and surprisingly do not reflect the diagnostic criteria for OUD.

METHODS

Authors identified items for a pilesorting task to identify participant-driven measures of MOUD treatment success through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in Nvivo using directed and conventional content analysis to identify measures related to treatment success and quality of life goals. Participants of a low-threshold MOUD program were recruited and asked to rank identified measures in order of importance to their own lives. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) compared the similarity of items while non-metric MDS in R specified a two-dimensional solution. Descriptive statistics of participant demographics were generated in SPSS.

RESULTS

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and August 2020 in Philadelphia, PA, USA, and 23 measures were identified for a pilesorting activity. These were combined with 6 traditional measures for a total list of 29 items. Data from 28 people were included in pilesorting analysis. Participants identified a combination of traditional and stakeholder-defined recovery goals as highly important, however, we identified discrepancies between the most frequent and highest ranked items within the importance categories. Measures of success for participants in MOUD programs were complex, multi-dimensional, and varied by the individual. However, some key domains such as emotional well-being, decreased drug use, and attendance to basic functioning may have universal importance. The following clusters of importance were identified: emotional well-being, decreased drug use, and human functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from this research have practical applications for those working to provide services in MOUD programs. Programs can use aspects of these domains to both provide patient-centered care and to evaluate success. Specifics from the pilesorting results may also inform approaches to collaborative goal setting during treatment.

Geographic information science and the United States opioid overdose crisis: A scoping review of methods, scales, and application areas

BACKGROUND

The Opioid Overdose Crisis (OOC) continues to generate morbidity and mortality in the United States, outpacing other prominent accident-related reasons. Multiple disciplines have applied geographic information science (GIScience) to understand geographical patterns in opioid-related health measures. However, there are limited reviews that assess how GIScience has been used.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review investigates how GIScience has been used to conduct research on the OOC. Specific sub-objectives involve identifying bibliometric trends, the location and scale of studies, the frequency of use of various GIScience methodologies, and what direction future research can take to address existing gaps.

METHODS

The review was pre-registered with the Open Science Framework ((https://osf.io/h3mfx/) and followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Scholarly research was gathered from the Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library. Inclusion criteria was defined as having a publication date between January 1999 and August 2021, using GIScience as a central part of the research, and investigating an opioid-related health measure.

RESULTS

231 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published from 2017 onward. While many (41.6%) of studies were conducted using nationwide data, the majority (58.4%) occurred at the sub-national level. California, New York, Ohio, and Appalachia were most frequently studied, while the Midwest, north Rocky Mountains, Alaska, and Hawaii lacked studies. The most common GIScience methodology used was descriptive mapping, and county-level data was the most common unit of analysis across methodologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research of GIScience on the OOC can address gaps by developing use cases for machine learning, conducting analyses at the sub-county level, and applying GIScience to questions involving illicit fentanyl. Research using GIScience is expected to continue to increase, and multidisciplinary research efforts amongst GIScientists, epidemiologists, and other medical professionals can improve the rigor of research.

Patterns in Geographic Distribution of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in the US and Accepted Forms of Payment From 2010 to 2021

Importance

The drug overdose crisis is a continuing public health problem and is expected to grow substantially in older adults. Understanding the geographic accessibility to a substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facility that accepts Medicare can inform efforts to address this crisis in older adults.

Objective

To assess whether geographic accessibility of services was limited for older adults despite the increasing need for SUD and opioid use disorder treatments in this population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal cross-sectional study obtained data on all licensed SUD treatment facilities for all US counties and Census tracts listed in the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs from 2010 to 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Measures included the national proportion of treatment facilities accepting Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash as a form of payment; the proportion of counties with a treatment facility accepting each form of payment; and the proportion of the national population with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash payment residing within a 15-, 30-, or 60-minute driving time from an SUD treatment facility accepting their form of payment in 2021.

