Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Transition-age (TA) adults, aged 18-25, have the highest prevalence of substance use disorder (SUD) among all age groups yet they are less likely to seek treatment and more likely to discontinue it than older adults, making them a high-priority treatment population. While structural barriers and varying expectations of recovery may affect treatment initiation, insights from providers working with TA adults can reveal what further impels and impedes treatment engagement. METHODS:We conducted two focus groups with 14 front-line treatment providers, representing urban and rural outpatient, residential, and inpatient SUD care settings across New York State. Providers were selected through stratified sampling using restricted-access treatment registry data. A semi-structured interview guide facilitated discussions, and transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes. RESULTS:Providers report that TA adults prefer briefer, innovative treatment approaches over traditional modalities like A.A./12-step recovery, driven by a desire to rebuild their lives through education and career. Post-pandemic social disruptions were cited as exacerbating engagement challenges and increasing the need for integrating mental health support. Providers highlighted the potential of technology to enhance treatment engagement, though expressed concerns regarding social isolation and the fraying of childhood safety nets and support systems (e.g., housing) undermining successful treatment outcomes and transitions to adulthood more broadly. CONCLUSIONS:Providers report and perceive various challenges-unmet mental health needs, social alienation, and housing insecurity-that impede TA adults from successful SUD treatment. Understanding providers' perceptions of the needs of young adults can inform patient and clinical decision-making, lead to the development of innovative treatment approaches tailored to TA adults and contribute to improved health outcomes over the life course.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:We investigated racial and ethnic disparities in telehealth counseling among Medicaid-insured patients in outpatient substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clinics and assessed whether the clinic-level proportion of Medicaid-insured patients moderated these disparities. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Using New York State (NYS) Medicaid and statewide treatment registry data, we analyzed 24,814 admission episodes across 399 outpatient SUD clinics during the first 6 months of COVID-19 (April-September 2020). Our outcome measure was the number of tele-counseling sessions within the first 90 days of treatment. Key independent variables included beneficiary race/ethnicity and the clinic-level proportion of Medicaid-insured patients, divided into four quartiles: lowest, second, third, and highest. Mixed effects negative binomial models assessed the associations between race/ethnicity, Medicaid proportions, and telehealth use, with interaction terms evaluating the moderating role of Medicaid proportions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Black and Latinx patients received fewer telehealth sessions than non-Latinx White patients, with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.91) for Black patients and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.98) for Latinx patients. Black patients at clinics with the highest Medicaid proportions had higher telehealth usage rates compared to those at clinics with the lowest Medicaid proportions (aIRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41). Patients in clinics with the highest Medicaid proportions were more likely to use individual telehealth counseling (aIRR, 1.02-1.88; 95% CI, 1.01-3.04). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Significant racial disparities in telehealth use exist, with variations persisting across clinics with different Medicaid proportions. Targeted interventions are needed to address these access gaps.

BACKGROUND:Measurement-based care (MBC), routinely measuring and reviewing treatment progress with a standardized tool, can inform clinical decision making and improve patient outcomes. Despite potential benefits, implementation of MBC in SUD treatment settings has been limited and little is known about its implementation in SUD settings. The goal of this convergent parallel mixed methods study was to understand staff experiences during early implementation of MBC in SUD treatment clinics. METHODS:The Treatment Progress Assessment-8 (TPA8) is an 8-item measure that supports MBC with an electronic system (eTPA8) allowing client completion on electronic devices and providing staff reports. The study introduced the eTPA8 into 13 clinics using external practice facilitation and implementation teams. Quantitative data examining implementation included eTPA8 system data (1672 administrations) and staff surveys (n = 70) using feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness measures. Semi-structured interviews (n = 34) were conducted with clinic staff. To analyze data, we classified clinics into adopters, non-adopters, and sustainers using eTPA8 system data. One-way ANOVA compared these classifications on the three implementation outcome measures. Rapid qualitative analysis was used for the interviews. RESULTS:There were significant differences between staff in sustainer (M = 3.90) and non-adopter (M = 3.21) clinics on the feasibility measure (F(2, 68) = [4.28], p = 0.018). SUD program staff found the eTPA8 to be user-friendly, appropriate, and acceptable. There was some variation in perceived feasibility of regular use of the eTPA8, especially given competing demands and time constraints. Staff found the eTPA8 useful to support clinical interactions but varied in embracing new technology and the overall MBC concept. The inner and outer contexts influenced implementation and required attention by clinic champions and implementation teams. External practice facilitators were key to addressing barriers in an ongoing and flexible manner. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing MBC using the eTPA8 showed promise. Staff felt the TPA8 was generally clinically useful, appropriate, and acceptable; yet feasibility was variable. Adoption of MBC faced barriers (e.g., competing demands). Implementation required relatively intensive implementation supports that were dynamic, proactive, and responsive. Findings have implications for guiding development and refinement of responsive, theory-driven implementation strategies to support MBC in SUD treatment settings, with a particular focus on addressing feasibility.

