"They make it too hard and too many hoops to jump": system and organizational barriers to drug treatment during epidemic rates of opioid overdose.

INTRODUCTION: The United States is currently facing an opioid overdose crisis. Research suggests that multiple interventions are needed to reduce overdose deaths including increasing access and retention to medications to treat opioid use disorders (MOUD, i.e., methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and increasing the distribution and use of naloxone, a medication that can reverse the respiratory depression that occurs during opioid overdoses. However, barriers to MOUD initiation and retention persist and discontinuations of MOUD carry a heightened risk of overdose. Many times, MOUD is not sought as a first line of treatment by people with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom seek treatment from medically managed withdrawal (detox) programs. Among those who do initiate MOUD, retention is generally low. The present study examines the treatment experiences of people who use opioids in three states, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with people who use opioids in a rural, urban, and suburban area of three states: Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Data analysis was collaborative and key themes were identified through multiple readings, coding of transcripts and discussion with all research team members. RESULTS: Results reveal a number of systemic issues that reduce the likelihood that people initiate and are retained on MOUD including the ubiquity of detox as a first step in drug treatment, abstinence requirements and requiring patients to attend group treatment. MOUD-related stigma was a significant factor in the kinds of treatment participants chose and their experiences in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce MOUD stigma are needed to encourage MOUD as a first course of treatment. Eliminating abstinence-based rules for MOUD treatment may improve treatment retention and decrease overdose risk.

Barriers to drug treatment in police diversion programs and drug courts: A qualitative analysis.

Drug treatment courts and police diversion programs are designed to divert people away from incarceration and into drug treatment. This article explores barriers in linking people who use drugs (PWUD) into drug treatment facilities in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Between December 2018 and March 2020, study teams in the three states conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants involved in programs to divert PWUD from criminal justice involvement including police, lawyers, judges, and others who work in drug treatment courts, and substance use disorder treatment providers who received referrals from and worked with police diversion programs or drug courts. Police diversion programs and drug treatment courts showed intraprogram variation in the structure of their programs in the three states and in different counties within the states. Structural barriers to successfully linking PWUD to treatment included a lack of resources, for example, a limited number of treatment facilities available, difficulties in funding mandated treatment, particularly in Wisconsin where Medicaid expansion has not occurred, and PWUDs' need for additional services such as housing. Many police officers, judges, and others within drug treatment court, including drug treatment specialists, hold stigmatizing attitudes toward medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) and are unlikely to recommend or actively refer to MOUD treatment. Drug courts and police diversion programs offer a welcome shift from prior emphases on criminalization of drug use. However, for such programs to be effective, more resources must be dedicated to their success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The effects of opioid policy changes on transitions from prescription opioids to heroin, fentanyl and injection drug use: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Beginning in the 1990s, nonmedical use of prescription opioids (POs) became a major public health crisis. In response to rising rates of opioid dependence and fatal poisonings, measures were instituted to decrease the prescription, diversion, and nonmedical use of POs including prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pain clinic laws, prescription duration limits, disciplining doctors who prescribed an excessive number of POs, and the advent of abuse deterrent formulations of POs. This paper explores the unintended effects of these policies in the descriptions of why people who use opioids transitioned from PO to injection or heroin/fentanyl use. METHODS: We conducted 148 in-depth-interviews with people who use prescription opioids nonmedically, fentanyl or heroin from a rural, urban and suburban area in three states, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Interviews with people who use opioids (PWUO) focused on how they initiated their opioid use and any transitions they made from PO use to heroin, fentanyl or injection drug use. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported initiating use with POs, which they used for medical or nonmedical purposes. They described needing to take more POs or switched to heroin or fentanyl as their tolerance increased. As more policies were passed to limit opioid prescribing, participants noticed that doctors were less likely to prescribe or refill POs. This led to scarcity of POs on the street which accelerated the switch to heroin or fentanyl. These transitions likely increased risk of overdose and HIV/HCV infection. CONCLUSIONS: A careful analysis of how and why people say they transitioned from PO to heroin or fentanyl reveals many unintended harms of policy changes to prevent overprescribing and diversion. Results highlight the importance of mitigating harms that resulted from policy changes.

Effects of Implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 States: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were designed to curb opioid misuse and diversion by tracking scheduled medications prescribed by medical providers and dispensed by pharmacies. The effects of PDMPs on opioid prescription, misuse and overdose rates have been mixed due in part to variability in states' PDMPs and difficulties measuring this complexity, and a lack of attention to implementation and enforcement of PDMP components. The current study uses qualitative interviews with key informants from 3 states with different PDMPs, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin to explore differences in the characteristics of the PDMPs in each state; how they are implemented, monitored and enforced; and unintended negative consequences of these programs. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with key informants from each state representing the following sectors: PDMP and pain clinic regulation agencies, Medicaid programs, state licensing boards, pharmacies, emergency medicine departments, pain management clinics, first responders, drug courts, drug treatment programs, medication assisted treatment (MAT) providers, and harm reduction organizations. Interview guides explored participants' experiences with and opinions of PDMPs according to their roles. Data analysis was conducted using a collaborative, constant comparison method. RESULTS: While all 3 states had mandated registration and reporting requirements, the states differed in the implementation and enforcement of these and the extent to which provider prescribing was monitored. These, in turn, influenced how medical providers perceived the PDMP and changed how providers prescribed opioids. Unintended consequences of state PDMPs included under-prescribing for pain and "dumping" patients who were long term users of opioids or who had developed opioid use disorders and may explain the increase in illicit heroin or opioid use. CONCLUSION: State PDMPs with similar mandates may differ greatly in implementation and enforcement. These differences are important to consider when determining the effects of PDMPs on opioid misuse and overdose.

Placement of chronically homeless into different types of permanent supportive housing before and after a coordinated entry system: The influence of severe mental illness, substance use disorder, and dual diagnosis on housing configuration and intensity of services.

AIMS: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is designed to house people who experience chronic homelessness with one or more of the following: serious mental illness (SMI), substance use disorders (SUD) or human immunodeficiency virus. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has required major metropolitan areas to develop a coordinated entry system (CES) to prioritize access to PSH to those who need it the most. The aim of this paper is to determine whether PSH residents with SMI, SUD, or dual diagnosis were more likely to be housed after implementation of CES and were more likely to be housed in housing models with more intensive services provided. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with 855 residents of different PSH models. RESULTS: Those with SMI, SUD, or dual diagnosis were not more likely to be housed using the CES but were more likely to be housed in higher intensity service programs. CONCLUSIONS: Those with SMI are more likely to be housed in PSH with high-intensity services.