Trends in Methadone Dispensing for Opioid Use Disorder After Medicare Payment Policy Changes.

Importance: A significant proportion of Medicare beneficiaries have a diagnosed opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine are both effective medications for the treatment of OUD (MOUDs); however, Medicare did not cover methadone until 2020. Objective: To examine trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees after 2 policy changes in 2020 related to methadone access. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of temporal trends in methadone and buprenorphine treatment dispensing assessed MA beneficiary claims from January 1, 2019, through March 31, 2022, captured by Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart. Of 9 870 791 MA enrollees included in the database, 39 252 had at least 1 claim for methadone, buprenorphine, or both during the study period. All available MA enrollees were included. Subanalyses by age and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid status were conducted. Exposures: Study exposures were (1) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare bundled payment reimbursement policy for OUD treatment and (2) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and CMS Medicare policies designed to facilitate access to treatment for OUD, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing by beneficiary characteristics. National methadone and buprenorphine dispensing rates were calculated as claims-based dispensing rates per 1000 MA enrollees. Results: Among the 39 252 MA enrollees with at least 1 MOUD dispensing claim (mean age, 58.6 [95% CI, 58.57-58.62] years; 45.9% female), 195 196 methadone claims and 540 564 buprenorphine pharmacy claims were identified, for a total of 735 760 dispensing claims. The methadone dispensing rate for MA enrollees was 0 in 2019 because the policy did not allow any payment until 2020. Claims rates per 1000 MA enrollees were low initially, increasing from 0.98 in the first quarter of 2020 to 4.71 in the first quarter of 2022. Increases were primarily associated with dually eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries younger than 65 years. National buprenorphine dispensing rates were 4.64 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2019, increasing to 7.45 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2022. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that methadone dispensing increased among Medicare beneficiaries after the policy changes. Rates of buprenorphine dispensing did not provide evidence that beneficiaries substituted buprenorphine for methadone. The 2 new CMS policies represent an important first step in increasing access to MOUD treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.

Methodological considerations for estimating policy effects in the context of co-occurring policies.

Understanding how best to estimate state-level policy effects is important, and several unanswered questions remain, particularly about the ability of statistical models to disentangle the effects of concurrently enacted policies. In practice, many policy evaluation studies do not attempt to control for effects of co-occurring policies, and this issue has not received extensive attention in the methodological literature to date. In this study, we utilized Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of co-occurring policies on the performance of commonly-used statistical models in state policy evaluations. Simulation conditions varied effect sizes of the co-occurring policies and length of time between policy enactment dates, among other factors. Outcome data (annual state-specific opioid mortality rate per 100,000) were obtained from 1999 to 2016 National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Multiple Cause of Death mortality files, thus yielding longitudinal annual state-level data over 18 years from 50 states. When co-occurring policies are ignored (i.e., omitted from the analytic model), our results demonstrated that high relative bias (> 82%) arises, particularly when policies are enacted in rapid succession. Moreover, as expected, controlling for all co-occurring policies will effectively mitigate the threat of confounding bias; however, effect estimates may be relatively imprecise (i.e., larger variance) when policies are enacted in near succession. Our findings highlight several key methodological issues regarding co-occurring policies in the context of opioid-policy research yet also generalize more broadly to evaluation of other state-level policies, such as policies related to firearms or COVID-19, showcasing the need to think critically about co-occurring policies that are likely to influence the outcome when specifying analytic models.

Methodological considerations for estimating policy effects in the context of co-occurring policies

Understanding how best to estimate state-level policy effects is important, and several unanswered questions remain, particularly about the ability of statistical models to disentangle the effects of concurrently enacted policies. In practice, many policy evaluation studies do not attempt to control for effects of co-occurring policies, and this issue has not received extensive attention in the methodological literature to date. In this study, we utilized Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of co-occurring policies on the performance of commonly-used statistical models in state policy evaluations. Simulation conditions varied effect sizes of the co-occurring policies and length of time between policy enactment dates, among other factors. Outcome data (annual state-specific opioid mortality rate per 100,000) were obtained from 1999 to 2016 National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Multiple Cause of Death mortality files, thus yielding longitudinal annual state-level data over 18 years from 50 states. When co-occurring policies are ignored (i.e., omitted from the analytic model), our results demonstrated that high relative bias (> 82%) arises, particularly when policies are enacted in rapid succession. Moreover, as expected, controlling for all co-occurring policies will effectively mitigate the threat of confounding bias;however, effect estimates may be relatively imprecise (i.e., larger variance) when policies are enacted in near succession. Our findings highlight several key methodological issues regarding co-occurring policies in the context of opioid-policy research yet also generalize more broadly to evaluation of other state-level policies, such as policies related to firearms or COVID-19, showcasing the need to think critically about co-occurring policies that are likely to influence the outcome when specifying analytic models.