BACKGROUND:Addressing the persistent treatment gap in substance use disorder (SUD) remains a critical challenge, with only 13 % of Americans with SUDs receiving necessary treatment. We explored the complexities of engaging in SUD treatment from patients' perspectives and aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of their treatment experiences. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 patients who had been attending outpatient SUD clinics in New York State for 6 or less months. Participants were recruited from seven clinics using purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted between June and August 2022. We conducted thematic analysis of coded data to explore patients' experiences and preferences while navigating their treatment journeys. RESULTS:Critical elements for a positive treatment experience included cultural humility, confidentiality, consistency, trust, peer counselors with SUD experience, a strong sense of connection, and addressing needs beyond clinical settings. These included assistance with housing and employment, participation in external clinic events, and access to amenities like coffee and snacks. Participants favored holistic treatment approaches integrating mental health and involving peer recovery counselors. However, participants also identified ineffective aspects, including rigid and generic approaches, stigmatizing attitudes, and challenges related to communities and environmental influences. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The study highlights the multifaceted nature of outpatient SUD treatment, emphasizing the integration of patient-centered, holistic, and culturally competent approaches. Tailoring interventions to individual circumstances and acknowledging the diverse needs of patients are imperative for effective healthcare practices.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Recent federal regulatory changes governing the delivery of methadone treatment for opioid use disorder at Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) support continued practice changes towards greater and flexible methadone take-home medication. Existing payment models for OTPs were closely tied with onsite medication administration and thus misaligned with the need to conduct more and flexible take-homes. This study aims to understand OTP organizations' experience with the newly created OTP bundled payment model in New York State as an alternative to the pre-existing per-service payment model during 2020-2023 to inform financing strategies to support and sustain practice changes. METHODS:The study conducted semi-structured interviews with financial leaders and staff from OTP organizations in New York State. Snowball sampling supplemented purposeful sampling of OTP organizations based on their billing practices by. Qualitative data from 12 interviews (with 11 OTP organizations and 1 trade organization) were analyzed with an integrated (inductive and deductive) approach to derive themes. RESULTS:Study informants recognized that the bundled payment model served to protect revenue in a time when OTPs had to pivot quickly to increase take-home medication to patients. Informants described a wide spectrum of practices to operationalize billing in the alternative payment systems, revealing confusion with the billing rules and significant logistical and technical challenges. Informants expressed concerns regarding the substantial difference between the full bundled rate, paid in weeks with one or more qualifying services, and the medication-only rate, reporting that extended (2 weeks or more) take-homes might not be sustainable under the two-tiered model with the low medication-only rate and advocating for a single bundled rate. Informants believed that increased take-home medication and federal regulatory changes had profound implications for the delivery of counseling services, the counselor workforce, and financial viability for OTPs. CONCLUSIONS:Our study of OTP organization experience in New York State provided data on OTP organization perspectives regarding the potential revenue-protecting effects of bundled payments and generated insights to inform future research and policy experimentation to support flexible take-home medication. Future implementation studies are needed to better understand the roles of financing strategies at large in supporting clinical practice changes in substance use disorder treatment.

Several factors motivate the need for innovation to improve the delivery of behavioral health services, including increased rates of mental health and substance use disorders, limited access to services, inconsistent use of evidence-based practices, and persistent racial and ethnic disparities. This narrative review identifies promising innovations that address these challenges, assesses empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these innovations and the extent to which they have been adopted and implemented, and suggests next steps for research. We review five categories of innovations: organizational models, including a range of novel locations for providing services and new ways of organizing services within and across sites; information and communication technologies; workforce; treatment technologies; and policy and regulatory changes. We conclude by discussing the need to strengthen and accelerate the contributions of implementation science to close the gap between the launch of innovative behavioral health services and their widespread use.

