Posts
Strengthening Workforce Capacity: State Actions to Address Opioid Use Disorder during COVID-19
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Workforce Capacity /by Kristina Long and Jodi ManzDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has quietly raged on, requiring states to fight a costly, two-front war. While states have rallied to ensure that opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment remains accessible, organizational and workforce challenges persist and the resources and revenue needed to address them are rapidly changing.
Gaps in treatment infrastructure and behavioral health workforce shortages have historically challenged states’ OUD treatment delivery. In the midst of the pandemic, states are optimizing current flexibility and supports for their behavioral health workforces to help maintain treatment access during the COVID-19 pandemic, while also monitoring how or whether these new strategies will be maintained in the future.
Here are some approaches states are taking to increase access to treatment and address workforce shortages by expanding job descriptions, offering flexible training, and changing licensing requirements:
Modifying licensure requirements. Licensing requirements for providers vary significantly by state, creating barriers for out-of-state practitioners to providing services across state lines. Expanding out-of-state license recognition and preventing licensure lapses can help ensure and expand access to treatment, promote adoption of telehealth services, and address provider shortages.
- New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania have all expanded the ability of out-of-state providers to deliver services within their states through executive orders. New Hampshire allows out-of-state providers to deliver medically necessary services both in person and via telehealth. Similarly, Pennsylvania has issued temporary licenses for out-of-state medical providers and has expedited issuance of temporary licensing. New York has allowed providers licensed in other states and Canada to practice in the state without penalty due to lack of licensure.
- States may also consider delaying the expiration of provider licenses during the pandemic to remove any potential barriers providers may have to delivering services. Following an executive order that extended license expiration dates across provider types, Maryland’s Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) released guidance on licensure extension and new licensure processing specific to behavioral health providers. Professional licenses that would have expired during the period of the current emergency will be extended for 30 days after the emergency order is lifted, though the BHA continues to process licensure and re-licensure applications that are mailed or submitted electronically.
Leveraging licensed providers. As states face workforce shortages that are amplified by COVID-19, officials may find opportunities to leverage licensed providers in unique capacities, particularly in the provision of OUD treatments.
- In Massachusetts, under order of the commissioner of public health, pharmacists may now administer medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in clinical settings, a policy shift designed to allow nursing staff who ordinarily handle such responsibilities to be reassigned to treat COVID-19 patients.
- The Ohio’s Board of Pharmacy has adopted temporary regulatory guidance to allow authorized prescribers in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to delegate buprenorphine administration to registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs).
Providing buprenorphine waiver trainings. States have been working to encourage and train providers to become “waivered” or licensed to prescribe buprenorphine long before this pandemic began, and several organizations are now taking advantage of increased flexibility in provider schedules to provide training. Anticipating that overdoses may increase during the pandemic, states can encourage provider engagement with these and similar programs to grow their waivered workforce.
- California Bridge, a program supported in part by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), is offering free online buprenorphine trainings that emphasize the immediate needs of vulnerable individuals during COVID-19.
- Get Waivered, a non-profit program promoting and providing emergency department (ED) provider training, is offering a “Get Waivered Remote” training aimed at ED providers and medical students, recognizing that with clinics operating at limited capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, EDs may become a more necessary point of care for people with OUD. This training is free and fully remote.
Supporting behavioral health workforces. As with other frontline workers, behavioral health staff working in residential care, institutional settings, and in direct contact with patients are experiencing significant stress working during the pandemic. To support staff without creating new programs and resulting budget demands, states may consider developing resources to support the mental health needs of both licensed and unlicensed workforces.
- The Interim COVID-19 Guidance to Providers and Stakeholders for Behavioral Health and Homelessness Services from the Hawaii Department of Health includes specific burnout prevention and self-care strategies for providers to reduce secondary trauma and help monitor workload and stress.
- Through support provided by the Washington State Health Care Authority and the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, the Washington Council for Behavioral Health has developed BH Providers Connect, a listserv for behavioral health providers to connect and support one another through the COVID-19 pandemic.
- As part of their COVID-19 response, Michigan has released “Supporting Emotional Health of the Behavioral Health Care Workforce during COVID-19,” a guide that outlines self-care strategies, resources for providers and their families, and stress management techniques. Additionally, in response to the heightened stresses on long-term substance use disorder recovery, Michigan has also developed guidance on supporting peers during this pandemic.
While these steps in response to COVID-19 are designed to address concerns about treatment access during the pandemic – sometimes, explicitly – policymakers are also considering the long-term service and budget implications of these changes. In a time of historically reduced state revenues, leaders will be considering how policy shifts and adjustments made during this pandemic can or should be adapted for the post-pandemic treatment of OUD, with likely fewer resources to do so.
