Medication-assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Rhode Island: Who Gets Treatment, and Does Treatment Improve Health Outcomes?

Mary A. Burke, Riley Sullivan
{"title":"Medication-assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Rhode Island: Who Gets Treatment, and Does Treatment Improve Health Outcomes?","authors":"Mary A. Burke, Riley Sullivan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3832299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the early 2000s Rhode Island has been among the states hardest hit by the opioid crisis. In response, the state has made it a priority to expand access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD), which refers to the use of the FDA-approved medications methadone, buprenorphine, and/or naltrexone in conjunction with behavioral therapy. MAT is strongly supported by scientific evidence and endorsed by US public health officials and yet fails to reach many OUD patients. Using administrative data covering medical treatments and selected health outcomes for more than three-quarters of the Rhode Islanders covered by health insurance from mid-2011 through mid-2019, this report considers MAT’s efficacy in preventing opioid overdoses in Rhode Island and sheds light on the barriers to receiving MAT. The authors find evidence that MAT, as practiced in Rhode Island, appears to reduce the risk of opioid overdose: Among patients who had an initial (nonfatal) overdose, those who had received MAT in the preceding three months were less likely to experience a second overdose. In addition, federal policies that allowed a broader set of health-care providers to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD and enabled each prescriber to treat more patients with that drug are shown to have had some success in expanding the set of patients receiving MAT in Rhode Island.<br><br>Unfortunately, we observe significant disparities in access to MAT across different groups within Rhode Island. Among individuals diagnosed with opioid dependence, those living in places with elevated poverty rates are less likely to receive buprenorphine, but they are also somewhat more likely to receive methadone. Because a treatment regimen involving methadone is much less convenient for the patient compared with one involving buprenorphine, ideally patients should have similar access to both drugs. Having Medicaid insurance as opposed to some other form of insurance is associated with a much greater chance of receiving methadone treatment, a finding that supports policies that would incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in states that have not yet done so. Women are somewhat less likely than men to receive either methadone or buprenorphine.<br><br>This research demonstrates that recent federal policies helped to increase the number of Rhode Islanders who were prescribed buprenorphine for OUD. Raising patient-number limits enabled select prescribers to serve more patients and expand the total patient pool;however, more people could be helped if more prescribers took full advantage of their prescribing limits. This research and similar findings from other states reveal that the typical buprenorphine prescriber has a caseload that is well below the maximum number of patients they could treat. A separate policy that enabled mid-level practitioners (such as physician assistants) to train to prescribe buprenorphine was also found to draw in new patients, particularly those in high-poverty Zip codes. The research also underscores the urgency of helping more OUD patients receive methadone and/or buprenorphine treatment quickly following an overdose (in hospitals, for example) and to maintain that treatment over time for a sufficient duration.<br><br>Some additional policies that could promote greater access to MAT include allowing pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine, relaxing restrictions on the use of telehealth for obtaining buprenorphine prescriptions, and revisiting the rules about allowing take-home doses of methadone. Additional research is required on these interventions before specific recommendations can be made, but consideration of further policy adjustments is critically important given the ongoing scourge of opioid abuse and the proven ability of MAT to help those suffering from opioid use disorder. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there has in fact been a temporary loosening of policies related to MAT in order to minimize patients’ exposure to the virus while helping them to get on or stay on medications, thus offering an opp rtunity to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the revised measures.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Since the early 2000s Rhode Island has been among the states hardest hit by the opioid crisis. In response, the state has made it a priority to expand access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD), which refers to the use of the FDA-approved medications methadone, buprenorphine, and/or naltrexone in conjunction with behavioral therapy. MAT is strongly supported by scientific evidence and endorsed by US public health officials and yet fails to reach many OUD patients. Using administrative data covering medical treatments and selected health outcomes for more than three-quarters of the Rhode Islanders covered by health insurance from mid-2011 through mid-2019, this report considers MAT’s efficacy in preventing opioid overdoses in Rhode Island and sheds light on the barriers to receiving MAT. The authors find evidence that MAT, as practiced in Rhode Island, appears to reduce the risk of opioid overdose: Among patients who had an initial (nonfatal) overdose, those who had received MAT in the preceding three months were less likely to experience a second overdose. In addition, federal policies that allowed a broader set of health-care providers to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD and enabled each prescriber to treat more patients with that drug are shown to have had some success in expanding the set of patients receiving MAT in Rhode Island.

Unfortunately, we observe significant disparities in access to MAT across different groups within Rhode Island. Among individuals diagnosed with opioid dependence, those living in places with elevated poverty rates are less likely to receive buprenorphine, but they are also somewhat more likely to receive methadone. Because a treatment regimen involving methadone is much less convenient for the patient compared with one involving buprenorphine, ideally patients should have similar access to both drugs. Having Medicaid insurance as opposed to some other form of insurance is associated with a much greater chance of receiving methadone treatment, a finding that supports policies that would incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in states that have not yet done so. Women are somewhat less likely than men to receive either methadone or buprenorphine.

