Development, Testing, and Dissemination of a Public-Facing Tool to Help Consumers Find Higher-Quality Addiction Treatment

Drive Time to Addiction Treatment Facilities Providing Contingency Management across Rural and Urban Census Tracts in 6 US States

OBJECTIVE

We examined drive times to outpatient substance use disorder treatment providers that provide contingency management (CM) and those that integrate CM with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services in 6 US states.

METHODS

We completed cross-sectional geospatial analysis among census tracts in Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and West Virginia. We excluded census tracts with a population of zero. Using data from the 2020 Shatterproof substance use treatment facility survey, our outcome was the minimum drive time in minutes from the census tract mean center of population to the nearest outpatient CM provider, outpatient CM provider with MOUD services, and federally qualified health centers (FQHC). We stratified census tracts by 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes and by state.

RESULTS

The population was greater than zero in 11,719 of 11,899 census tracts. The median drive time to the nearest CM provider was 12.2 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.0-23.5) minutes and the median drive time to the nearest CM provider increased from 9.7 (IQR, 6.0-15.0) minutes in urban census tracts to 38.8 (IQR, 25.4-53.0) minutes in rural ( H = 3683, P < 0.001). The median drive time increased to the nearest CM provider with MOUD services [14.2 (IQR, 7.9-29.5) minutes, W = 18,877, P < 0.001] and decreased to the nearest FQHC [7.9 (IQR, 4.3-13.6) minutes, W = 11,555,894, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest limited availability of CM, particularly within rural communities and for patients needing concurrent CM and MOUD treatment. Our results suggest greater adoption of CM within FQHCs could reduce urban-rural disparities in CM availability.

Availability of Specific Programs and Medications for Addiction Treatment to Vulnerable Populations: Results from the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards (ATLAS) Survey

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe addiction treatment facilities by their offerings of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) and/or for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and by their offering services to groups with barriers to care: uninsured and publicly insured, youth, seniors, individuals preferring to receive care in Spanish, and sexual minority individuals.

METHODS

We examined addiction treatment facility survey data in 6 US states. We performed bivariate analyses comparing facilities that offered MAUD, MOUD, and both (main outcomes). We then constructed a multivariable model to identify predictors of offering MAUD, MOUD, or both, including exposures that demonstrate programming for special populations.

RESULTS

Among 2474 facilities, 1228 (50%) responded between October 2019 and January 2020. Programs were offered for youth (30%), elderly (40%), Spanish-speaking (37%), and sexual minority populations (39%), with 58% providing MAUD, 67% providing MOUD, and 56% providing both. Among those providing MAUD, MOUD, or both, a majority (>60% for all exposures) offered programming to vulnerable populations. With Delaware as reference, Louisiana (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.67) and North Carolina (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) facilities had lesser odds of offering both MAUD and MOUD. All exposures identifying facilities offering treatment to vulnerable groups were associated with offerings of MAUD and/or MOUD except for offerings to youth; these facilities had less odds of offering MOUD (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

There are facility-level disparities in providing MAUD and MOUD by state, and facilities with youth programming have lesser odds of offering MOUD than other facilities.

Findings From Implementing a Patient Experience Survey in a Quality Measurement System for Substance Abuse Disorder Treatment Facilities in 6 States

OBJECTIVES

Patient experience surveys (PESs) are an important component of determining the quality of health care. There is an absence of PES data available to people seeking to identify higher quality substance use disorder treatment providers. Our project aimed to correct this by implementing a PES for substance use disorder treatment providers and publicly disseminating PES information.

METHODS

We created a population frame of all addiction providers in 6 states. Providers were asked to disseminate a survey invitation letter directing patients to a survey Web site. No personally identifiable information was exchanged. We developed a 10-question survey, reflecting characteristics National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have identified as reflecting higher-quality addiction treatment.

RESULTS

Nineteen percent of facilities participated; among participating facilities, 9627 patients completed the survey. Patient experience varied significantly by facility with the percentage of a facility's patients who chose the most positive answer varying widely. We calculated that between-facility reliability will meet or exceed 0.80 for facilities with 20 or more responding patients. We searched for but did not find evidence of data falsification.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-efficient survey protocol is low burden for providers and patients. Results suggest significant differences in quality of care among facilities, and facility-level results are important to provide to consumers when they evaluate the relative patient-reported quality of facilities. The data are not designed to provide population-based statistics. As more facilities and patients per facility participate, public-facing PES data will be increasingly useful to consumers seeking to compare and choose facilities.