Project description:Importance:Timely initiation and referral to treatment for patients with opioid use disorder seen in the emergency department is associated with reduced mortality. It is not known how often commercially insured adults obtain follow-up treatment after nonfatal opioid overdose. Objective:To investigate the incidence of follow-up treatment following emergency department discharge after nonfatal opioid overdose and patient characteristics associated with receipt of follow-up treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective cohort study was conducted using an administrative claims database for a large US commercial insurer, from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2016. Data analysis was performed from May 1, 2019, to September 26, 2019. Adult patients discharged from the emergency department after an index opioid overdose (no overdose in the preceding 90 days) were included. Patients with cancer and without continuous insurance enrollment were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was follow-up treatment in the 90 days following overdose, defined as a combined outcome of claims for treatment encounters or medications for opioid use disorder (buprenorphine and naltrexone). Analysis was stratified by whether patients received treatment for opioid use disorder in the 90 days before the overdose. Logistic regression models were used to identify patient characteristics associated with receipt of follow-up treatment. Marginal effects were used to report the average adjusted probability and absolute risk differences (ARDs) in follow-up for different patient characteristics. Results:A total of 6451 patients were identified with nonfatal opioid overdose; the mean (SD) age was 45.0 (19.3) years, 3267 were women (50.6%), and 4676 patients (72.5%) reported their race as non-Hispanic white. A total of 1069 patients (16.6%; 95% CI, 15.7%-17.5%) obtained follow-up treatment within 90 days after the overdose. In adjusted analysis of patients who did not receive treatment before the overdose, black patients were half as likely to obtain follow-up compared with non-Hispanic white patients (ARD, -5.9%; 95% CI, -8.6% to -3.6%). Women (ARD, -1.7%; 95% CI, -3.3% to -0.5%) and Hispanic patients (ARD, -3.5%; 95% CI, -6.1% to -0.9%) were also less likely to obtain follow-up. For each additional year of age, patients were 0.2% less likely to obtain follow-up (95% CI, -0.3% to -0.1%). Conclusions and Relevance:Efforts to improve the low rate of timely follow-up treatment following opioid overdose may seek to address sex, race/ethnicity, and age disparities.

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on patients and health care professionals and institutions, but the association of the pandemic with use of preventive, elective, and nonelective care, as well as potential disparities in use of health care, remain unknown.ObjectiveTo examine changes in health care use during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April of 2020 relative to March and April of 2019 and 2018, and to examine whether changes in use differ by patient's zip code-level race/ethnicity or income.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed health insurance claims for patients from all 50 US states who receive health insurance through their employers. Changes in use of preventive services, nonelective care, elective procedures, prescription drugs, in-person office visits, and telemedicine visits were examined during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 relative to existing trends in 2019 and 2018. Disparities in the association of the pandemic with health care use based on patient's zip code-level race and income were also examined.ResultsData from 5.6, 6.4, and 6.8 million US individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, were analyzed. Patient demographics were similar in all 3 years (mean [SD] age, 34.3 [18.6] years in 2018, 34.3 [18.5] years in 2019, and 34.5 [18.5] years in 2020); 50.0% women in 2018, 49.5% women in 2019, and 49.5% women in 2020). In March and April 2020, regression-adjusted use rate per 10 000 persons changed by -28.2 (95% CI, -30.5 to -25.9) and -64.5 (95% CI, -66.8 to -62.2) for colonoscopies; -149.1 (95% CI, -162.0 to -16.2) and -342.1 (95% CI, -355.0 to -329.2) for mammograms; -60.0 (95% CI, -63.3 to -54.7) and -118.1 (95% CI, -112.4 to -113.9) for hemoglobin A1c tests; -300.5 (95% CI, -346.5 to -254.5) and -369.0 (95% CI, -414.7 to -323.4) for child vaccines; -4.6 (95% CI, -5.3 to -3.9) and -10.9 (95% CI, -11.6 to -10.2) for musculoskeletal surgery; -1.1 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.7) and -3.4 (95% CI, -3.8 to -3.0) for cataract surgery; -13.4 (95% CI, -14.6 to -12.2) and -31.4 (95% CI, -32.6 to -30.2) for magnetic resonance imaging; and -581.1 (95% CI, -612.9 to -549.3) and -1465 (95% CI, -1496 to -1433) for in-person office visits. Use of telemedicine services increased by 227.9 (95% CI, 221.7 to 234.1) per 10 000 persons and 641.6 (95% CI, 635.5 to 647.8) per 10 000 persons. Patients living in zip codes with lower-income or majority racial/ethnic minority populations experienced smaller reductions in in-person visits (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 200.0 per 10 000 [95% CI, 128.9-270.1]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 54.2 per 10 000 [95% CI, 33.6-74.9]) but also had lower rates of adoption of telemedicine (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: -71.6 per 10 000 [95% CI, -87.6 to -55.5]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: -15.1 per 10 000 [95% CI, -19.8 to -10.4]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of a large US population with employer-sponsored insurance, the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with dramatic reductions in the use of preventive and elective care. Use of telemedicine increased rapidly but not enough to account for reductions in in-person primary care visits. Race and income disparities at the zip code level exist in use of telemedicine.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical care, impacting prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Understanding these patterns can help address barriers to care.ObjectiveTo evaluate how prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic among both new and existing patients.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, use of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder from March 18 to September 1, 2020, was projected using a national database of retail prescriptions from January 1, 2018, to March 3, 2020. Actual prescribing was compared with projected levels for all, existing, and new patients.ExposuresThe data include prescriptions to patients independent of insurance status or type and cover 90% of retail prescriptions, 70% of mail-order prescriptions, and 70% of nursing home prescriptions.Main outcomes and measuresPrescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Outcomes included total number of prescriptions, total morphine milligram equivalents, mean morphine milligram equivalents per prescription, mean dispensed units per prescription, and number of patients filling prescriptions.ResultsA total of 452 691 261 prescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder were analyzed for 90 420 353 patients (50 921 535 female patients [56%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [20] years). From March 18 to May 19, 2020, 1877 million total morphine milligram equivalents of opioid analgesics were prescribed weekly vs 1843 million projected, a ratio of 102% (95% prediction interval [PI], 94%-111%; P = .71). The weekly number of opioid-naive patients receiving opioids was 370 051 vs 564 929 projected, or 66% of projected (95% PI, 63%-68%; P < .001). Prescribing of buprenorphine was as projected for existing patients, while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 9865 vs 12 008 projected, or 82% (95% PI, 76%-88%; P < .001). From May 20 to September 1, 2020, opioid prescribing for new patients returned to 100% of projected (95% PI, 96%-104%; P = .95), while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 10 436 vs 11 613 projected, or 90% (95% PI, 83%-97%; P = .009).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, existing patients receiving opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder generally maintained access to these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid prescriptions for opioid-naive patients decreased briefly and then rebounded, while initiation of buprenorphine remained at a low rate through August 2020. Reductions in treatment entry may be associated with increased overdose deaths.

