Kelsey C. Priest

Background States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients. Objective To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies. Design and Participants A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common. Exposures State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management. Main Measures Opioid dispensing rates, days’ supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED). Key Results The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days’ supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days’ supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively. Conclusion While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days’ supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies.

There is a growing trend of resident and fellow physician unionization in the United States, with 14 new housestaff unions formed at private employers since 2022. This resurgence of housestaff union organizing parallels the last era of housestaff activism in the 1960s. Today’s housestaff organizing takes place within the context of long-standing challenges in medicine, including the burnout and systemic inequities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and an increase in national activism and labor organizing. Housestaff unions offer opportunities for residents and fellows to negotiate for improvements across multiple issues. In this Commentary, the authors focus on common bargaining topics: poor working conditions, undercompensation, and inadequate representation in an increasingly corporatized health care landscape. The authors also discuss the role of collective bargaining for improving the housestaff experience and address common concerns about unionization. Finally, the authors explore the limited evidence of the impact of unions in health care settings and outline key considerations for future scholarship. The current generation of housestaff started their medical careers with an awareness of systemic challenges to the profession and has responded through collective organizing. While the short- and long-term ramifications of housestaff organizing need further study, the authors express optimism that unionization will lead to improved working conditions and thus improved health care delivery.

Background: As the drug-related overdose crisis and COVID-19 pandemic continue, communities need increased access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (i.e., buprenorphine and methadone). Disparities in the type of MOUD prescribed or administered by racial and ethnic categories are well described in the outpatient clinical environment. It is unknown, however, if these disparities persist when MOUD is provided in acute care hospitals. Methods: This study assessed differences in the delivery of buprenorphine versus methadone during acute medical or surgical hospitalizations for veterans with opioid use disorder (OUD) by racial categories (Black Non-Hispanic or Latino vs. White Non-Hispanic or Latino). Data were obtained retrospectively from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for federal fiscal year 2017. We built logistic regression models, adjusted for individual and hospital-related covariates, and calculated the predicted probabilities of MOUD delivery by racial categories. Results: The study cohort ( n = 1,313 unique patients; N = 107 VHA hospitals) had a mean age of 57 (range 23 to 87 years), was predominantly male (96%), and composed entirely of Black (29%) or White (71%) patients. White patients were 11% more likely than Black patients to receive buprenorphine than methadone during hospitalization ( p = 0.010; 95% CI: 2.7%, 20.0%). Among patients on MOUD prior to hospitalization, White patients were 21% more likely than Black patients to receive buprenorphine ( p = 0.000; 95% CI: 9.8%, 31.5%). Among patients newly initiated on MOUD during hospitalization, there were no differences by racial categories. Conclusion: We observed disparities in the delivery of buprenorphine versus methadone during hospitalization by racial categories. The observed differences in hospital-based MOUD delivery may be influenced by MOUD received prior to hospitalization within the racialized outpatient addiction treatment system. The VHA and health systems more broadly must address all aspects of racism that contribute to inequitable MOUD access throughout all clinical contexts.

Background: The drug-related overdose crisis worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent drug policy changes to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during COVID-19 shifted some outpatient MOUD treatment into virtual settings to reduce the demand for in-person care. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore what is gained and lost in virtual patient encounters for patients with opioid use disorder at a low-threshold, addiction treatment clinic that offers buprenorphine and harm reduction services. Methods: Patients were included in this study if they received care at the Harm Reduction and BRidges to Care (HRBR) clinic and utilized virtual visits between November 2019 and March 2021. The study was conceptualized using a health care access framework and prior studies of telemedicine acceptability. Semi-structured interviews were completed between March and April 2021. Interviews were dual-coded and analyzed using directed content analysis. Results: Nineteen interviews were conducted. The sample was predominantly White (84%) and stably housed (79%) with comparable gender (male, 53%) and employment status (employed, 42%). The majority (63%) of patients preferred virtual visits compared to in-person visits (16%) or a combination of access to both (21%). Two overarching tandem domains emerged: availability-accommodation and acceptability-appropriateness. Availability-accommodation reflected participants’ desires for immediate services and reduced transportation and work or caregiving scheduling barriers, which was facilitated by virtual visits. The acceptable-appropriate domain articulated how participants felt connected to their providers, whether through in-person interactions or the mutual trust experienced during virtual visits. Conclusions: Virtual visits were perceived by participants as a valuable and critical option for accessing treatment for OUD. While many participants preferred virtual visits, some favored face-to-face visits due to relational and physical interactions with providers. Participants desired flexibility and the ability to have a choice of treatment modality depending on their needs.

Background: Methadone and buprenorphine are effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) that are highly regulated in the United States. The on-going opioid crisis, and more recently COVID-19, has prompted reconsideration of these restrictions in order to sustain and improve treatment access, with renewed interest in telemedicine. We reviewed the evidence on use of telemedicine interventions and applicability to MOUD policy changes in the post-COVID-19 treatment landscape. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to April 2021 and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they examined telemedicine interventions and reported outcomes (e.g. treatment initiation, retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; other studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information and a second investigator verified data. We described the results qualitatively. Results: We identified nine studies: three controlled trials (two randomized), and six observational studies. Three studies evaluated patients treated with methadone and six studies with buprenorphine, including one study of pregnant women with OUD. All studies showed telemedicine approaches associated with similar outcomes (treatment retention, positive urine toxicology) compared to treatment as usual. Trials were limited by small samples sizes, lack of reporting harms, and most were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; observational studies were limited by failure to control for confounding. Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that telemedicine may enhance access to MOUD with similar effectiveness compared with face-to-face treatment. Few studies have been published since COVID-19, and it is unclear the potential impact of these interventions on the existing racial/ethnic disparities in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and need for social distancing led to temporary policy changes for prescribing of MOUD that could inform additional research in this area to support comprehensive policy reforms.

To mitigate morbidity and mortality of the drug-related overdose crisis, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can increase access to treatments that save lives—medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite an increasing need, MOUD continues to be underutilized due to multifaceted barriers that exist within broader macro- and microenvironments. To promote MOUD utilization, policymakers and healthcare leaders should (1) identify and implement person-centered MOUD delivery systems (e.g., the Medication First Model, community-informed design); (2) recognize and address MOUD delivery gaps (e.g., the Best-Practice in Oral Opioid Agonist Collaborative); (3) broaden the definition of the MOUD delivery system (e.g., access to MOUD in non-clinical settings); and (4) expand MOUD options (e.g., injectable opioid agonist therapy). Increasing access to MOUD is not a singular fix to the overdose-related crisis. It is, however, a possible first step to mitigate harm, and save lives.