Results

A total of 11 709 SUD treatment facilities operated across the US per year between 2010 and 2021 (140 507 facility-year observations). Cash was the most commonly accepted form of payment (increasing slightly from 91.0% in 2010 to 91.6% by 2021), followed by private insurance (increasing from 63.5% to 75.3%), Medicaid (increasing from 54.0% to 71.8%), and Medicare (increasing from 32.1% to 41.9%). The proportion of counties with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment also increased over the same study period from 41.2% to 53.8%, whereas the proportion of counties with a facility that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment increased from 53.5% to 67.1%. The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment within a 15-minute driving time increased from 53.3% to 57.0%. The proportion of individuals with a treatment facility within a 15-minute driving time that accepted their respective form of payment was 73.2% for those with Medicaid, 69.8% for those with private insurance, and 71.4% for those with cash payment in 2021.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study suggest that Medicare beneficiaries have less geographic accessibility to SUD treatment facilities given that acceptance of Medicare is low compared with other forms of payment. Policy makers need to consider increasing reimbursement rates and using additional incentives to encourage the acceptance of Medicare.

Disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists at the time of diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

2014-2016 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR), 2019 CMS Base Provider Enrollment File (BPEF), 2018 CMS Physician Compare, 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA), and 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI).

STUDY DESIGN

Spatial regressions were used to estimate associations between geographic access to medical oncologists, measured with an enhanced two-step floating catchment area measure, and demographic characteristics.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Medical oncologists were identified in the 2019 CMS BPEF and merged with the 2018 CMS Physician Compare. Provider addresses were converted to longitude-latitude using OpenCage Geocoder. Newly diagnosed cancer patients in each census tract were identified in the 2014-2016 PCR. Census tracts were classified based on rurality and socioeconomic status using the 2010 RUCA Codes and the 2015 ADI.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Large towns and rural areas were associated with spatial access ratios (SPARs) that were 6.29 lower (95% CI -16.14 to 3.57) and 14.76 lower (95% CI -25.14 to -4.37) respectively relative to urban areas. Being in the fourth ADI quartile (highest disadvantage) was associated with a 12.41 lower SPAR (95% CI -19.50 to -5.33) relative to the first quartile. The observed difference in a census tract's non-White population from the 25th (1.3%) to the 75th percentile (13.7%) was associated with a 13.64 higher SPAR (Coefficient = 1.10, 95% CI 11.89 to 15.29; p < 0.01), roughly equivalent to the disadvantage associated with living in the fourth ADI quartile, where non-White populations are concentrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rurality and low socioeconomic status were associated with lower geographic access to oncologists. The negative association between area deprivation and geographic access is of similar magnitude to the positive association between larger non-White populations and access. Policies aimed at increasing geographic access to care should be cognizant of both rurality and socioeconomic status.

County-level sociodemographic differences in availability of two medications for opioid use disorder: United States, 2019

BACKGROUND

Differences in availability of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) buprenorphine and methadone exist. Factors that may influence such differences in availability include sociodemographic characteristics but research in this area is limited. We explore the association between county-level sociodemographic factors and MOUD treatment availability.

METHODS

County-level Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data were used to determine the presence or absence of buprenorphine treatment or opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and the level of availability of these types of treatment in a county. Hurdle models were used to examine the associations of our covariates with any MOUD treatment availability and level of available treatment.

RESULTS

The odds of a county having OTP availability were higher for counties with higher percentages of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations and higher drug overdose death rates. Counties with higher percentages of persons in poverty and drug overdose death rates had higher odds of maximum potential buprenorphine treatment capacity, while counties with high percentages of persons without health insurance, with disability, and rural counties had lower odds.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in the county-level availability of OTPs and buprenorphine treatment. Our findings expand on prior studies illustrating that barriers to accessing treatment persist and are not evenly distributed among sociodemographic groups, further study is needed to examine if barriers of availability translate to barriers in receiving treatment. Given the escalating overdose crisis in the U.S., expanding equitable availability of MOUD is critical. Informed strategies are needed to reach areas and populations in greatest need.

Comparing Two Databases to Identify Access to Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to assess the differences in buprenorphine prescribers from a county level in the state of Texas by comparing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator to the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Controlled Substance Act (CSA) database.