Buprenorphine Treatment Episodes During the First Year of COVID: a Retrospective Examination of Treatment Initiation and Retention.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, overall buprenorphine treatment appeared to remain relatively stable, despite some studies suggesting a decrease in patients starting buprenorphine. There is a paucity of empirical information regarding patterns of buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the patterns of buprenorphine episodes during the pandemic and how those patterns compared to pre-pandemic patterns. DESIGN: Pharmacy claims representing approximately 92% of all prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions indicated for treatment of opioid use disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The number of active, starting, and ending buprenorphine treatment episodes March 13 to December 1, 2020, and the expected number of such episodes in 2020 based on the growth in treatment episodes from March 13 to December 1, 2019. KEY RESULTS: The observed number of active buprenorphine episodes in December 2020 was comparable to the expected number, but new treatment episodes starting between March 13 and December 1, 2020, were 17.2% fewer than expected based on the 2019 experience. Similarly, the number of episodes that ended between March 13 and December 1, 2020, was 16.0% fewer than expected. Decreases from expected episode starts and ends occurred throughout the period but were greatest in the 2 months after the declaration of the public health emergency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Beneath the apparent stability of buprenorphine patient numbers during the pandemic, the flow of individuals receiving buprenorphine treatment changed substantially. Our findings shed light on how policy changes meant to support buprenorphine prescribing influenced prescribing dynamics during that period, suggesting that while policy efforts may have been successful in maintaining existing patients in treatment, that success did not extend to individuals not yet in treatment.

Discontinuation of Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: A Multilevel Framework.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has been associated with large increases in opioid-related mortality, yet it is unclear whether specific subpopulations were especially likely to discontinue buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder as the pandemic ensued. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess predictors of buprenorphine discontinuation in the early months of the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic (April-July 2020) compared with a prepandemic period (April-July 2019). DESIGN: In each time period, we estimated a multilevel regression models to assess risk of discontinuation in April-July for people who started buprenorphine in January-February. Models included person-level, prescriber-level, and area-level covariates. SUBJECTS: Individuals age 18 years or older in the all-payer IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Claims. MEASURES: The primary outcome was buprenorphine discontinuation (ie, no filled prescriptions during the follow-up periods). RESULTS: Overall, 13.98% of patients discontinued buprenorphine in April-July 2020, less than the 15.71% in 2019 (P<0.001). In 2020, patient-level factors associated with discontinuation included younger age, male sex, shorter baseline possession ratio, and payment by cash. Compared with patients with a primary care physician prescriber, specialties most associated with discontinuation were pain medicine and physician assistant/nurse practitioner. Compared with the South Atlantic region, discontinuation risk was lowest in New England and highest in the West South Central States. The association between patient, prescriber, and geographic variables to risk of discontinuation was very similar in 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical and policy interventions may have mitigated opioid use disorder treatment discontinuation following the pandemic, such discontinuation is nevertheless common and varies by identifiable patient, provider and geographic factors.

Changes in Buprenorphine and Methadone Supplies in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The opioid crisis has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, with concerns over major disruptions to medication treatment of opioid use disorder. Objective: To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with disruption of buprenorphine and methadone supplies in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used ARCOS (Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System) data, which monitor the flow of controlled substances in the US, from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2021. Manufacturers and point of sale or distribution at the dispensing or retail level, including hospitals, retail pharmacies, clinicians, midlevel clinicians, and teaching institutions, were included in the analysis. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quarterly supplies of buprenorphine and methadone per capita in milligrams. Results: The per capita supply of methadone dropped from 13.2 mg in the first quarter of 2020 to 10.5 mg in the second quarter of 2020, whereas the per capita supply of buprenorphine increased from 3.6 mg to 3.7 mg in the same period. The per capita supply of methadone declined 20% (-2.7 mg) in the second quarter of 2020 compared with the first quarter of 2020, and the supply had not returned to 2019 levels as of June 2021, whereas the supply of buprenorphine per person increased consistently during the same period. There were considerable state disparities in the reduction of the methadone supply during the pandemic, with many states experiencing pronounced per capita supply decreases, including reductions as great as 50% in New Hampshire and Florida. These decreases in per capita methadone supply were not compensated by proportional increases in the per capita buprenorphine supply (linear fit, 0.17 [95% CI, -0.43 to 0.76]; P = .47). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of buprenorphine and methadone supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic found a pronounced decline in the methadone supply but no disruption to the buprenorphine supply. Future research is needed to explain the pronounced state disparities in the methadone supply.

Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder With Buprenorphine Among US Adolescents and Young Adults During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) is unknown. METHODS: We used IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Claims, including US AYAs aged 12-29 with at least 1 buprenorphine fill between January 2018 and August 2020, stratifying by age group and insurance. We compared buprenorphine prescriptions in March-August 2019 to March-August 2020. RESULTS: The monthly buprenorphine prescription rate increased 8.3% among AYAs aged 12-17 but decreased 7.5% among 18- to 24-year-olds and decreased 5.1% among 25- to 29-year-olds. In these age groups, Medicaid prescriptions did not significantly change, whereas commercial insurance prescriptions decreased 12.9% among 18- to 24-year-olds and 11.8% in 25- to 29-year-olds, and cash/other prescriptions decreased 18.7% among 18- to 24-year-olds and 19.9% in 25- to 29-year-olds (p < .001 for all). DISCUSSION: Buprenorphine prescriptions paid with commercial insurance or cash among young adults significantly decreased early in the pandemic, suggesting a possible unmet treatment need among this group.

Subsequent Buprenorphine Treatment Following Emergency Physician Buprenorphine Prescription Fills: A National Assessment 2019 to 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder provided in the emergency department with subsequent buprenorphine treatment by community prescribers is associated with improved outcomes, but the frequency with which this occurs is unknown. We examined the rates of subsequent buprenorphine treatment for buprenorphine-naïve individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions from emergency physicians and initiated buprenorphine treatment and how such rates varied before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Using pharmacy claims capturing an estimated 92% of prescriptions filled at US retail pharmacies, we identified buprenorphine prescriptions filled between February 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020, written by emergency physicians. In this observational study, we calculated the rate at which patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions from other nonemergency clinicians, the frequency with which subsequent filled prescriptions were from different types of prescribers, and the changes in the rates of subsequent prescriptions following the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. RESULTS: We identified 22,846 prescriptions written by emergency physicians and filled by buprenorphine-naïve patients. They were most commonly paid for by Medicaid and were in metropolitan counties; 28.5% of patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions written by other clinicians. Adult primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (eg, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) were responsible for most of the subsequent prescriptions. The rates of subsequent prescriptions were 3.5% lower after the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients filling buprenorphine prescriptions written by emergency physicians do not subsequently fill prescriptions written by other clinicians, and the rates of subsequent prescriptions were lower after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. These findings highlight the need for a system of care that improves buprenorphine treatment continuity of care for patients with opioid use disorder from emergency settings to community treatment providers.

Telehealth Adoption by Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined temporal and geographic trends in telehealth availability at U.S. behavioral health treatment facilities and risk factors for not offering telehealth. METHODS: Longitudinal data on 15,691 outpatient behavioral health treatment facilities were extracted daily from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator between January 20, 2020, and January 20, 2021. Facilities operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs were excluded. Bivariate analyses were used to assess trends in telehealth availability in 2020 and 2021. Multivariable regression analysis was used to examine facility- and county-level characteristics associated with telehealth availability in 2021. RESULTS: Telehealth availability increased by 77% from 2020 to 2021 for mental health treatment facilities and by 143% for substance use disorder treatment facilities. By January 2021, 68% of outpatient mental health facilities and 57% of substance use disorder treatment facilities in the sample were offering telehealth. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that did not accept Medicaid as a form of payment were less likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that accepted Medicaid. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that accepted private insurance were more likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that did not accept private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Although 2020 saw a dramatic increase in telehealth availability at behavioral health treatment facilities, 32% of mental health treatment facilities and 43% of substance use disorder treatment facilities did not offer telehealth in January 2021, nearly 1 year into the pandemic.

2020 trends in dental office visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has created barriers to the delivery of health care services, including dental care. This study sought to quantify the change in dental visits in 2020 compared with 2019. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study examined the percentage change in weekly visits to dental offices by state (inclusive of the District of Columbia), nationally, and by county-level COVID-19 incidence using geographic information from the mobile applications of 45 million smartphones during 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: From March through August 2020, weekly visits to dental offices were 33% lower, on average, than in 2019. Weekly visits were 34% lower, on average, in counties with the highest COVID-19 rates. The greatest decline was observed during the week of April 12, 2020, when there were 66% fewer weekly visits to dental offices. The 5 states (inclusive of the District of Columbia) with the greatest declines in weekly visits from 2019 through 2020, ranging from declines of 38% through 53%, were California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly visits to US dental offices declined drastically during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although rates of weekly visits rebounded substantially by June 2020, rates remain about 20% lower than the prior year as of August 2020. These findings highlight the economic challenges faced by dentists owing to the pandemic. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: States exhibited widespread variation in rates of declining visits during the pandemic, suggesting that dental practices may need to consider different approaches to reopening and encouraging patients to return depending on location.

