Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19.

Introduction: This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona. Methods: A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time. Results: Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5-3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2-20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey). Conclusions: Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.

Nothing really changed: Arizona patient experience of methadone and buprenorphine access during COVID.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patient experience of federal regulatory changes governing methadone and buprenorphine (MOUD) access in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This community-based participatory and action research study involved one-hour, audio-recorded field interviews conducted with 131 people who used methadone and/or buprenorphine to address opioid use disorder at some point during COVID (January 1, 2020- March 31, 2021) in Arizona. Transcribed data were analyzed using a priori codes focused on federally recommended flexibilities governing MOUD access. Data were quantitated to investigate associations with COVID risk and services access. RESULTS: Telehealth was reported by 71.0% of participants, but the majority were required to come to the clinic to attend video appointments with an offsite provider. Risk for severe COVID outcomes was reported by 40.5% of the sample. Thirty-eight percent of the sample and 39.7% of methadone patients were required to be at the clinic daily to get medication and 47.6% were at high risk for COVID severe outcomes. About half (54.2%) of methadone patients indicated that some form of multi-day take home dosing was offered at their clinic, and 45.8% were offered an extra day or two of multi-day doses; but no participants received the federally allowed 14- or 28-day methadone take-home doses for unstable and stable patients respectively. All participants expressed that daily clinic visits interrupted their work and home lives and desired more take-home dosing and home delivery options. CONCLUSIONS: MOUD patients in Arizona were not offered many of the federally allowed flexibilities for access that were designed to reduce their need to be at the clinic. To understand the impact of these recommended treatment changes in Arizona, and other states where they were not well implemented, federal and state regulators must mandate these changes and support MOUD providers to implement them.

Insufficient Access: Naloxone Availability to Laypeople in Arizona and Indiana, 2018.

OBJECTIVES: To understand naloxone availability to laypeople in Arizona (Ariz.) and Indiana (Ind.). METHODS: Multi-source search conducted from May-December 2018 identifi ed the extent of naloxone availability to laypeople. Internet searches, email follow up, and phone interviews occurred with registered naloxone providers. RESULTS: Th ere were 89 naloxone providers in each state. Laypeople were ineligible for access for over half of registered naloxone providers in Ariz. (60.7%) and Ind. (55.1%). Naloxone access was mostly (67.4%) passive in Ariz. but was actively distributed in Ind. (67.4%). Syringe service programs (SSP) were the most frequently identifi ed providers of naloxone to laypeople in Ariz. (20.0%). In Ind., local health departments were most frequently identifi ed as layperson naloxone providers (75.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of registered naloxone providers allowed layperson access in Arizona and Indiana. Th e lack of layperson access highlights the need to review organization practice and state policy to ensure increased layperson access.

Living at the Confluence of Stigmas: PrEP Awareness and Feasibility Among People Who Inject Drugs in Two Predominantly Rural States.

We explored knowledge, beliefs, and acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention with reference to stigma among people who inject drugs (PWID) in two predominately rural U.S. states. We conducted interviews with 65 current or former PWID aged 18 years or older and living in Arizona or Indiana. Most (63%) of the interviewees were not aware of PrEP. They often confused PrEP with HIV treatment, and many believed that PrEP was only for sexual risk or gay sexual risk. Once they understood that PrEP was recommended for PWID, the participants held a positive view of PrEP and felt that a once-daily pill was feasible. Experiences of stigma about drug use remained a crucial barrier to accessing healthcare and PrEP. This was often linked with anticipated or expressed homophobia. PrEP interventions among PWID must focus on education and the confluence of stigmas in which PWID find themselves when considering PrEP.

RESUMEN: Exploramos el conocimiento, las creencias y la aceptabilidad de la profilaxis previa a la exposición (PrEP) para la prevención del VIH con referencia al estigma entre las personas que inyectan drogas (PWID) en dos Estados Unidos predominantemente rurales. estados. Realizamos entrevistas con 65 PWID actuales o anteriores de 18 años o más y viviendo en Arizona o Indiana. Más (63%) de los entrevistados no estaban al tanto de la PrEP. A menudo confundieron la PrEP con el tratamiento del VIH, y muchos creían que la PrEP era sólo por riesgo sexual o riesgo sexual gay. Una vez que entendieron que la PrEP se recomendaba para PWID, los participantes tenían una visión positiva de la PrEP y sentían que una vez-píldora diaria era factible. Las experiencias de estigma sobre el consumo de drogas siguieron siendo una barrera crucial para acceder a la atención médica y a la PrEP. Esto a menudo estaba relacionado con la homofobia anticipada o expresada. Las intervenciones de la PrEP entre PWID deben centrarse en la educación y la confluencia de estigmas en los que PWID se encuentra al considerar la PrEP.

I don't even want to go to the doctor when I get sick now: Healthcare experiences and discrimination reported by people who use drugs, Arizona 2019.

BACKGROUND: People who use drugs experience severe health inequities created by structural and social barriers related to healthcare access. This includes stigma. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the experience of healthcare access among people who use drugs in Maricopa County, Arizona USA. METHODS: A 20-item guided survey with quantitative and qualitative items was fielded between October 23-November 5, 2019 among people who use drugs in community locations (public spaces, trap houses, drug copping areas). Surveys were administered face-to-face by community researchers with lived experiences. Survey recruitment included convenience sampling and social referral among respondents. Quantitative items were described and qualitative data were independently coded using an a priori coding scheme including reasons for healthcare seeking and healthcare-related stigma (anticipated, experienced, enacted). RESULTS: Over one-third (39.5%) of the185 person sample did not seek medical care in the past year. Of this group, 34.2% reported that they did not seek needed healthcare because they were afraid of being treated badly by medical providers for using drugs. The three major experiences reported by those seeking healthcare in the past year included 1) medical mistreatment (not addressing the primary medical complaint, providing wrong or inadequate treatment), 2) social mistreatment (disapproval, embarrassment, shaming) and 3) abusive behavior (verbal and physical) by healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should create healthcare social and practice environments that assure appropriate and competent medical care and prohibit healthcare provider mistreatment of people who use drugs. Structural incentives such as healthcare finance, hospital accreditation and medical complaint registration should be considered.

I could take the judgment if you could just provide the service: non-prescription syringe purchase experience at Arizona pharmacies, 2018.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies are important for health access by rural populations and those who do not have optimum access to the health system, because they provide myriad health services and are found in most communities. This includes the sale of non-prescription syringes, a practice that is legal in the USA in all but two states. However, people who inject drugs (PWID) face significant barriers accessing sterile syringes, particularly in states without laws allowing syringe services programming. To our knowledge, no recent studies of pharmacy-based syringe purchase experience have been conducted in communities that are both rural and urban, and none in the Southwestern US. This study seeks to understand the experience of retail pharmacy syringe purchase in Arizona by PWID. METHODS: An interview study was conducted between August and December 2018 with 37 people living in 3 rural and 2 urban Arizona counties who identified as current or former users of injection drugs. Coding was both a priori and emergent, focusing on syringe access through pharmacies, pharmacy experiences generally, experiences of stigma, and recommendations for harm reduction services delivered by pharmacies. RESULTS: All participants reported being refused syringe purchase at pharmacies. Six themes emerged about syringe purchase: (1) experience of stigma and judgment by pharmacy staff, (2) feelings of internalized stigma, (3) inconsistent sales outcomes at the same pharmacy or pharmacy chain, (4) pharmacies as last resort for syringes, (5) fear of arrest for syringe possession, and (6) health risks resulting from syringe refusal. CONCLUSIONS: Non-prescription syringe sales in community pharmacies are a missed opportunity to improve the health of PWID by reducing syringe sharing and reuse. Yet, current pharmacy syringe sales refusal and stigmatization by staff suggest that pharmacy-level interventions will be necessary to impact pharmacy practice. Lack of access to sterile syringes reinforces health risk behaviors among PWID. Retail syringe sales at pharmacies remain an important, yet barrier-laden, element of a comprehensive public health response to reduce HIV and hepatitis C among PWID. Future studies should test multilevel evidence-based interventions to decrease staff discrimination and stigma and increase syringe sales.