Search

Background: In the United States, there has been a concerning rise in the prevalence of opioid use disorders (OUD) among transition-age (TA) adults, 18 to 25-years old, with a disproportionate impact on individuals and families covered by Medicaid. Of equal concern, the treatment system continues to underperform for many young people, emphasizing the need to address the treatment challenges faced by this vulnerable population at a pivotal juncture in their life course. Pharmacotherapy is the most effective treatment for OUD, yet notably, observational studies reveal gaps in the receipt of and retention in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), resulting in poor outcomes for many TA adults in treatment. Few current studies on OUD treatment quality explicitly consider the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors, especially for young people whose social roles and institutional ties remain in flux. Methods: We introduce a retrospective, longitudinal cohort design to study treatment quality practices and outcomes among approximately 65,000 TA adults entering treatment for OUD between 2012 and 2025 in New York. We propose to combine data from multiple sources, including Medicaid claims and encounter data and a state registry of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment episodes, to examine three aspects of OUD treatment quality: 1) MOUD use, including MOUD option (e.g., buprenorphine, methadone, or extended-release [XR] naltrexone); 2) adherence to pharmacotherapy and retention in treatment; and 3) adverse events (e.g., overdoses). Using rigorous analytical methods, we will provide insights into how variation in treatment practices and outcomes are structured more broadly by multilevel processes related to communities, treatment programs, and characteristics of the patient, as well as their complex interplay. Discussion: Our findings will inform clinical decision making by patients and providers as well as public health responses to the rising number of young adults seeking treatment for OUD amidst the opioid and polysubstance overdose crisis in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several factors motivate the need for innovation to improve the delivery of behavioral health services, including increased rates of mental health and substance use disorders, limited access to services, inconsistent use of evidence-based practices, and persistent racial and ethnic disparities. This narrative review identifies promising innovations that address these challenges, assesses empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these innovations and the extent to which they have been adopted and implemented, and suggests next steps for research. We review five categories of innovations: organizational models, including a range of novel locations for providing services and new ways of organizing services within and across sites; information and communication technologies; workforce; treatment technologies; and policy and regulatory changes. We conclude by discussing the need to strengthen and accelerate the contributions of implementation science to close the gap between the launch of innovative behavioral health services and their widespread use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data. Methods and analysis: We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases—Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting—with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis. Discussion: This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE—particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) often have significant medical and behavioral health needs that are unaddressed. Opioid treatment programs (OTP) are uniquely positioned to provide integrated services for OUD, physical and mental health but are underutilized for this purpose. This study aims to describe the physical and mental healthcare needs of OTP clients in order to inform integrated care implementation in OTPs. Method: OTP clients (n = 1261) in an integrated care program in the Bronx borough of New York City were assessed for mental health symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression), chronic disease indicators (e.g., blood pressure, cholesterol), and general functioning (e.g., capability of managing healthcare needs). Results: Symptoms of anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and depression were common. Self-reported health status and level of functioning were generally poor. Heavy smoking and obesity were the most frequent physical health risks. Other chronic disease indicators (e.g., blood pressure) showed 25-46% may be at risk. Sixty percent had multiple mental health risks and 85% had multiple physical health risks. Older clients had a higher rate of hypertension and diabetes risk than younger clients. Conclusions: Integrated care programs in OTPs must be prepared to address and coordinate care for chronic mental and physical health conditions in addition to OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although the rapid increase in opioid use disorders (OUD) and concurrent increase in Hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the United States is well-documented, little is known about HCV testing among high-risk populations. We examine patterns of HCV testing across OUD treatment settings for individuals with OUD in New York. Methods: Using 2014 New York Medicaid claims data, we identified OUD diagnosis, OUD treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, other treatment (inpatient or outpatient non-medication-based psychosocial treatment, such as psychotherapy) and no treatment) utilization and HCV-testing status among beneficiaries. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with HCV screening across OUD treatment settings. Results: 79,764 individuals with OUD diagnoses were identified in 2014. The prevalence of HCV screening was 32.4%, 16.2%, 20.6%, 16.8%, and 18.1% for those receiving methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, other treatment, and no treatment, respectively. In the adjusted logistic regression, those receiving any OUD treatment had greater odds of being screened, with the highest odds among methadone clients. Conclusions: Engagement in medication for OUD is associated with increased HCV testing. Findings indicate the importance of access to medication-based treatment for OUD and a need to further improve HCV screening rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The misuse of and addiction to opioids is a national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare. There is an urgent need for strategies to improve opioid use disorder treatment quality (e.g., 6-month retention). Substance use disorder treatment programs are challenged by limited resources and a workforce that does not have the requisite experience or education in quality improvement methods. The purpose of this study is to test a multicomponent clinic-level intervention designed to aid substance use disorder treatment clinics in implementing quality improvement processes to improve high-priority indicators of treatment quality for opioid use disorder.Methods: A stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with 30 outpatient treatment clinics serving approximately 2000 clients with opioid use disorder each year will test whether a clinic-level measurement-driven, quality improvement intervention, called Coaching for Addiction Recovery Enhancement (CARE), improves (a) treatment process quality measures (use of medications for opioid use disorder, in-treatment symptom and therapeutic progress, treatment retention) and (b) recovery outcomes (substance use, health, and healthcare utilization). The CARE intervention will have the following components: (1) staff clinical training and tools, (2) quality improvement and change management training, (3) external facilitation to support implementation and sustainability of quality improvement processes, and (4) an electronic client-reported treatment progress tool to support data-driven decision making and clinic-level quality measurement. The study will utilize multiple sources of data to test study aims, including state administrative data, client-reported survey and treatment progress data, and staff interview and survey data.Discussion: This study will provide the field with a strong test of a multicomponent intervention to improve providers' capacity to make systematic changes tied to quality metrics. The study will also result in training and materials that can be shared widely to increase quality improvement implementation and enhance clinical practice in the substance use disorder treatment system.Trial Registration: Trial # NCT04632238NCT04632238 registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 17 November 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare systems are implementing value-based payment (VBP) arrangements in efforts to incentivize cost-effective, high quality of care. These arrangements represent a major shift for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers who may need to make changes to their clinical and business operations to meet new demands for quality under value-based contracts. This qualitative study was conducted in the context of New York State's efforts to implement VBP among SUD treatment providers to understand their experiences, challenges, and needs. Five focus groups were conducted across the State with a total of 68 treatment professionals. Content analysis was conducted and five themes emerged. First, competing demands, limited workforce and technology infrastructure, and perceived lack of information were leading to overwhelmed administrators. Second, confusion and financial fear was being driven by the need for new clinical roles, business practices, and external partnerships. Third, providers were undertaking a number of measures to address workforce needs. Fourth, providers were building new business models and clinical practices. Fifth, providers desired more support and information. As VBP models are being adopted, healthcare systems should identify ways to mitigate challenges and support SUD treatment providers that may have limited resources to address complex workforce, client, and infrastructure needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New instruments are needed to assist substance use disorder (SUD) clinics in monitoring client treatment progress. This paper describes the development of an 8-item monitoring tool and results from a pilot to understand the tool's structure and reliability. 393 clients completed the tool upon treatment entry. A factor analysis resulted in a 2-factor solution: SUD symptoms and treatment progress. Multiple regression analyses showed that clients in inpatient detoxification had lower scores than those in less intensive levels of care. Acceptable internal consistency reliability was found. This study shows promise for the tool and sets the stage for future validation work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies examined inter-rater reliability and content-related validity of an addiction treatment level of care determination tool currently in use in New York, the LOCADTR 3.0. The studies occurred after tool implementation. In study 1, 139 providers used the LOCADTR 3.0 to determine level of care for four case vignettes. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were calculated. In study 2, 387,338 state records from existing data were analyzed to determine how often providers opted to override the LOCADTR 3.0 level of care determination by choosing an alternative level of care. In study 1, an acceptable inter-rater reliability (IRR = .57-.59) was found. Good indication of content-related validity was also found; participants chose the same level of care the study team chose for each vignette 80% of the time. In study 2, the override option was selected only 10% of the time, further establishing the content validity of the tool. These studies provide evidence for acceptable preliminary reliability and validity of the LOCADTR 3.