Trends in visits to substance use disorder treatment facilities in 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe weekly changes in the number of substance use disorder treatment (SUDT) facility visits in 2020 compared to 2019 using cell phone location data. METHODS: We calculated the percentage weekly change in visits to SUDT facilities from the week of January 5 through the week of October 11, 2020, relative to the week of January 6 through the week of October 13, 2019. We stratified facilities by county COVID-19 incidence per 10,000 residents in each week and by 2018 fatal drug overdose rate. Finally, we conducted a multivariable linear regression analysis examining percent change in visits per week as a function of county-level COVID-19 tercile, a series of calendar month indicators, and the interaction of county-level COVID-19 tercile and month. We repeated the regression analysis replacing COVID-19 tercile with overdose tercile. RESULTS: Beginning the eleventh week of 2020, the number of visits to SUDT facilities declined substantially, reaching a nadir of 48% of 2019 visits in early July. In contrast to January, there were significantly fewer visits in 2020 compared to 2019 in all subsequent months (p < 0.01 in all months). Multivariable regression results found that facilities in the tercile of counties experiencing the most COVID-19 cases had a significantly greater reduction in the number of SUDT visits in 2020 for the months of June through August than facilities in counties with the fewest COVID-19 rates (p < 0.05). The study found no statistically significant difference in the change in the number of visits by facilities in counties with historically different overdose rates. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the hypothesis that a reduction has occurred in the average weekly number of visits to SUDT facilities. The size of the effect differs based on the number of COVID-19 cases but not on historical overdose rate.

Common themes in early state policy responses to substance use disorder treatment during COVID-19.

Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization.Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses.Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility.Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.

Use of buprenorphine for those with employer-sponsored insurance during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify weekly rates of use of buprenorphine for those with employer-based insurance and whether the rate differs based on county-level measures of race, historical fatal drug overdose rate, and COVID-19 case rate. METHODS: We used 2020 pharmaceutical claims for 4.8 million adults from a privately insured population to examine changes in the use of buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder in 2020 during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantified variation by examining changes in use rates across counties based on their fatal drug overdose rate in 2018, number of COVID-19 cases per capita, and percent nonwhite. RESULTS: Weekly use of buprenorphine was relatively stable between the first week of January (0.6 per 10,000 enrollees, 95%CI = 0.2 to 1.1) and the last week of August (0.8 per 10,000 enrollees, 95%CI = 0.4 to 1.3). We did not find evidence of any consistent change in use of buprenorphine by county-level terciles for COVID-19 rate as of August 31, 2020, age-adjusted fatal drug overdose rate, and percent nonwhite. Use was consistently higher for counties in the highest tercile of county age-adjusted fatal drug overdose rate when compared to counties in the lowest tercile of county age-adjusted fatal drug overdose rate. DISCUSSION: Our results provide early evidence that new federal- and state-level policies may have steadied the rate of using buprenorphine for those with employer-based insurance during the pandemic.

Availability of Outpatient Telemental Health Services in the United States at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused dramatic changes in everyday life, a major concern is whether patients have adequate access to mental health care despite shelter-in-place ordinances, school closures, and social distancing practices. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the availability of telehealth services at outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the United States at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify facility-level characteristics and state-level policies associated with the availability. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: All outpatient mental health treatment facilities (N=8860) listed in the Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on April 16, 2020. MEASURES: Primary outcome is whether an outpatient mental health treatment facility reported offering telehealth services. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of outpatient mental health facilities in the United States reported telehealth availability at the outset of the pandemic. Facilities located in the United States South and nonmetropolitan counties were more likely to offer services, as were facilities with public sector ownership, those providing care for both children and adults, and those accepting Medicaid as a form of payment. Outpatient mental health treatment facilities located in states with state-wide shelter-in-place laws were less likely to offer telehealth, as well as facilities in counties with more COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer than half of outpatient mental health treatment facilities were providing telehealth services. Our results suggest that additional policies to promote telehealth may be warranted to increase availability over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telehealth Capability Among Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in Counties With High Versus Low COVID-19 Social Distancing.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the availability of telehealth services at substance use treatment facilities in the U.S. at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and determine whether telehealth is available at facilities in counties with the greatest amount of social distancing. METHODS: We merged county-level measures of social distancing through April 18, 2020 to detailed administrative data on substance use treatment facilities. We then calculated the number and share of treatment facilities that offered telehealth services by whether residents of the county social distanced or not. Finally, we estimated a logistic regression that predicted the offering of telehealth services using both county- and facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately 27% of substance use facilities in the U.S. reported telehealth availability at the outset of the pandemic. Treatment facilities in counties with a greater social distancing were less likely to possess telemedicine capability. Similarly, nonopioid treatment programs that offered buprenorphine or vivitrol in counties with a greater burden of COVID-19 were less likely to offer telemedicine when compared to similar facilities in counties with a lower burden of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few substance use treatment facilities offered telehealth services at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Policymakers and public health officials should do more to support facilities in offering telehealth services.