Tackling the Trifecta: State Approaches to Addressing Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders, HIV, and Hepatitis C
/in Policy Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health IT/Data, HIV/AIDS, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Quality and Measurement, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by Eliza Mette, Jodi Manz and Kristina LongIn response to an increase in HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in individuals with substance use disorders (SUD), including opioid use disorders (OUD), state policymakers are employing multifaceted strategies to address this syndemic, collaborating with public and private partners to prevent the spread of infectious disease and provide access to evidence-based treatment. This report explores innovative approaches Louisiana, New York, and West Virginia have taken to address co-occurring HIV and HCV infections and SUD – providing both rural and urban perspectives – and highlights their resourceful use of funding streams, leveraging of data, and advancing community readiness.
Background
The opioid epidemic has left no state untouched. In 2017, over 70,000 people died from drug overdoses,[1] 11.4 million people improperly used opioids, and 2.1 million people suffered from an opioid use disorder.[2] In addition to the thousands of overdoses and overdose deaths attributed to opioids, another result of the nation’s substance use disorder crisis has been an increase in rates of infectious diseases in people who inject drugs (PWID), including hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, which can be transmitted by sharing contaminated syringes.[3]
Of particular concern is the fact that most new cases of hepatitis C are related to injection drug, and a previously consistent 25-year downward trend in rates of HIV infection among PWID is beginning to plateau.[4] The cumulative costs of treatment for these two conditions in the United States is quite high:
- The total annual cost of providing treatment and services to people living with HIV was $21.5 billion in FY 2019,[5]
- And the total annual health care cost for managing chronic hepatitis C in the is estimated to be $15 billion.[6]
In contrast, allocating the equivalent of the cost of treatment for a single person living with HIV ($400,000) to harm reduction[7] strategies would lead to the prevention of 30 new HIV cases – a significant cost-savings beyond the clear benefit of disease prevention for individuals and communities.[8] States at the forefront of addressing the opioid epidemic are increasingly interested in providing not only treatment, but also access to comprehensive prevention services in order to safeguard public health and make good use of limited resources.
Louisiana
In Louisiana, the number of opioid-related overdose deaths nearly tripled between 2012 and 2018 and exceeded 450 in 2018 – a 13.5 percent increase from the previous year.[9] Louisiana is experiencing a concurrent hepatitis C and HIV crisis:
- Between 2007 and 2017, 40,263 people received a hepatitis C diagnosis,[10] and the Louisiana Office of Public Health estimates that injection drug use is currently putting 112,424 more Louisianans at “very high risk” of infection.[11]
- There is significant co-morbidity within this population – in 2017, the state recorded at least 1,290 Louisianans who were co-infected with HIV and HCV.[12]
To address these challenges, Louisiana developed a statewide Hepatitis C Elimination Plan. The plan was created by the Louisiana Office of Public Health (OPH) in collaboration with the Louisiana Department of Health, the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS), and state and national experts.[13] This comprehensive plan acknowledges the role of SUD in the state’s hepatitis C epidemic and the risks associated with intravenous drug use, and it aims to diagnose 90 percent and treat 80 percent of Louisianans living with hepatitis C within five years.[14] It also details a range of cross-cutting strategies that engage the private and public sectors, the health care industry, and community-level partners.[15]
Key features of Louisiana’s hepatitis C elimination strategy and related efforts to address SUD and its co-morbidities include:
- Restructuring reimbursement for hepatitis C treatment: Historically, Louisiana has paid for hepatitis C medications by the dose, incurring significant costs in its effort to pay for treatment for Medicaid enrollees or who are corrections-involved.[16] In response, the state’s HCV Elimination Plan features an innovative purchasing agreement between Louisiana and Asegua Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilead Sciences Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.[17] Referred to as a “modified subscription model,” this agreement sets a capped cost for all HCV medication administered to the state’s Medicaid and corrections-involved populations.[18] The methodology incentivizes the state to identify and treat as many people as possible, as the marginal cost of each additional patient is essentially zero.[19]
Louisiana estimates that approximately 34,000 Medicaid enrollees and 5,000 incarcerated individuals in state corrections facilities have chronic hepatitis C; however, fewer than 3 percent of those 34,000 Medicaid enrollees were treated in 2018.[20] Under its agreement with Asegua, Louisiana aims to treat 10,000 Medicaid-enrolled and corrections-involved individuals by the end of 2020, and 30,000 individuals by 2024.[21] Preliminary claims data indicate that 2,900 people have initiated treatment since the July 15 start date, considerably more than the number of people treated in all of 2018.[22]
- Leveraging data to track and address co-morbid conditions: The Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange (LaPHIE)[23] was first implemented in 2008 as a partnership between OPH and Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division.[24] OPH maintains comprehensive HIV surveillance data that is updated daily through lab reporting. If a patient enters a participating hospital and a provider opens that patient’s electronic medical record to provide services, the provider will be notified if the patient has not received timely HIV care and prompted to take appropriate action.[25] LaPHIE is also bi-directional: any action taken by the provider with respect to the patient, whether it be a referral or a link back into care, is incorporated into the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR) and returned to OPH, which then updates the state’s HIV surveillance data.[26] This system is designed to strengthen care retention and improve disease management for patients living with HIV by engaging them at different care sites across the region. Improved HIV care management, with the aim of making a patient’s viral load undetectable, has the potential to not only improve an individual’s health status but also reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission to others.