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims, and objectives: There are well‐documented barriers that have limited widespread, sustained adoption of screening and brief intervention for risky substance use in health care settings. In order to better inform implementation efforts, this study evaluates whether patient characteristics, screening results, and implementation success indicators differed between two clinical setting types: primary care and emergency. Methods: Patients presenting to an emergency or primary care setting were screened for risky substance use (n = 41 567). Patients with a positive screen were further assessed for psychosocial, health, and substance use problems (n = 1604). Differences in patient characteristics between primary care and emergency settings were examined using chi‐square and t tests. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine whether setting type predicted screening results. Site‐level indicators of implementation success were calculated (percentage prescreens completed, percentage full screens completed, and percentage refused services) for all patient visits (n = 78 656). Results: As compared with primary care patients, emergency patients had more severe substance use patterns and screening scores, were more likely to use a variety of illicit drugs, and reported more psychosocial issues. In logistic regression models, setting type did not predict whether patients screened positive; however, it did predict screening into a higher vs lower risk category such that emergency patients were more likely to be in a higher risk category. Emergency settings had lower indicators of implementation success (eg, 14% lower prescreen completion rate) as compared with primary care settings on some implementation measures. Conclusions: This evaluation found important differences in patient characteristics and screening and implementation results between primary care and emergency settings. Health care organizations and administrators implementing screening and brief intervention should attend to setting differences that could affect implementation and clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substance use disorder (SUD) among Asian Americans is understudied. Our review of National Institutes of Health-funded projects reveals a striking underrepresentation of research focused on SUD in this population, possibly perpetuated by the pervasive societal myth that Asian Americans are a healthy community. Moreover, the limited availability and disaggregation of data on SUD among Asian Americans further hinder our understanding of prevalence rates, treatment utilization, and associated disparities-thereby limiting opportunities for prevention and intervention. In light of these findings, our review serves as a crucial call to action, emphasizing the urgent need for increased research efforts and resources to address the significant gaps in knowledge and inform effective interventions for addressing SUD among Asian Americans., Competing Interests: Please see ICMJE form(s) for author conflicts of interest. These have been provided as supplementary materials., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Project HOPE - The People-To-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Aims: We examined the effects of a statewide New York (NY) care management (CM) program for substance use disorder (SUD), Managed Addiction Treatment Services (MATS), on SUD treatment services' utilization and spending among patients with a recent history of high Medicaid spending and among those for whom a predictive algorithm indicates a higher probability of outlier spending in the following year., Methods: We applied difference-in-difference analyses with propensity score matching using NY Medicaid claims data and a state registry of SUD-treatment episodes from 2006 to 2009. A total of 1263 CM enrollees with high SUD treatment spending (>$10K) in the prior year and a matched comparison group were included in the analysis. Crisis care utilization for SUD (detoxification and hospitalizations), outpatient SUD treatment, and Medicaid spending were examined over 12 months among both groups. CM effects among predicted high-future-spending patients (HFS) were also analyzed., Results: CM increased outpatient SUD treatment visits by approximately 10.5 days (95% CI = 0.9, 20.0). CM crisis care and spending outcomes were not statistically different from comparison since both conditions had comparable pre-post declines. Conversely, CM significantly reduced SUD treatment spending by approximately $955 (95% CI = -1518, -391) and reduced days of detox utilization by about 1.0 days (95% CI = -1.9, -0.1) among HFS., Conclusion: Findings suggest that CM can reduce SUD treatment spending and utilization when targeted at patients with a greater likelihood of high future spending, indicating the potential value of predictive models to select CM patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Healthcare systems are implementing value-based payment (VBP) arrangements in efforts to incentivize cost-effective, high quality of care. These arrangements represent a major shift for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers who may need to make changes to their clinical and business operations to meet new demands for quality under value-based contracts. This qualitative study was conducted in the context of New York State's efforts to implement VBP among SUD treatment providers to understand their experiences, challenges, and needs. Five focus groups were conducted across the State with a total of 68 treatment professionals. Content analysis was conducted and five themes emerged. First, competing demands, limited workforce and technology infrastructure, and perceived lack of information were leading to overwhelmed administrators. Second, confusion and financial fear was being driven by the need for new clinical roles, business practices, and external partnerships. Third, providers were undertaking a number of measures to address workforce needs. Fourth, providers were building new business models and clinical practices. Fifth, providers desired more support and information. As VBP models are being adopted, healthcare systems should identify ways to mitigate challenges and support SUD treatment providers that may have limited resources to address complex workforce, client, and infrastructure needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests:The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2020.)