Barbara Andraka-Christou1,2, Kathryn Bouskill3, Rebecca L Haffajee4,5, Olivia Randall-Kosich6, Matthew Golan7, Rachel Totaram1, Adam J Gordon8,9, Bradley D Stein10. 1. Department of Health Management & Informatics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine (Secondary Joint Appointment), University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. 3. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 4. RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA. 5. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. School of Law, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 9. Program for Addiction Research, Clinical Care, Knowledge and Advocacy (PARCKA), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 10. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization. Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses. Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility. Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.
Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization. Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses. Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility. Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; methadone; state law; substance use disorder; telehealth
Authors: John Marsden; Shane Darke; Wayne Hall; Matt Hickman; John Holmes; Keith Humphreys; Joanne Neale; Jalie Tucker; Robert West Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.256
Authors: Utsha G Khatri; Lia N Pizzicato; Kendra Viner; Emily Bobyock; Monica Sun; Zachary F Meisel; Eugenia C South Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Katherine Shircliff; Melissa Liu; Christiana Prestigiacomo; Melissa Fry; Kevin Ladd; Misty Kannapel Gilbert; Mary Jo Rattermann; Melissa A Cyders Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Lawrence A Palinkas; Jessenia De Leon; Erika Salinas; Sonali Chu; Katharine Hunter; Timothy M Marshall; Eric Tadehara; Christopher M Strnad; Jonathan Purtle; Sarah McCue Horwitz; Mary M McKay; Kimberly E Hoagwood Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390