Louisiana recently received funding to expand LaPHIE’s innovative functionality to include hepatitis C surveillance data and is now in the process of building out this new capacity.[27] State officials view the Hepatitis C Elimination Plan as a call to action to Louisiana hospital systems, whose participation in the LaPHIE surveillance system has dropped in recent years.[28]
- Focusing on high-risk populations: Louisiana has been successful by targeting limited state resources on particularly high-need populations:
HIV Prevalence and Diagnoses Attributed to Injecting Drug Use

- Individuals with SUD: In conjunction with its Hepatitis C Elimination Plan, Louisiana’s STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program updated its contracts with community-based organizations to require combined HIV, syphilis, and HCV screening and linkages to treatment for individuals with new diagnoses.[29]
- Individuals who are corrections-involved: OPH has worked closely with the Louisiana DPS&C to develop a treatment model for HCV and HIV, including linkage to care.[30] The DPS&C has offered opt-out HCV screening for all new individuals as they enter the state correctional system since 2008 and opt-out HIV screening for individuals upon release since 2014. OPH provides supplies and training for both of these initiatives.[31] Starting in October 2019, OPH launched a population-level screening project with DPS&C through which OPH offers screening for hepatitis A, B, and C, HIV, and syphilis in every state-run facility, and plans to complete screening all current state inmates by mid-2020.[32] OPH also supports a corrections-based, pre-release program leveraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Part B funding from HRSA – specialists work with inmates living with HIV prior to their release and connect them with case management and support services in the communities to which they are discharged.[33] Louisiana is exploring the possibility of building a similar system for people with hepatitis C as part of its elimination plan.
- Individuals with HIV: Recognizing that people with SUD and related comorbidities often have insufficient dental care that can contribute to poor health outcomes, the Louisiana Health Access Program (LA HAP)[34] leveraged Ryan White Part B resources and worked with Guardian Dental to increase access to comprehensive oral health care for people with HIV.[35] Prior to this collaboration, people with HIV regularly encountered barriers to adequate dental care, including low annual caps, unexpected bills, and limitations on covered services.[36] The state was supported by the Health Services and Research Administration (HRSA) to structure a self-insured plan that would reduce unmet oral health care needs of people infected with HIV.[37] As a result, more than 2,000 individuals have been able to access a comprehensive set of services that address oral health care issues related to HIV infection.
West Virginia
West Virginia has one of the highest rates of drug overdose and mortality in the country. Compounding this crisis, injection drug use in West Virginia has contributed to the quintupling in new HIV diagnoses from 2014 to 2019.[38] Injection drug use is the second-leading cause of transmission for new HIV diagnoses for men and women in the state, according to most recent data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).[39] In 2018, Cabell County, on the state’s western edge, reported 81 new cases of HIV, which qualified it as an active HIV cluster – all 81 new HIV infections were tied to injection drug use.[40] As a very rural state that has been highly affected by the opioid crisis and its comorbidities, West Virginia has taken a decentralized approach in its harm reduction efforts, providing guidance and certification standards to communities to assist them in developing and administering programs at the local level.[41] Since 2011, when the state’s first harm reduction program opened,[42] West Virginia has navigated the challenges of operating syringe exchange programs, which is an evidenced-based, albeit sometimes controversial, approach.
HIV Prevalence and HIV Diagnoses Attributed to Injecting Drug Use
Source: West Virginia Opioid Summary, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016
Rural areas can face particular challenges in developing and sustaining harm reduction programs. Transportation is limited, confidentiality can be elusive in small towns, and the stigma associated with drug use can be heightened in rural, conservative communities.[43] In West Virginia, Kanawha County started the Kanawha-Charleston harm reduction program through its
department of health, offering syringe exchange in addition to comprehensive harm reduction services.[44] At its height, the program provided services to over 400 individuals weekly, effectively maximizing access to sterile syringes, preventing new HIV cases, and screening for HCV.[45] However, highly publicized public opposition, which was attributed to an uptick in crime and increase in discarded syringes in the area where the organization worked, ultimately led to the closure of the program in early 2019.[46]
West Virginia’s experience with the site in Kanawha County suggests that state support for community-level harm reduction programs can be most successful when they are community-specific.[47] Noted one West Virginia state official, “At the state level, you can’t just say, this program will work everywhere, or look at what other states have done and assume that it will work everywhere – state policymakers and public health officials have to tailor [the program] to the individual, unique communities that they serve.”[48] Those states in which syringe exchange (as a component of harm reduction) is more controversial are faced with the added challenge of finding the balance between the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach and implementing more limited models that are acceptable to local communities.[49] Providing messaging that helps to educate communities about the benefits of harm reduction services, including syringe exchange, may also be important in building community support.
Standardizing processes, engaging communities: In an effort to support implementation of harm reduction programs, West Virginia created Harm Reduction Program Guidelines and Procedures, which establish core certification requirements that these programs must meet in order to receive Department of Health and Human Resources’ funding.[50] To be certified, the program must outline all services provided, demonstrate compliance with state laws, rules, and local ordinances, and provide documentation of the involvement of the local health department.[51] The organization must also coordinate with local law enforcement and document any concerns they may have.[52] An integral step outlined in the guidelines is assessing the community’s readiness and building the community’s support prior to implementation.[53] The guidelines also offer several strategies to engage community stakeholders and encourage community buy-in prior to implementing harm reduction programs.[54] Although these programs do not need to be certified in order to operate in West Virginia, sites that complete the certification process are more likely to programmatically align with the state’s eight core strategies for successful harm reduction programs:
- Build community support prior to implementation of a harm reduction program and maintain support for the duration of the program;
- Conduct routine program and process evaluation;
- Have a detailed community syringe retrieval in place for non-sterile syringes found in the community;
- Emphasize harm reduction as a Pathway to Care;
- Emphasize increasing stability and reducing risk among harm reduction participants and fostering supportive relationships with harm reduction program personnel;
- Train caring and supportive staff to provide consistent messaging of safe injection practices, overdose prevention, and infectious disease screening;
- Recommend dispensing syringes in person, not via proxy; and
- Have a mechanism to get patients in treatment when they are ready.[55]
Incremental changes: Despite the programmatic and public relations challenges that harm reduction programs have sometimes faced in West Virginia, communities are gradually embracing these programs. New sites are opening, existing programs are experiencing higher client engagement,[56] and the state has allocated State Treatment Response and State Opioid Response federal grant funding to support harm reduction programs in recent years.[57] This community-by-community approach has allowed the state to increase access to treatment for SUD and prevent the spread of infectious diseases.[58] In its work with local communities, West Virginia has also leveraged CDC’s and HRSA’s HIV/AIDS Bureau’s HIV cluster detection and response service in order to identify at-risk communities, assist local health departments as they identify prevention and service system gaps, and allocate resources accordingly to be responsive to new outbreaks.[59]
New York
New York has a long history of innovation in preventing the spread of infectious disease associated with injection drug use. In particular, the state invested early in its Syringe Exchange Program,[60] creating the foundation for a comprehensive harm reduction approach. Through these efforts, only 2 percent of new HIV infections per year are reported among PWID.[61] Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Ending the Epidemic plan includes achieving zero new HIV infections among PWID and a plan for the first-ever decrease in HIV prevalence in New York by the end of 2020.[62]
HIV Prevalence and HIV Diagnoses Attributed to Injection Drug Use
A lasting result of this early investment is New York’s Harm Reduction Initiative, a program funded by the state’s Department of Health, AIDS Institute.[63] This program funds comprehensive harm reduction programs for individuals living with SUD and the people and communities that support them, including New York’s innovative Drug User Health Hubs.[64]
*New York Opioid Summary, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016
Supporting integrated models of care: Drug User Health Hubs are enhanced syringe exchange programs that offer a broad range of services, driven by the particular needs of the population in the surrounding community.[65] Hubs are intended to increase access to physical and behavioral health services, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for people with opioid use disorder (OUD).[66] Services are offered at hub sites and through referral.[67] Hubs provide services and support with an emphasis on prevention and responding to opioid overdose.[68] Services can include:
- Medical services: Includes accessible buprenorphine; wound care; HCV testing, diagnosis, and treatment; and rapid assessment of a client’s needs.
- Opioid overdose prevention/aftercare for an overdose: Includes training and provision of naloxone overdose reversal kits; training on safer injection practices and provision of syringes; facilitation of appropriate referrals from Emergency Departments and first responders, etc.
- Law enforcement diversion: Includes the law enforcement diversion of PWID who have committed low-level infractions to Drug User Health Hubs.
- Anti-stigma activities: Features hub employees who engage with local providers to encourage a harm reduction focus in their provision of care to PWID, and with local communities to destigmatize injection drug use and create a welcoming environment for all community members.[69]
The goal of New York’s hubs is to transform the state’s syringe exchange programs into locations that can provide comprehensive, easily accessible medical services to PWID.[70] In many health care settings, patients are required to receive psychosocial counseling in order to be prescribed medications to treat OUD.[71] Recognizing that this can be a substantial disincentive to getting treatment, New York’s Department of Health (NYSDOH) began a buprenorphine-first approach, providing medications for treating OUD as a first step, without initially requiring other services.[72] Individuals can receive buprenorphine only, or opt to concurrently access services that can include counseling and other medical treatments as needed, such as those for soft tissue infections, hepatitis C, HIV, and diabetes.[73] As part of the state’s Strategy to Eliminate Hepatitis C, the NYSDOH Bureau of Hepatitis Health Care funds patient navigator positions in seven different hubs in upstate New York.[74] These individuals provide guidance to people living with hepatitis C as they navigate the health care system, and help link them to care and treatment.[75]
Leveraging Medicaid for prevention: In 2018, New York implemented a Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) that allows the state’s harm reduction programs to deliver certain Medicaid reimbursable services, including medication management and treatment adherence counseling for MAT, HIV and HCV infections, mental health conditions, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection.[76]
A product of a partnership among the NYSDOH AIDS Institute’s Office of Drug User Health, the Office of Health Insurance Programs, and community partners, the SPA came to fruition after extensive negotiation and revision.[77] Initially, it was required to have a physician perform the harm reduction services covered under the SPA, but the state was able to modify staffing requirements, recognizing that many harm reduction programs in the state do not have medical providers on staff.[78] The approved SPA permits licensed clinical social workers, certified peers, and direct service providers with relevant experience to provide Medicaid-reimbursable harm reduction services under the SPA.[79]
The NYSDOH also recently amended the requirements that community-based organizations must satisfy in order to become licensed health care facilities, allowing organizations such as syringe exchange programs, to provide and bill Medicaid for primary care services.[80] Syringe exchange programs have historically been unable to directly deliver primary health care services and have been required to contract out these services in order to deliver them on-site – a model that was not financially sustainable for most.[81] The change permits these organizations to fully integrate Medicaid-reimbursable primary care, including HCV and HIV screening, assessment, and treatment within the harm reduction setting.[82] State officials see the ability to deliver primary care in these nontraditional settings as necessary to achieve the goal of disease elimination.[83]
Considerations for States and Conclusion
While states have taken different approaches to addressing the opioid crisis and its related increase in infectious disease incidence, these three states’ approaches provide some common themes that can be implemented elsewhere:
- Robust data is critical to address the complex co-morbidities associated with SUD. Unlike HIV surveillance, which remains relatively well-funded and robust, hepatitis C surveillance typically does not have consistent funding nor a robust infrastructure across states. However, some states are taking steps to improve their infrastructure and leverage new technology. For example, Louisiana is adapting its HIV surveillance strategy and standards to include hepatitis C surveillance, and in so doing has turned a passive registry into an “active and rigorous system of care,” according to one state public health official. Similarly, New York is in the process of improving its hepatitis C surveillance infrastructure as part of its statewide elimination plan. In West Virginia, the CDC’s HIV cluster detection and response team has been an important resource to help the state accurately track HIV outbreaks and appropriately allocate resources.
- Medicaid plays an important role in prevention and treatment. One Louisiana state official observed, “Our plan to eliminate hepatitis C hinged on the increased insurance coverage that Medicaid expansion has provided our residents.” Medicaid expansion in Louisiana was critical in expanding access to comprehensive HIV prevention and treatment, as newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries were able to transition away from reliance solely on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. Louisiana used Medicaid funding to shift and alleviate costs and was able to provide expanded services to people with HIV. New York, similarly, has been able to leverage Medicaid to create a harm reduction benefit, which has expanded the ability of the state’s syringe exchange sites to engage in prevention activities.
- Solutions must be tailored to local needs. Because the OUD crisis looks very different in different places, policymakers must be responsive to specific drivers and factors that shape a community’s experience. In response to the challenges it experienced in implementing sustainable harm reduction programs in West Virginia, the state developed certification guidelines that it ties to state funding. In so doing, the state ensures that the majority of harm reduction programs in West Virginia assess and engage with their local communities prior to implementation. Similarly, one of the mandates of New York’s Drug User Health Hubs is to work with the communities in which they operate to reduce the stigma associated with substance use, and better involve community members who inject drugs.
Conclusion
The concurrent increase in the incidence of blood-borne infectious diseases is just one consequence of an OUD crisis that has had a far-reaching impact on the nation. By implementing evidence-based, community-tailored prevention and treatment policies, states can prevent new infections, better address co-morbid SUD and infectious diseases, and reduce state costs. Through coordination and targeted resources, states are developing sustainable prevention and treatment policies that can address the complexity of factors at the intersection of SUD and infectious disease.
Notes
[1] “Opioid Overdose,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 18, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html.
[2] “The opioid epidemic and emerging public health policy priorities,” American Medical Association, October 31, 2019, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/opioids/opioid-epidemic-and-emerging-public-health-policy-priorities.
[3] “Persons Who Inject Drugs (PWID)s,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 19, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/pwid/index.html.
[4] “Syringe Services Programs (SSPs),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 23, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-summary.html.
[5] “U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: Trends Over Time,” Kaiser Family Foundation, March 2019, https://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-trends-over-time/.
[6] “Syringe Services Programs (SSPs),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 23, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-summary.html.
[7] “Department of Health and Human Services Implementation Guidance to Support Certain Components of Syringe Services Programs, 2016,” Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, https://www.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-ssp-guidance.pdf.
[8] “Harm Reduction for HIV Prevention,” Avert, March 2019 https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/prevention/harm-reduction.
[9] Louisiana Department of Health Opioid Steering Committee, “Louisiana’s Opioid Response Plan,” Louisiana Department of Public Health, 2019, http://ldh.la.gov/assets/opioid/LaOpioidResponsePlan2019.pdf.
[10] Sam Burgess, “Louisiana’s Hepatitis C Elimination Plan,” Louisiana Department of Health, 2019, https://www.nastad.org/sites/default/files/Uploads/2019/2019-am-burgess.pdf.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Louisiana Hepatitis C Elimination Plan: 2019-2024,” Louisiana Department of Health, August 2019, https://www.louisianahealthhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HepCFreeLA.pdf.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ted Alcorn, “Hepatitis C Drugs may Serve as Model,” The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/louisianas-deal-for-hepatitis-c-drugs-may-serve-as-model-11568347621.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Gretchen A. Meier, “Using the Drug Pricing Netflix Model to Help States Tackle the Hep C Crisis,” USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, August 16, 2019, https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/using-the-drug-pricing-netflix-model-to-help-states-tackle-the-hep-c-crisis/.
[20] “Solicitation for Offers for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers to Enter Into Contract Negotiations to Implement Hepatitis C Subscription Model,” Louisiana Department of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/SFO/SFOWrittenAnswersManufacturers.pdf.
[21] Gretchen A. Meier, “Using the Drug Pricing Netflix Model to Help States Tackle the Hep C Crisis,” USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, August 16, 2019, https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/using-the-drug-pricing-netflix-model-to-help-states-tackle-the-hep-c-crisis/.
[22] Interview with Louisiana.
[23] The Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange was originally funded by HRSA.
[24] Interview with Louisiana.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] “Louisiana Hepatitis C Elimination Plan: 2019-2024,” Louisiana Department of Health, August 2019, https://www.louisianahealthhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HepCFreeLA.pdf.
[30] Interview with Louisiana.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Louisiana Health Access Program, 2018, https://www.lahap.org/dental/.
[35] Interview with Louisiana.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Catherine Slemp, “Health Advisory # 162,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, October 2019, https://oeps.wv.gov/healthalerts/documents/wv/WVHAN_162.pdf.
[39] “West Virginia Opioid Summary,” National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2019 https://www.drugabuse.gov/opioid-summaries-by-state/west-virginia-opioid-summary.
[40] Kyle Swenson, “Unraveling an HIV cluster,” The Washington Post, November 3, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unraveling-an-hiv-cluster/2019/11/03/66cf4526-f5af-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html.
[41] “Harm Reduction Program (HRP) Guidelines and Certification Procedures,” West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/Documents/hcp/HRP_Guidelines_2018.pdf.
[42] “West Virginia Harm Reduction Programs At-A-Glance,” West Virginia Office of Epidemiology and Prevention Services, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/about/wv_hrp.pdf.
[43] Sean T. Allen et al., “Understanding the public health consequences of suspending a rural syringe services program: a qualitative study of the experiences of people who inject drugs,” Harm Reduction Journal, May 21, 2019, https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-019-0305-7.
[44] Kara Leigh Lofton, “Diving Deep into Harm Reduction Part 1: Why W.Va’s Largest Needle Exchange Closed,” West Virginia Public Broadcasting, November 26, 2018, https://www.wvpublic.org/post/diving-deep-harm-reduction-part-1-why-wva-s-largest-needle-exchange-closed#stream/0.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Interview with West Virginia.
