Impact of COVID-19 on Florida family dependency drug courts.

BACKGROUND: To promote parent-child reunification, family dependency drug courts (FDDCs) facilitate substance use disorder treatment for people whose children have been removed due to parental substance use. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted FDDC operations, forcing FDDCs to quickly adapt to new circumstances. Although existing research has examined COVID-19 impacts on adult drug courts and civil dependency courts, studies have yet to examine the impact of COVID-19 on FDDCs specifically. METHODS: To explore the impact of COVID-19 on FDDCs, we conducted 20 focus groups and 5 individual interviews with court team members from five Florida FDDCs between 2020 and 2022. Data were analyzed using iterative categorization. RESULTS: Five overarching themes emerged. First, FDDCs adopted virtual technology during the pandemic and more flexible drug screening policies. Second, virtual technology was perceived as improving hearing attendance but decreasing client engagement. FDDC team members discussed a potential hybrid in-person/virtual hearing model after the pandemic. Third, COVID-19 negatively impacted parent-child visitation opportunities, limiting development of bonds between parents and children, and parent-child bonding is a key consideration during judicial reunification decisions. Fourth, COVID-19 negatively impacted the mental health of court team members and clients. Court team members adopted new informal roles, such as providing technical support and emotional counseling to clients, in addition to regular responsibilities, resulting in feeling overwhelmed and overworked. Court team members described clients as feeling more depressed and anxious, in part due to limited visitation opportunities with children, which decreased clients' motivation for substance use recovery. Fifth, COVID-19 decreased recruitment of potential clients into FDDCs. CONCLUSIONS: If FDDCs continue to rely on virtual hearings beyond the pandemic, they must develop practices for improving client engagement during virtual hearings. FDDCs should preemptively develop procedures for improving parent-child visitation during future public health crises, because limited visitation opportunities could weaken parent-child bonding and, ultimately, the likelihood of reunification.

A Systematic Review of State Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment Laws Effective During 2022: Counseling, Dosage, and Visit Frequency Requirements.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is among the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder. Even though the federal government recently eliminated the waiver requirement and patient limits applicable to office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT), among other settings, some states may still have policies imposing requirements on OBBT providers not required by federal law. METHODS: We collected statutes and regulations from 50 US states and the District of Columbia (ie, 51 jurisdictions) between August 11 and November 30, 2022 using the Nexis Uni legal database and search terms related to OBBT counseling, dosage, and/or frequency of visits. We then used template analysis, a mixed deductive-inductive qualitative method, to analyze legal content. RESULTS: Ten jurisdictions (20%) in 2022 had an OBBT counseling, dosage, and/or visit frequency requirement. Four jurisdictions had at least one law in each OBBT policy category examined. One-fifth of jurisdictions have OBBT policies not required under federal law. Five of these jurisdictions are among those with the highest overdose death rates per capita, according to publicly available data from 2021. Some OBBT requirements could potentially limit clinician interest in offering buprenorphine treatment or result in inadequate care (eg, if dosage limitations are too low.). CONCLUSIONS: Even though a federal waiver is no longer required for OBBT, our results suggests that at least some jurisdictions have other OBBT requirements, such as counseling, dosage, and/or frequency requirements. Given the severity of the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, policymakers should carefully consider the extent to which OBBT requirements are evidence based.

Differences in medicaid expansion effects on buprenorphine treatment utilization by county rurality and income: A pharmacy data claims analysis from 2009-2018.

Background: Although use of buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder increased over the past decade, buprenorphine utilization remains limited in lower-income and rural areas. We examine how the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion influenced buprenorphine initiation rates by county income and evaluate how associations differ by county rural-urban status. Methods: This study used nationwide 2009-2018 IQVIA retail pharmacy data and a comparative interrupted time series framework-a hybrid framework combining regression discontinuity and difference-in-difference approaches. We used piecewise linear estimation to quantify changes in buprenorphine initiation rates before and after Medicaid expansion. Results: The sample included observations from 376,704 county-months. We identified 5,227,340 new buprenorphine treatment episodes, with an average of 9.2 new buprenorphine episodes per month per 100,000 county residents. Among urban counties, those with the lowest median incomes experienced significantly larger increases in buprenorphine initiation rates associated with Medicaid expansion than counties with higher median incomes (5-year rates difference est=3525.3, se=1695.3, p = 0.04). However, among rural counties, there was no significant association between buprenorphine initiation rates and county median income after Medicaid expansion (5-year rates difference est=979.0, se=915.8, p = 0.29). Conclusions: Medicaid expansion was associated with a reduction in income-related buprenorphine disparities in urban counties, but not in rural counties. To achieve more equitable buprenorphine access, future policies should target low-income rural areas.

How are state telehealth policies associated with services offered by substance use disorder treatment facilities? Evidence from 2019 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led several states to adopt policies permitting the delivery of substance use disorder treatment (SUDT) by telehealth. We assess the impact of state-level telehealth policies in 2020 that specifically permitted audio or audiovisual forms of telehealth offerings among SUDT facilities. PROCEDURE: Cross-sectional analysis of secondary data from between 2019 and 2022. Pre-pandemic, federal law permitted states to allow audiovisual telehealth modes for SUDT to a limited extent. 2020 laws permitted states to allow audio-only modes for the first time and strengthened ability to offer audiovisual modes. We compared national SUDT facility self-reported telehealth offerings in 2020 and beyond to 2019, in states that in 2020 had policies permitting audiovisual and audio only, compared to other states. MAIN FINDINGS: Among outpatient SUDT facilities (n = 5227) present in all four years of our data, the proportion offering telehealth increased from 18% (n = 921) in 2019-26% in 2020, 60% in 2021, and 79% in 2022. We estimate an audiovisual and audio only policy in 2020 was associated with an increase in telehealth offering rates in 2022 of +16.5% points (pp) (95% CI [+10.4,+22.6]) compared to the rates in states with no such listed policy. There was little evidence of an influence on telehealth offering in 2020 (-2.9 pp, CI [-9.0,+3.2]) and 2021 (+0.6 pp, CI [-5.5,+6.7]). CONCLUSIONS: The enactment of state-level telehealth policies that allow audio and audiovisual modalities may have increased SUDT facilities' likelihood of offering telehealth services two years after enactment.

