Laws for expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder: a legal analysis of 16 states & Washington D.C.

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) are the gold standard for OUD treatment but are underused. To our knowledge, no published study has systematically identified and categorized state policy innovations for expanding MOUD utilization.Objective: We sought to identify and categorize state MOUD policy innovations.Methods: Within a stratified random sample of 16 U.S. states and Washington D.C. we searched for 2019 state statutes and regulations related to MOUD in Westlaw legal database. We then identified laws that appeared designed to increase MOUD utilization and categorized them using a template analysis approach.Results: We found 82 laws with one or more MOUD expansion policies. We identified six high-level MOUD expansion policy categories: 1) policies expanding the availability of waivered buprenorphine providers; 2) needs assessments and policies increasing public MOUD awareness; 3) criminal justice system policies; 4) Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and sober living facility policies; 5) insurance policies; and 6) hospital policies. SUD treatment and housing facility policies, as well as insurance policies, were most common.Conclusions: Multipronged approaches are being pursued by several states to increase MOUD access. Our results can inform policymakers of MOUD expansion approaches in other jurisdictions. Policy categories can serve as the basis for policy variables for future analyses of policy effects.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in quality of life following initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) experience lower quality of life (QoL) than the general population, but buprenorphine treatment for OUD could help improve QoL of individuals with OUD. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of buprenorphine on QoL among people with OUD. METHODS: Seven databases were searched through August 2020. We included English-language studies with pre- and post- QoL assessments internationally. Standardized mean differences were calculated for five domains of QoL measures using a random effects model for correlated effect sizes with robust variance estimation. Meta-regression was used to assess variation in effect sizes based on QoL domain, treatment, and patient factors. RESULTS: Twenty-one peer-reviewed studies from twelve countries were included. Only three studies included a no-treatment control group and five studies assigned groups using randomization. Improvements between baseline and follow-up were observed across all five domains of QoL measures (overall, physical, psychological, social, and environmental). The certainty of evidence was low for all domains of QoL, and very low for environmental QoL. We did not observe differences in the effect of buprenorphine on QoL by QoL domain, duration, dose, participant characteristics, or adjunctive counseling services. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine treatment likely improves overall, physical, psychological, and social QoL, and may improve environmental QoL, for individuals with OUD. Findings are limited by study quality, including lack of control groups and incomplete reporting. Future studies with more rigorous methods and comprehensive reporting are needed.

A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts.

BACKGROUND: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as "state laws") in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts. RESULTS: Since 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants. DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants.

Beyond state scope of practice laws for advanced practitioners: Additional supervision requirements for buprenorphine prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a life-saving medication for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). U.S. federal law allows advanced practice clinicians (APCs), such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in office-based practices. However, states regulate APCs' scope of practice (SOP) variously, including requirements for physician supervision. States may also have laws entirely banning NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing or requiring that supervising physicians have a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We sought to identify prevalence of state laws other than SOP laws that either 1) prohibit NP/PA buprenorphine prescribing entirely, or 2) require supervision by a federally waivered physician. METHODS: We searched for state statutes and regulations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. regulating prescribing of buprenorphine for OUD by APCs during summer 2021. We excluded general scope of practice laws, laws only applicable to Medicaid-funded clinicians, laws not applicable to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and laws only applicable to NPs/PAs serving licensed SUD treatment facilities. We then conducted content analysis. RESULTS: One state prohibits all APCs from prescribing buprenorphine for OUD, even though the state's general SOP laws permit APC buprenorphine prescribing. Five states require PA supervision by a federally waivered physician. Three states require NP supervision by a federally waivered physician. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from general scope of practice laws, several states have created laws explicitly regulating buprenorphine prescribing by APCs outside of licensed state SUD facilities.

Toward a Typology of Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment Laws: Themes From a Review of State Laws.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine is a gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Some US states have passed laws regulating office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) for OUD, with requirements beyond those required in federal law. We sought to identify themes in state OBBT laws. METHODS: Using search terms related to medications for OUD, we searched Westlaw software for state regulations and statutes in 51 US jurisdictions from 2005 to 2019. We identified and inductively analyzed OBBT laws for themes. RESULTS: Since 2005, 10 states have passed a total of 181 OBBT laws. We identified the following themes: (1) provider credentials: state licensure for OBBT providers and continuing medical education requirements; (2) new patients: objective symptoms patients must have before receiving OBBT and exceptions for special populations; (3) educating patients: general informed consent requirements, and specific information to provide; (4) counseling: minimum counselor credentials, minimum counseling frequency, counseling alternatives; (5) patient monitoring: required prescription drug monitoring checks, frequency of drug screening, and responses to lost/stolen medications; (6) enhanced clinician monitoring: evidence-based treatment protocols, minimum clinician-patient contact frequency, health assessment requirements, and individualized treatment planning; and (7) patient safety: reconciling prescriptions, dosage limitations, naloxone coprescribing, tapering, and office closures. CONCLUSIONS: Some laws codify practices for which scientific consensus is lacking. Additionally, some OBBT laws resemble opioid treatment programs and pain management regulations. Results could serve as the basis for a typology of office-based treatment laws, which could facilitate empirical examination of policy impacts on treatment access and quality.

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.