Buprenorphine deregulation as an opioid crisis policy response - A comparative analysis between France and the United States

BACKGROUND

In passing the Maintstreaming Addiction Treatment Act, the United States has abolished its federal X waiver, considered a major barrier to the wider buprenorphine prescribing needed to respond to opioid-related harms. Advocates for this policy have drawn on the French response of deregulating buprenorphine prescribing to address increasing overdose mortality around the turn of the millennium. So far, such policy advocacy has incompletely accounted for contextual and health system differences between the two countries.

METHODS

Using the health system dynamics framework, this analysis compares France from 1995 to 2003 (the relevant period of buprenorphine reform) to the US from 2018 until today (the comparison period to explore potential impacts of reform). We used it to guide examination of a) contextual issues relating to opioid use epidemiology and b) health system factors including prescriber supply, sector organization, and insurance coverage for primary care to draw relevant policy learning for the contemporary US.

RESULTS

We identified that the US had a 22.5-fold higher mortality rate and a 2.3-fold higher opioid use disorder (OUD) rate compared to France, despite having rates of prescribed buprenorphine per-capita higher than, and per-person with OUD comparable to, than that of France. These wide gulfs between the scales and nature of the problems between France and the US suggest that relaxing restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing through abolishing the X waiver will be insufficient for achieving hoped-for reductions in overdose mortality.

CONCLUSION

Health system strengthening with a focus on improvements in primary care prescriber supply, coverage, and coordination are likely higher yield policy complements to relaxing buprenorphine regulation. Such an approach would better prepare the US to adapt to ongoing dynamics and uncertainties in the opioid crisis and to optimize the already relatively high levels of buprenorphine prescribing.

Promoting access to family medicine in Québec, Canada: Analysis of bill 20, enacted in November 2015

Primary care can potentially make an important contribution to improving health system performance. However, Canada does not fare as well as other developed countries in terms of timely access to primary health care services. In November 2015, Bill 20 was introduced in the province of Québec. The goal of Bill 20 was to optimize the utilisation of medical and financial resources to improve access to primary care. Bill 20 states the obligations of general practitioners to register a minimum number of patients, ensure the continuity of care of that population, and practice a minimum number of hours in hospitals. Many actors agreed that access to primary care had to be improved in Québec, but disagreed with Bill 20. In particular, family physicians strongly opposed the financial penalties that were introduced for physicians failing to meet the specified targets. In January 2018, 3 years after Bill 20, indicators for patient registration and continuity of care have considerably improved. However, the attractiveness of general practice seems to have decreased among medical graduates, which creates uncertainty regarding the sustainability of the achievements brought on by Bill 20.

Explaining the Amount and Consistency of Medical Care and Self-Management Support in Asthma: A Survey of Primary Care Providers in France and the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The quality of asthma primary care may vary between countries, health care practices, and health care professionals (HCPs). Identifying and explaining such differences is critical for health services improvement.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the quality of asthma primary care in France and United Kingdom, and identify within-country and between-country predictors amenable to intervention.

METHODS

An online questionnaire to capture asthma medical care and self-management support, practice characteristics, and psychosocial determinants was completed by 276 HCPs. Mokken scaling analyses were used to examine item structure and consistency. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to identify predictors of the amount (number of asthma care activities HCPs delivered) and consistency (the degree to which HCPs deliver similar care) of asthma medical care and self-management support.

RESULTS

On average, HCPs reported delivering 74.2% of guideline-recommended care. Consistency of medical care and self-management support was lower among HCPs delivering a lower amount of care (r = 0.58 and r = 0.57, P < .001). UK HCPs provided more and more consistent asthma self-management support-but not medical care-than French HCPs, which was explained by the presence of practice nurses in the United Kingdom. More training, positive social norms, and higher behavioral control explained better quality of care across all HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Using carefully developed questionnaires and advanced psychometric analyses, this study suggests that involving practice nurses, making social expectations visible, and providing more training to enhance skills and confidence in asthma care delivery could enhance the amount and consistency of asthma primary care. This needs to be corroborated in a future intervention trial.