Operationalizing person-centered care in residential substance use disorder treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centered care (PCC) is an ethical imperative with eight domains, but operation of some PCC domains in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment has been underexplored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify strategies for operationalizing eight PCC domains in SUD treatment facilities and themes across these strategies. METHODS: We recruited 36 clients and staff from a large publicly funded behavioral health system for individual, semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interviews explored preferences and care experiences for each PCC domain. We analyzed data using iterative categorization, identifying specific operationalization strategies and themes across operationalization strategies within each domain. RESULTS: PCC operationalization themes for residential SUD treatment included addressing social vulnerability of clients (e.g., through assistance with housing and navigation of criminal/legal systems), involving peer support specialists (e.g., to provide emotional support and aid transition out of care), supporting the client's family throughout treatment (e.g., providing progress updates; increasing visitation opportunities in residential treatment), and facilitating patient choice within each domain (e.g., treatment type; housing type; roommate preferences in residential treatment.). DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: Some PCC operationalization strategies are unique to SUD treatment. Several PCC operationalization strategies applied to multiple domains, suggesting conceptual overlap between domains.

Key person-centered care domains for residential substance use disorder treatment facilities: former clients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: While person-centered care (PCC) includes multiple domains, residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clients may value certain domains over others. We sought to identify the PCC domains most valued by former residential SUD treatment clients. We also sought to explore conceptual distinctions between potential theoretical PCC subdomains. METHODS: We distributed an online survey via social media to a national convenience sample of former residential SUD treatment clients. Respondents were presented with ten PCC domains in an online survey: (a) access to evidence-based care; (b) integration of care; (c) diversity/respect for other cultures; (d) individualization of care; (e) emotional support; (f) family involvement in treatment; (g) transitional services; (h) aftercare; (i) physical comfort; and (j) information provision. Respondents were asked to select up to two domains they deemed most important to their residential SUD treatment experience. We used descriptive statistics to identify response frequencies and logistic regression to predict relationships between selected domains and respondents' race, gender, relationship status, parenting status, and housing stability. RESULTS: Our final sample included 435 former residential SUD treatment clients. Diversity and respect for different cultures was the most frequently selected domain (29%), followed by integration of care (26%), emotional support (26%), and individualization of care (26%). Provision of information was the least frequently chosen domain (3%). Race and ethnicity were not predictive of selecting respect for diversity. Also, parental status, relationship status and gender were not predictive of selecting family integration. Employment and housing status were not predictive of selecting transitional services. CONCLUSIONS: While residential SUD treatment facilities should seek to implement PCC across all domains, our results suggest facilities should prioritize (a) operationalizing diversity, (b) integration of care, and (c) emotional support. Significant heterogeneity exists regarding PCC domains deemed most important to clients. PCC domains valued by clients cannot be easily predicted based on client demographics.

Association of Selected State Policies and Requirements for Buprenorphine Treatment With Per Capita Months of Treatment.

Importance: Expanding the use of buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder is a critical component of the US response to the opioid crisis, but few studies have examined how state policies are associated with buprenorphine dispensing. Objective: To examine the association of 6 selected state policies with the rate of individuals receiving buprenorphine per 1000 county residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2006 to 2018 US retail pharmacy claims data for individuals dispensed buprenorphine formulations indicated for treating opioid use disorder. Exposures: State implementation of policies requiring additional education for buprenorphine prescribers beyond waiver training, continuing medical education related to substance misuse and addiction, Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, Medicaid expansion, mandatory prescriber use of prescription drug monitoring programs, and pain management clinic laws were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was buprenorphine treatment months per 1000 county residents as measured using multivariable longitudinal models. Statistical analyses were conducted from September 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022, with revised analyses conducted through February 28, 2023. Results: The mean (SD) number of months of buprenorphine treatment per 1000 persons nationally increased steadily from 1.47 (0.04) in 2006 to 22.80 (0.55) in 2018. Requiring that buprenorphine prescribers receive additional education beyond that required to obtain the federal X-waiver was associated with significant increases in the number of months of buprenorphine treatment per 1000 population in the 5 years following implementation of the requirement (from 8.51 [95% CI, 2.36-14.64] months in year 1 to 14.43 [95% CI, 2.61-26.26] months in year 5). Requiring continuing medical education for physician licensure related to substance misuse or addiction was associated with significant increases in buprenorphine treatment per 1000 population in each of the 5 years following policy implementation (from 7.01 [95% CI, 3.17-10.86] months in the first year to 11.43 [95% CI, 0.61-22.25] months in the fifth year). None of the other policies examined was associated with a significant change in buprenorphine months of treatment per 1000 county residents. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US pharmacy claims, state-mandated educational requirements beyond the initial training required to prescribe buprenorphine were associated with increased buprenorphine use over time. The findings suggest requiring education for buprenorphine prescribers and training in substance use disorder treatment for all controlled substance prescribers as an actionable proposal for increasing buprenorphine use, ultimately serving more patients. No single policy lever can ensure adequate buprenorphine supply; however, policy maker attention to the benefits of enhancing clinician education and knowledge may help to expand buprenorphine access.

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.