[48] Ibid.
[49] HHS resources for Syringe Services Programs may be accessed here: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/policies-issues/syringe-services-programs.
[50] West Virginia Harm Reduction Programs At-A-Glance,” West Virginia Office of Epidemiology and Prevention Services, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/about/wv_hrp.pdf.
[51] “Harm Reduction Program (HRP) Guidelines and Certification Procedures,” West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, February 1, 2018, https://dhhr.wv.gov/oeps/harm-reduction/Documents/HRP_Guidelines_2018.pdf.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Bureau for Public Health, “White Paper: The Need for Harm Reduction Programs in West Virginia,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, November 6, 2017, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/training/hrp_white_paper.pdf.
[57] “Announcement of Funding Availability – Harm Reduction,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Public Health, May 17, 2019, https://dhhr.wv.gov/bhhf/AFA/Documents/AFA%20FY%2019/Harm%20Reduction%20AFA%20FINAL.pdf.
[58] Bureau for Public Health, “White Paper: The Need for Harm Reduction Programs in West Virginia,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, November 6, 2017, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/training/hrp_white_paper.pdf.
[59] Interview with West Virginia.
[60] “Policies and Procedures: Syringe Exchange Programs,” New York State Department of Health Aids Institute, September 2016, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/consumers/prevention/needles_syringes/syringe_exchange/docs/policies_and_procedures.pdf.
[61] Interview with New York.
[62] “Ending the AIDS Epidemic in New York State,” New York State Department of Health, January 2020, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/ending_the_epidemic/.
[63] “Drug User Health,” New York State Department of Health, August 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/general/about/substance_user_health.htm.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] “Drug User Health – Drug User Health Hubs,” New York State Department of Health, October 2019, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/consumers/prevention/.
[69] “Drug User Health,” New York State Department of Health, August 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/general/about/substance_user_health.htm.
[70] Interview with New York.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Interview with New York.
[75] “New York State Hepatitis C Elimination Task Force,” New York State Department of Health, April 2019, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/hepatitis/hepatitis_c/elimination.htm.
[76] “New York State Plan Amendment,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, August 10, 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/state_plans/status/non-inst/approved/docs/app_2017-08-10_spa_13-19.pdf.
[77] Interview with New York.
[78] Ibid.
[79] “Harm Reduction Services,” New York State Department of Health, May 2018, https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/2018/docs/harm_reduction.pdf.
[80] Interview with New York.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Ibid.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank Louisiana, New York, and West Virginia state officials who generously shared their time and insight during the preparation of this report. The authors also thank Trish Riley and Kitty Purington of NASHP, as well as Carolyn Robbins and her colleagues at the Health Resources and Services Administration for their guidance and helpful feedback.
This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UD3OA22891, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. The information or content and conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS, or the US government.
States May Soon Have to Provide Medication-Assisted Treatment to Inmates, Here’s How to Fund It
/in Policy Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health /by Kitty Purington and Chris KukkaState policymakers on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic understand that treating justice-involved individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) offers a critical opportunity to expand access to treatment. While there is strong evidence that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) promotes recovery, saves lives, and reduces re-incarceration, states must surmount significant policy and financial challenges to provide MAT in correctional settings.
Without MAT, 77 percent of inmates with OUD relapse within three months of their release, even if they receive counseling in jail.According to a SAMSHA report, MAT has been found to “reduce criminal activity, arrests, as well as probation revocations and re-incarcerations.”
• A Sacramento County Jail MAT program with 174 inmates found only 31% were arrested for new offenses.
• A study of 370 individuals who completed a MAT program in Middlesex County, MA, found only 19% were rearrested.
• A MAT study of 200 in Louisville, KY, jails found 47% remained arrest-free.
Source: Jail-Based MAT: Promising Practices, Guidelines and Resources, National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the National Sheriffs’ Association
A recent federal court decision indicates that states may need to take a close look at how to overcome barriers to expand access to FDA-approved MAT — methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone — in jails. In that decision – which could have nationwide implications – the court ruled that preventing access to MAT is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 8th Amendment.
A growing number of state legislatures and governors, through executive orders, have mandated MAT in their correctional facilities. Last month, Maryland passed legislation that requires facilities to assess inmates’ substance use status, treat those with OUD with MAT, and provide follow-up treatment and care coordination after release.