Project description:AimTo capture pandemic experiences of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) to better inform the programs that serve them.DesignWe designed, conducted, and analyzed semi-structured qualitative interviews using grounded theory. We conducted interviews until theme saturation was reached and we iteratively developed a codebook of emerging themes. Individuals with lived experience of substance use provided feedback at all steps of the study.SettingWe conducted phone or in-person interviews in compliance with physical distancing and public health regulations in outdoor Vancouver parks or well-ventilated indoor spaces between June to September 2020.ParticipantsUsing purposive sampling, we recruited participants (n = 19) who were individuals with OUD enrolled in an intensive community outreach program, had visited one of two emergency departments, were over 18, lived within catchment, and were not already receiving opioid agonist therapy.MeasurementsWe audio-recorded interviews, which were later transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy while removing all identifiers. Interviews explored participants' knowledge of COVID-19 and related safety measures, changes to drug use and healthcare services, and community impacts of COVID-19.ResultsOne third of participants were women, approximately two thirds had stable housing, and ages ranged between 23 and 59 years old. Participants were knowledgeable on COVID-19 public health measures. Some participants noted that fear decreased social connection and reluctance to help reverse overdoses; others expressed pride in community cohesion during crisis. Several participants mentioned decreased access to housing, harm reduction, and medical care services. Several participants reported using drugs alone more frequently, consuming different or fewer drugs because of supply shortages, or using more drugs to replace lost activities.ConclusionCOVID-19 had profound effects on the social lives, access to services, and risk-taking behaviour of people with opioid use disorder. Pandemic public health measures must include risk mitigation strategies to maintain access to critical opioid-related services.

Project description:ImportanceMethadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs.ObjectiveTo compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021.ExposuresNation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment.ResultsAmong 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States is undergoing a crippling opioid epidemic, spurred in part by overuse of prescription opioids by adults 25 to 64 years of age. Of concern are long-duration and high-dose initial prescriptions, which place the patients and their friends and relatives at heightened risk for long-term opioid use, misuse, overdose, and death.MethodsWe estimated the incidence of initial opioid prescriptions in each month between July 2012 and December 2017 using administrative-claims data from across the United States (accessed through Blue Cross-Blue Shield [BCBS] Axis); monthly incidence was estimated as the percentage of enrollees who received an initial opioid prescription among those who had not used opioids (i.e., no opioid prescription or a diagnosis of opioid use disorder in the 6 months before a given month). We then estimated the percentage of enrollees initiating opioid therapy who received a long-duration or high-dose initial opioid prescription in each month during this period. We also calculated the number of providers who initiated opioid therapy in any patient who had not used opioids in each month and examined monthly trends in the duration and dose of initial opioid prescriptions in prescriber and patient subgroups. Our study sample included 63,817,512 enrollees who had not used opioids (mean, 15,897,673 per month).ResultsThe monthly incidence of initial opioid prescriptions among enrollees who had not used opioids declined by 54%, from 1.63% in July 2012 to 0.75% in December 2017. This decline was accompanied by a decreasing number of providers (from 114,043 in July 2012 to 80,462 in December 2017) who initiated opioid therapy in any patient who had not used opioids. Nonetheless, among the shrinking subgroup of physicians who initiated opioid therapy in such patients, high-risk prescribing (i.e., prescriptions for more than a 3-day supply or for a dose of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or higher) persisted at a monthly rate of 115,378 prescriptions per 15,897,673 enrollees who had not used opioids.ConclusionsAs the opioid crisis progressed between July 2012 and December 2017, many providers stopped initiating opioid therapy. Although the number of initial opioid prescriptions declined, a subgroup of providers continued to write high-risk initial opioid prescriptions. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and a gift from Owen and Linda Robinson.).

Dataset Information

Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among Commercially Insured Patients in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure