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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Aleksanyan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: In March 2020, a temporary federal regulatory exemption for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) was issued, allowing for a greater number of take-home methadone doses than was previously permitted. In the same month, to address financial sustainability, New York State (NYS) Medicaid also transitioned to a bundle reimbursement methodology for OTPs. We examined methadone dosing schedules in NYS before and after these regulatory and financing changes., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using NYS OTP patient data from two sources: the client data system for a baseline period (February 2020) and survey data collected after regulatory and financing changes (May 2020 to August 2021, 64 weekly surveys). We compared methadone dosing schedules over time using chi-square tests and Poisson regression., Result: At baseline, data were available for 78% (n=77/99) of OTPs including 90.9% (n=26,225/28,839) of their enrolled patients. During the survey period, 99 OTPs completed 93.1% (n=5901/6336) of weekly surveys, with a mean statewide weekly patient census of 38,904 (SD=1214.5). Between February and May 2020, daily dosing significantly decreased from 55.4% to 16.3% of patients (-39.1 percentage points [95%CI: -39.8 to -38.4]), although it significantly increased subsequently (3.33%/4-weeks [95%CI: 3.28, 3.39]). In addition, weekly-to-monthly dosing significantly increased from 26.9% to 54.5% of patients (27.6 percentage points [95%CI: 26.9, 28.4]), although it significantly decreased subsequently (-1.19%/4-weeks [95%CI: -1.23, -1.15])., Discussion: Despite large initial changes, we found a trend toward gradual return to more restrictive dosing schedules. OTPs need further support in leveraging new opportunities to improve methadone treatment and outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: The aim was to assess the magnitude of health care disparities in treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) and the role of health plan membership and place of residence in observed disparities in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) plans in New York City (NYC)., Data Source: Medicaid claims and managed care plan enrollment files for 2015-2017 in NYC., Research Design: We studied Medicaid enrollees with a SUD diagnosis during their first 6 months of enrollment in a managed care plan in 2015-2017. A series of linear regression models quantified service disparities across race/ethnicity for 5 outcome indicators: treatment engagement, receipt of psychosocial treatment, follow-up after withdrawal, rapid readmission, and treatment continuation. We assessed the degree to which plan membership and place of residence contributed to observed disparities., Results: We found disparities in access to treatment but the magnitude of the disparities in most cases was small. Plan membership and geography of residence explained little of the observed disparities. One exception is geography of residence among Asian Americans, which appears to mediate disparities for 2 of our 5 outcome measures., Conclusions: Reallocating enrollees among MMC plans in NYC or evolving trends in group place of residence are unlikely to reduce disparities in treatment for SUD. System-wide reforms are needed to mitigate disparities., Competing Interests: T.L. reports grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. J.W. reports a relationship to Medicaid Transformation and Financing at Aurrera Health Group. R.L.F. reports institutional support from the New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Office of Mental Health. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Alegria, Falgas-Bague, and Rigotti and Ms Fukuda reported grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study. Ms O’Malley and Dr Stein reported grants from National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Layton reported personal fees from Greaylock McKinnon and Associates outside the submitted work. Dr Wallace reported grants from NIDA during the conduct of the study; additionally, his spouse is the Director of Medicaid Transformation and Financing at Aurrera Health Group. Dr Neighbors reported personal fees from Harvard University during the conduct of the study. Dr Wakeman reported personal fees from Celero Systems outside the submitted work. Dr Kane reported grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2022 Alegría M et al. JAMA Health Forum.)