METHODS

County-level counts of buprenorphine prescribers were calculated from both the publicly available SAMHSA buprenorphine practitioner locator list and the DEA CSA database. These were then used to estimate the number of providers per 100,000 residents in each county. Regional variation in access to buprenorphine was compared descriptively across the state using poverty data from the US Census and county-level demography from the Texas Demographic Center.

RESULTS

This study found 68.8% more X-waivered providers on the DEA CSA database (n = 2,622) with at least one provider reported in 125 of 144 counties in the state (49.2%) compared to the SAMHSA Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator (n = 1,553) with at least one provider reported in 103 counties (40.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of a complete public registry of buprenorphine prescribers can inhibit the ability of patients to identify a convenient treatment. More work is needed to quantify the gap between treatment capacity and treatment need.

A bridge too far? Distance to waivered physicians and utilization of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder in West Virginia Medicaid

Background: Travel distance to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is a challenge for many patients, but little is known about how distance is associated with medication treatment utilization. This study examines the association between distance to the nearest physician waivered to prescribe buprenorphine and patient-level buprenorphine treatment among West Virginia Medicaid expansion enrollees with diagnosed OUD. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional spatial analysis with 2016 Medicaid claims data, separately examining individuals living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. We calculated the driving distance from the centroid of patients' residential ZIP codes to the street address of the nearest waivered physician derived from the 2015 Drug Enforcement Administration listing. Regression models examined the association between distance and initiation and duration of buprenorphine (among those initiating). Results: We focused on 8,008 individuals with OUD in 2016. The nearest waivered prescriber in metropolitan areas was an average of 7.13 miles away from patients' residential ZIP codes and 14.54 miles in non-metropolitan areas. The providers they actually visited were a mean of 33.63 miles away in metro areas and 46.36 in non-metropolitan areas. In multivariable analyses, compared to those living <10 miles from a waivered physician, living >20 miles from a waivered physician was associated with -32.13 fewer days of treatment (95% CI: -57.86, -6.40) in metro areas and -16.70 fewer days in non-metro areas (95% CI: -32.32, -1.08). Conclusions: Longer travel distance to buprenorphine treatment is associated with a shorter duration of care that is likely to be clinically meaningful.

Spatial proximity and access to buprenorphine or methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in a sample of people misusing opioids in Southern California

BACKGROUND

In response to the opioid crisis, over the last 10 years substantial strides have been made to increase the availability of evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder, in particular buprenorphine maintenance, in the United States. Despite these worthwhile efforts, uptake rates of evidence-based treatment remain relatively low. As part of a broader study of opioid misuse, we examined proximity to evidence-based treatment as a potential barrier to treatment access.

METHODS

In 2017-2018, we surveyed 218 individuals misusing prescription opioids or using street opioids in three Southern Californian counties. The study calculated driving distance from place of residence to the closest treatment provider offering buprenorphine or methadone treatment for opioid use disorders.

RESULTS

Median distance to providers was 3.8 km (2.4 miles). Seventy one (33%) participants had received some form of treatment in the last 3 months; however, only 26 (40%) of these had received buprenorphine or methadone maintenance treatment. Participants receiving treatment at the time of their interview were traveling an average 16.8 km (10.4 miles) to reach treatment, indicating that as a group this population was both willing and able to seek and engage with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the suburban and exurban communities in which our study was based, our findings suggest that simple physical proximity to providers of evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder is no longer a critical barrier. Other barriers to uptake of buprenorphine or methadone maintenance treatment clearly remain and need to be addressed.

DISCLAIMER

Findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Population-based estimates of geographic accessibility of medication for opioid use disorder by substance use disorder treatment facilities from 2014 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Understanding whether individuals have geographic accessibility to a substance use disorder treatment facility and a treatment facility that offers medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) can inform efforts to address the ongoing opioid crisis.

