Dataset Information

Methadone Access for Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic Within the United States and Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Methadone 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.

Objective

To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19.

Design, setting, and participants

This 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.

Exposures

Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial).

Main outcomes and measures

Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment.

Results

Among 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 relevance

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Joudrey PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8303098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective(s)To understand how contraception method use differed between women prescribed and not prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women.Study designIBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Multi-State Medicaid database were used to calculate the (1) crude prevalence, and (2) adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for demographic characteristics) of using long-acting reversible or short-acting hormonal contraception methods or female sterilization compared with none of these methods (no method) in 2018 by MOUD status among women with OUD, aged 20 to 49 years, with continuous health insurance coverage through commercial insurance or Medicaid for ≥6 years. Claims data was used to define contraception use. Fisher exact test or χ2 test with a P-value ≤ 0.0001, based on the Holm-Bonferroni method, and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine statistically significant differences for prevalence estimates and adjusted odds ratios, respectively.ResultsOnly 41% of commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women with OUD were prescribed MOUD. Medicaid-insured women with OUD prescribed MOUD had a significantly lower crude prevalence of using no method (71.1% vs 79.0%) and higher odds of using female sterilization (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.67 vs no method) than those not prescribed MOUD. Among commercially-insured women there were no differences in contraceptive use by MOUD status and 66% used no method.ConclusionsAmong women with ≥ 6 years of continuous insurance coverage, contraceptive use differed by MOUD status and insurance. Prescribing MOUD for women with OUD can be improved to ensure quality care.ImplicationsOnly two in five women with OUD had evidence of being prescribed MOUD, and majority did not use prescription contraception or female sterilization. Our findings support opportunities to improve prescribing for MOUD and integrate contraception and MOUD services to improve clinical care among women with OUD.