Health Policy Engagement Strategy for the Health Information Technology Policy Project of the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research.

Rulemaking is one of the most important ways the federal government makes public policy. It frequently has significant impact on individuals, communities, and organizations. Yet, few of those directly affected are familiar with the rulemaking process, and even fewer understand how it works. This article describes a case study of the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research Health Information Technology (TCC HIT) Policy Project's approach to health-policy engagement using: 1) social media; and 2) a webinar to educate stakeholders on the rulemaking process and increase their level of meaningful engagement with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) proposed rule public comment submission. The webinar "Paying for Quality: What Is the Impact on Health Equity" was promoted through Twitter and held in June 2016. In total, we posted 19 tweets using two distinct hashtags (#MACRA4Equity, #MACRA2Equity) to raise awareness of the upcoming MACRA proposed rule and its possible effects on health equity. Overall, 252 individuals registered for the webinar, and more than half participated (n=133). Most (67%) registrants reported that health policy was not the primary focus of their current position. Based on information provided in the webinar, 95% agreed that their understanding of the topic improved. By the end of the webinar, 44% of participants indicated that they planned to submit public comments for MACRA, a 12% increase compared with those who planned to submit at the time of registration. The TCC health-policy engagement strategy demonstrates the feasibility of engaging a diverse audience around health policy issues, particularly those who are not typically engaged in policy work.

Opioid addiction and abuse in primary care practice: a comparison of methadone and buprenorphine as treatment options.

Opioid abuse and addiction have increased in frequency in the United States over the past 20 years. In 2009, an estimated 5.3 million persons used opioid medications nonmedically within the past month, 200000 used heroin, and approximately 9.6% of African Americans used an illicit drug. Racial and ethnic minorities experience disparities in availability and access to mental health care, including substance use disorders. Primary care practitioners are often called upon to differentiate between appropriate, medically indicated opioid use in pain management vs inappropriate abuse or addiction. Racial and ethnic minority populations tend to favor primary care treatment settings over specialty mental health settings. Recent therapeutic advances allow patients requiring specialized treatment for opioid abuse and addiction to be managed in primary care settings. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 enables qualified physicians with readily available short-term training to treat opioid-dependent patients with buprenorphine in an office-based setting, potentially making primary care physicians active partners in the diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorders. Methadone and buprenorphine are effective opioid replacement agents for maintenance and/or detoxification of opioid-addicted individuals. However, restrictive federal regulations and stigmatization of opioid addiction and treatment have limited the availability of methadone. The opioid partial agonist-antagonist buprenorphine/naloxone combination has proven an effective alternative. This article reviews the literature on differences between buprenorphine and methadone regarding availability, efficacy, safety, side-effects, and dosing, identifying resources for enhancing the effectiveness of medication-assisted recovery through coordination with behavioral/psychological counseling, embedded in the context of recovery-oriented systems of care.