METHODS

We used data from the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs. First, we calculate the national share of treatment facilities that offer one type of MOUD or all forms of MOUD using a novel dataset of providers. Second, we quantify the share of counties with a treatment facility offering at least one type of MOUD. Finally, we calculate the share of the national population residing within a 10-mile radius of a treatment facility.

RESULTS

The share of counties with a treatment facility offering a MOUD as a form of treatment rose from 30% to 45% from 2014 to 2020 while the share of counties with facilities offering all three forms of MOUD increased from 4% to 9%. Over 83% of the population lives within 10 miles of a facility offering MOUD treatment, and 42% of the population have a treatment facility that offers all three forms of MOUD within a 10-mile radius. Much of the difference between the county- and population-based measures is explained by more population dense areas having higher rates of facilities providing MOUD.

CONCLUSIONS

While the share of facilities within a county offering a MOUD is relatively small, the share of the population within 10 miles of such a facility is higher.

A comparison of methods for measuring spatial access to health care

OBJECTIVE

To compare measures of spatial access to care commonly used by policy makers and researchers with the more comprehensive enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method.

STUDY SETTING

Fourteen southwestern Pennsylvania counties.

STUDY DESIGN

We estimated spatial access to buprenorphine-waivered prescribers using three commonly used measures-Euclidean travel distance to the closest prescriber, travel time to the closest provider, and provider-to-population ratios-and the E2SFCA. Unlike other measures, the E2SFCA captures provider capacity, potential patient volume, and travel time to prescribers.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We measured provider capacity as the number of buprenorphine prescribers listed at a given address in the Drug Enforcement Agency's 2020 Controlled Substances Act Registrants Database, and we measured potential patient volume as the number of nonelderly adults in a given census tract as reported by the 2018 American Community Survey. We estimated travel times between potential patients and prescribers with Bing Maps and Mapbox application programming interfaces. We then calculated each spatial access measure using the R programming language. We used each measure of spatial access to identify census tracts in the lowest quintile of spatial access to prescribers.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The Euclidean distance, travel time, and provider-to-population ratio measures identified 48.3%, 47.2%, and 69.9% of the census tracts that the E2SFCA measure identified as being in the lowest quintile of spatial access to care, meaning that these measures misclassify 30%-52% of study area census tracts as having sufficient spatial access to buprenorphine prescribers.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of spatial access commonly used by policy makers do not sufficiently accurately identify geographic areas with relatively low access to prescribers of buprenorphine. Using the E2SFCA in addition to the commonly used measures would allow policy makers to precisely target interventions to increase spatial access to opioid use disorder treatment and other types of health care services.

Where did the specialty behavioral health workforce grow between 2011 and 2019? Evidence from census data

IMPORTANCE

Given that mental health and substance use conditions are ongoing major public health problems in the United States, it is important for researchers to understand the behavioral health treatment workforce landscape and to assess whether increases in treatment capacity exist in areas with public health needs.

OBJECTIVES

This study quantified national and county-level changes in specialty behavioral health (SBH) workforce outcomes and assessed associations between these measures and age-adjusted drug mortality rate.

DESIGN

Using a novel longitudinal dataset from the U.S. Census Bureau, this study described SBH workforce outcomes in 3130 U.S. counties between 2011 and 2019. The study stratified workforce outcomes, including the number of establishments, likelihood of having establishments, mean number of workers, and average wage of workers per county, by service settings: outpatient, residential, and hospital. The study fitted outcome data at the county level to ordinary least squares regression models as a function of the country's previous year age-adjusted drug mortality rate and county sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The number of SBH establishments, their workforce, and their wages have increased steadily between 2011 and 2019, with the largest increases occurring in the following settings: outpatient (number of establishments and employment) and residential (average wage). County-level growth of residential SBH establishments was positively and significantly associated with the county's previous year county age-adjusted drug mortality rate. We did not observe a similar positive association between either employment or wages and the mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in the number of SBH establishments in recent years may indicate that the SBH workforce is responding to increased need for treatment; however, more work needs to be done to close behavioral health workforce gaps in areas with an elevated drug overdose mortality rate.