Evan S Cole1, Ellen DiDomenico2, Gerald Cochran3, Adam J Gordon3, Walid F Gellad4,5, Janice Pringle6, Jack Warwick6, Chung-Chou H Chang5, Joo Yeon Kim4, Julie Kmiec7, David Kelley8, Julie M Donohue4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. evancole@pitt.edu. 2. Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Harrisburg, PA, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. Program Evaluation and Research Unit, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 8. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Harrisburg, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected rural areas, where a limited number of health care providers offer medication-assisted treatment (MAT), the mainstay of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Rural residents with OUD may face multiple barriers to engagement in MAT including long travel distances. OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which rural residents with OUD are engaged with primary care providers (PCPs), describe the role of rural PCPs in MAT delivery, and estimate the association between enrollee distance to MAT prescribers and MAT utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid-enrolled adults diagnosed with OUD in 23 rural Pennsylvania counties. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care utilization, MAT utilization, distance to nearest possible MAT prescriber, mean distance traveled to actual MAT prescribers, and continuity of pharmacotherapy. KEY RESULTS: Of the 7930 Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of OUD, a minority (18.6%) received their diagnosis during a PCP visit even though enrollees with OUD had 4.1 visits to PCPs per person-year in 2015. Among enrollees with an OUD diagnosis recorded during a PCP visit, about half (751, 50.8%) received MAT, most of whom (508, 67.6%) received MAT from a PCP. Enrollees with OUD with at least one PCP visit were more likely than those without a PCP visit to receive MAT (32.7% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and filled more buprenorphine and naltrexone prescriptions (mean = 11.1 vs. 9.3; p < 0.001). The median of the distances traveled to actual MAT prescribers was 48.8 miles, compared to a median of 4.2 miles to the nearest available MAT prescriber. Enrollees traveling a mean distance greater than 45 miles to MAT prescribers were less likely to receive continuity of pharmacotherapy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.91, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: PCP utilization among rural Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with OUD is high, presenting a potential intervention point to treat OUD, particularly if the enrollee's PCP is located nearer than their MAT prescriber.
BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has disproportionately affected rural areas, where a limited number of health care providers offer medication-assisted treatment (MAT), the mainstay of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Rural residents with OUD may face multiple barriers to engagement in MAT including long travel distances. OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which rural residents with OUD are engaged with primary care providers (PCPs), describe the role of rural PCPs in MAT delivery, and estimate the association between enrollee distance to MAT prescribers and MAT utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid-enrolled adults diagnosed with OUD in 23 rural Pennsylvania counties. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care utilization, MAT utilization, distance to nearest possible MAT prescriber, mean distance traveled to actual MAT prescribers, and continuity of pharmacotherapy. KEY RESULTS: Of the 7930 Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of OUD, a minority (18.6%) received their diagnosis during a PCP visit even though enrollees with OUD had 4.1 visits to PCPs per person-year in 2015. Among enrollees with an OUD diagnosis recorded during a PCP visit, about half (751, 50.8%) received MAT, most of whom (508, 67.6%) received MAT from a PCP. Enrollees with OUD with at least one PCP visit were more likely than those without a PCP visit to receive MAT (32.7% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and filled more buprenorphine and naltrexone prescriptions (mean = 11.1 vs. 9.3; p < 0.001). The median of the distances traveled to actual MAT prescribers was 48.8 miles, compared to a median of 4.2 miles to the nearest available MAT prescriber. Enrollees traveling a mean distance greater than 45 miles to MAT prescribers were less likely to receive continuity of pharmacotherapy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.91, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: PCP utilization among rural Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with OUD is high, presenting a potential intervention point to treat OUD, particularly if the enrollee's PCP is located nearer than their MAT prescriber.
Entities:
Keywords:
medication-assisted treatment; opioid use disorder; primary care; rural
Authors: Colin Buzza; Sarah S Ono; Carolyn Turvey; Stacy Wittrock; Matt Noble; Gautam Reddy; Peter J Kaboli; Heather Schacht Reisinger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Eliza Hutchinson; Mary Catlin; C Holly A Andrilla; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Roger A Rosenblatt Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Andrew W Dick; Rosalie L Pacula; Adam J Gordon; Mark Sorbero; Rachel M Burns; Douglas Leslie; Bradley D Stein Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Declan T Barry; Kevin S Irwin; Emlyn S Jones; William C Becker; Jeanette M Tetrault; Lynn E Sullivan; Helena Hansen; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hyungjin Myra Kim; Eric G Smith; Claire M Stano; Dara Ganoczy; Kara Zivin; Heather Walters; Marcia Valenstein Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elizabeth C Saunders; Alan J Budney; Patricia Cavazos-Rehg; Emily Scherer; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Alex K Gertner; Jason S Rotter; Margaret E Holly; Christopher M Shea; Sherri L Green; Marisa Elena Domino Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2022 Mar-Apr 01 Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Delia Motavalli; Jessica L Taylor; Ellen Childs; Pablo K Valente; Peter Salhaney; Jennifer Olson; Dea L Biancarelli; Alberto Edeza; Joel J Earlywine; Brandon D L Marshall; Mari-Lynn Drainoni; Matthew J Mimiaga; Katie B Biello; Angela R Bazzi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Julie M Donohue; Marian P Jarlenski; Joo Yeon Kim; Lu Tang; Katherine Ahrens; Lindsay Allen; Anna Austin; Andrew J Barnes; Marguerite Burns; Chung-Chou H Chang; Sarah Clark; Evan Cole; Dushka Crane; Peter Cunningham; David Idala; Stefanie Junker; Paul Lanier; Rachel Mauk; Mary Joan McDuffie; Shamis Mohamoud; Nathan Pauly; Logan Sheets; Jeffery Talbert; Kara Zivin; Adam J Gordon; Susan Kennedy Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Taylor Kelley; Marcela C Smid; Jacob D Baylis; Elizabeth Charron; Amy E Binns-Calvey; Shayla Archer; Saul J Weiner; Lori Jo Begaye; Gerald Cochran Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-25