This research demonstrates that recent federal policies helped to increase the number of Rhode Islanders who were prescribed buprenorphine for OUD. Raising patient-number limits enabled select prescribers to serve more patients and expand the total patient pool;however, more people could be helped if more prescribers took full advantage of their prescribing limits. This research and similar findings from other states reveal that the typical buprenorphine prescriber has a caseload that is well below the maximum number of patients they could treat. A separate policy that enabled mid-level practitioners (such as physician assistants) to train to prescribe buprenorphine was also found to draw in new patients, particularly those in high-poverty Zip codes. The research also underscores the urgency of helping more OUD patients receive methadone and/or buprenorphine treatment quickly following an overdose (in hospitals, for example) and to maintain that treatment over time for a sufficient duration.

Some additional policies that could promote greater access to MAT include allowing pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine, relaxing restrictions on the use of telehealth for obtaining buprenorphine prescriptions, and revisiting the rules about allowing take-home doses of methadone. Additional research is required on these interventions before specific recommendations can be made, but consideration of further policy adjustments is critically important given the ongoing scourge of opioid abuse and the proven ability of MAT to help those suffering from opioid use disorder. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there has in fact been a temporary loosening of policies related to MAT in order to minimize patients’ exposure to the virus while helping them to get on or stay on medications, thus offering an opp rtunity to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the revised measures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
罗德岛阿片类药物使用障碍的药物辅助治疗:谁得到治疗,治疗是否改善了健康结果?
自21世纪初以来,罗德岛州一直是受阿片类药物危机影响最严重的州之一。作为回应,该州已将扩大阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)的药物辅助治疗(MAT)作为优先事项,这是指使用fda批准的药物美沙酮、丁丙诺啡和/或纳曲酮结合行为治疗。MAT得到了科学证据的有力支持,并得到了美国公共卫生官员的认可,但仍未能惠及许多OUD患者。本报告使用涵盖2011年年中至2019年年中健康保险覆盖的四分之三以上罗德岛居民的医疗和选定健康结果的行政数据,考虑了MAT在预防罗德岛阿片类药物过量使用方面的功效,并揭示了接受MAT的障碍。作者发现证据表明,MAT在罗德岛的实践似乎降低了阿片类药物过量的风险:在最初(非致命)过量的患者中,在前三个月内接受过MAT的患者不太可能出现第二次过量。此外,联邦政策允许更广泛的医疗保健提供者为OUD开丁丙诺啡,并使每个开处方者能够用该药物治疗更多的患者,这在扩大罗德岛接受MAT的患者群体方面取得了一定的成功。不幸的是,我们观察到罗德岛州不同群体获得MAT的显着差异。在被诊断为阿片类药物依赖的个体中,那些生活在贫困率高的地方的人接受丁丙诺啡的可能性较小,但他们也更有可能接受美沙酮。因为与丁丙诺啡相比,美沙酮的治疗方案对患者来说要方便得多,理想情况下,患者应该有类似的途径使用这两种药物。与其他形式的保险相比,拥有医疗补助保险与接受美沙酮治疗的机会大得多有关,这一发现支持了鼓励在尚未实施医疗补助计划的州扩大医疗补助计划的政策。女性接受美沙酮或丁丙诺啡的可能性略低于男性。这项研究表明,最近的联邦政策有助于增加罗德岛人开丁丙诺啡治疗OUD的人数。提高患者数量限制使选定的开处方者能够服务更多的患者并扩大患者总数;然而,如果更多的开处方者充分利用他们的处方限制,更多的人可以得到帮助。这项研究和其他州的类似发现表明,典型的丁丙诺啡处方者的病例量远远低于他们可以治疗的最大患者数量。另一项允许中级从业人员(如医师助理)接受培训开丁丙诺啡处方的政策也吸引了新患者,尤其是那些高贫困地区的患者。该研究还强调了帮助更多OUD患者在用药过量(例如在医院)后迅速接受美沙酮和/或丁丙诺啡治疗的紧迫性,并在足够的时间内维持这种治疗。可以促进更广泛地获得MAT的一些其他政策包括允许药剂师开丁丙诺啡,放宽对使用远程保健获取丁丙诺啡处方的限制,以及重新审议关于允许带回家服用美沙酮的规则。在提出具体建议之前,需要对这些干预措施进行进一步的研究,但考虑到阿片类药物滥用的持续祸害和经证实的MAT帮助阿片类药物使用障碍患者的能力,考虑进一步的政策调整至关重要。为应对COVID-19大流行,实际上暂时放松了与MAT相关的政策,以尽量减少患者接触病毒,同时帮助他们开始或继续服用药物,从而为评估修订后措施的有效性和安全性提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Legacy of COVID-19 in Education The Gender Effects of COVID-19 on Equity Analysts Impacts of the COVID Lockdown on Consumption: Household Data from India Status Externalities in Education and Low Birth Rates in Korea Did Precious Metals Serve as Hedge and Safe-Haven Alternatives to Equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: New Insights Using a Copula-Based Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1