BACKGROUND:The increasing relevance of substance use disorder (SUD) within the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA&NH/PI) communities, particularly amidst rising anti-Asian hate incidents and the disproportionate health and economic challenges faced by the NH/PI community during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the urgency of understanding substance use patterns, treatment disparities, and outcomes. METHODS:Following PRISMA guidelines, 37 out of 231 studies met the search criteria. Study characteristics, study datasets, substance use rates, SUD rates, treatment disparities, treatment quality, completion rates, and analyses disaggregated by the most specific AA&NH/PI ethnic group reported were examined. RESULTS:Despite increased treatment admissions over the past two decades, AA&NH/PI remain underrepresented in treatment facilities and underutilize SUD care services. Treatment quality and completion rates are also lower among AA&NH/PI. Analyses that did not disaggregate AA and NHPI as distinct groups from each other or that presented aggregate data only within AA or NHPI as a whole were common, but available disaggregated analyses reveal variations in substance use and treatment disparities among ethnic groups. There is also a lack of research in exploring within-group disparities, including specific case of older adults and substance use. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:To address disparities in access to substance use treatment and improve outcomes for AA&NH/PI populations, targeted interventions and strategic data collection methods that capture diverse ethnic groups and languages are crucial. Acknowledging data bias and expanding data collection to encompass multiple languages are essential for fostering a more inclusive approach to addressing SUD among AA&NH/PI populations.

BACKGROUND:In the United States, there has been a concerning rise in the prevalence of opioid use disorders (OUD) among transition-age (TA) adults, 18 to 25-years old, with a disproportionate impact on individuals and families covered by Medicaid. Of equal concern, the treatment system continues to underperform for many young people, emphasizing the need to address the treatment challenges faced by this vulnerable population at a pivotal juncture in their life course. Pharmacotherapy is the most effective treatment for OUD, yet notably, observational studies reveal gaps in the receipt of and retention in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), resulting in poor outcomes for many TA adults in treatment. Few current studies on OUD treatment quality explicitly consider the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors, especially for young people whose social roles and institutional ties remain in flux. METHODS:We introduce a retrospective, longitudinal cohort design to study treatment quality practices and outcomes among approximately 65,000 TA adults entering treatment for OUD between 2012 and 2025 in New York. We propose to combine data from multiple sources, including Medicaid claims and encounter data and a state registry of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment episodes, to examine three aspects of OUD treatment quality: 1) MOUD use, including MOUD option (e.g., buprenorphine, methadone, or extended-release [XR] naltrexone); 2) adherence to pharmacotherapy and retention in treatment; and 3) adverse events (e.g., overdoses). Using rigorous analytical methods, we will provide insights into how variation in treatment practices and outcomes are structured more broadly by multilevel processes related to communities, treatment programs, and characteristics of the patient, as well as their complex interplay. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings will inform clinical decision making by patients and providers as well as public health responses to the rising number of young adults seeking treatment for OUD amidst the opioid and polysubstance overdose crisis in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE:To assess whether chronic pain increases the risk of COVID-19 complications and whether opioid use disorder (OUD) differentiates this risk among New York State Medicaid beneficiaries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of New York State Medicaid claims data. We evaluated Medicaid claims from March 2019 through December 2020 to determine whether chronic pain increased the risk of COVID-19 emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and complications and whether this relationship differed by OUD status. We included beneficiaries 18-64 years of age with 10 months of prior enrollment. Patients with chronic pain were propensity score-matched to those without chronic pain on demographics, utilization, and comorbidities to control for confounders and were stratified by OUD. Complementary log-log regressions estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of COVID-19 ED visits and hospitalizations; logistic regressions estimated odds ratios (ORs) of hospital complications and readmissions within 0-30, 31-60, and 61-90 days. RESULTS:Among 773 880 adults, chronic pain was associated with greater hazards of COVID-related ED visits (HR = 1.22 [95% CI: 1.16-1.29]) and hospitalizations (HR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.12-1.27]). Patients with chronic pain and OUD had even greater hazards of hospitalization (HR = 1.25 [95% CI: 1.07-1.47]) and increased odds of hepatic- and cardiac-related events (OR = 1.74 [95% CI: 1.10-2.74]). CONCLUSIONS:Chronic pain increased the risk of COVID-19 ED visits and hospitalizations. Presence of OUD further increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations and the odds of hepatic- and cardiac-related events. Results highlight intersecting risks among a vulnerable population and can inform tailored COVID-19 management.

Substance use disorder (SUD) among Asian Americans is understudied. Our review of National Institutes of Health-funded projects reveals a striking underrepresentation of research focused on SUD in this population, possibly perpetuated by the pervasive societal myth that Asian Americans are a healthy community. Moreover, the limited availability and disaggregation of data on SUD among Asian Americans further hinder our understanding of prevalence rates, treatment utilization, and associated disparities-thereby limiting opportunities for prevention and intervention. In light of these findings, our review serves as a crucial call to action, emphasizing the urgent need for increased research efforts and resources to address the significant gaps in knowledge and inform effective interventions for addressing SUD among Asian Americans.