Erek L. Barron, a member of Maryland’s General Assembly and a cosponsor of the new law, suggests the treatment could eventually pay for itself in avoided costs from reduced incarceration rates. “States need to understand that there is a high return on investment in MAT,” he told NASHP. “Addressing this high-risk population will enhance states’ response to the opioid crisis and crimes by reducing overdoses and recidivism rates. The key is understanding that substance abuse is a health care problem, not a crime problem.”
Initially, Maryland’s new treatment requirement will be phased into correctional facilities. The program begins in four counties and will cover the entire state and the Baltimore Pre-trial Complex within two years. The screening and treatment program is funded by the state’s initial allocation of $2 million. A report on the initiative’s impact on recidivism, treatment uptake, and crime will be submitted annually to the state’s General Assembly so lawmakers can assess MAT’s impact and its return on investment.
Barron and bill supporters faced challenges from the state’s various political subdivisions that ran local jails and the state prison system, so they took a “health-focused” approach when negotiating with correctional officials. “My primary partners were the county and local health officers,” he explained, “There was also media attention that helped educate the public about this gap in our response to the opioid crisis. I also learned that states are getting substantial amounts of federal funding from the State Opioid Response Grants that can be directed towards MAT in correction facilities.”
But funding MAT implementation in county and state facilities and after inmates are released remains a challenge for many states, particularly in states that did not expand Medicaid, according to states working with the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) and reports from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.
To start or sustain MAT during incarceration and after, states may want to consider the following strategies:
- Tap state block grants and the federal grant funds recently allocated to states for OUD and substance abuse disorder (SUD) treatment by the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act and other federal programs.
- Encourage criminal justice agencies to participate in group purchasing organizations in order to negotiate more affordable rates for MAT medications on their formulary. (Read Cross-Agency Strategies to Curb Health Care Costs: Leveraging State Purchasing Power for more information.)
- Medicaid agencies that do not provide coverage for all three medications approved for MAT may consider including them on their formularies.
- States can consider the use of Medicaid options and funding vehicles – such as 1115 waivers – to cover reentry support services, peer services, outreach services, and wraparound case management services for people with opioid use disorders.
- Review Medicaid suspension/termination rules. These rules may present barriers for individuals to re-activate their Medicaid coverage and obtain MAT following release from jail. Read NASHP’s report, Opportunities for Enrolling Justice-Involved Individuals in Medicaid.
- Despite the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, the essential health benefits of many health plans do not cover OUD/SUD treatments the same way that other chronic diseases are covered. Oversight of private insurance plans can help to ensure coverage of MAT so that individuals reentering the community from jail or prison can access medication in a timely manner.
- To obtain lower-cost drugs, agencies can also participate in the federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which allows certain entities that serve large numbers of uninsured patients to obtain drugs from pharmaceutical suppliers at the same discounted rates that Medicaid pays (about 25 to 50 percent less).
In the months ahead, NASHP will be publishing additional reports detailing effective strategies that states are employing to address the opioid epidemic.
State Strategies for Integrating Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Primary Care
/in Policy Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home /by Hannah DorrSubstance use disorder affects an estimated 20.8 million people in the United States,[i] however, national survey data show that fewer than 10 percent of individuals with an alcohol use disorder and 20 percent of individuals with an opioid use disorder receive treatment for the condition.[ii],[iii] Individuals battling substance use disorder may not perceive a need for treatment, which poses a barrier to states trying to connect individuals with care. Primary care physicians are well positioned to identify and engage those individuals who may benefit from treatment services.
Substance use disorder treatment has a possible 12:1 return on investment when accounting for both medical and societal benefits.[iv] As the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment services in the United States, Medicaid agencies and policymakers have significant incentive to increase access to and the coordination of primary care and substance use disorder treatment.
Primary care providers already play a significant role in ensuring individuals with complex health needs receive appropriate care across the healthcare continuum by acting as the primary touch point to the healthcare system. Primary care providers administer Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment to identify individuals with substance use disorders and, with some additional training, can provide medication-assisted treatment services to individuals with alcohol and opioid use disorders. The provision of these services in the primary care setting is not meant to supplant specialty care, but is intended to promote an integrated approach to substance use disorder treatment.
States have promoted collaborative and team-based care through strengthened partnerships between federally qualified health centers and community health centers, enhanced telemedicine and teleconsultation programs to overcome geographic barriers and workforce shortages, as well as increased provider training and education opportunities to combat critical provider capacity issues.
Beyond these initiatives, states have enacted major Medicaid delivery and payment system reform to build primary care capacity for the purpose of treating substance use disorders and strengthening connections with specialty providers. Much of this work has been accomplished through leveraging the flexibility of federal authorities such as section 1115 waivers and section 1945 Medicaid Health Home State Plan Options.
For example, New Hampshire’s section 1115 demonstration waiver uses the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment program to create regional integrated delivery networks that are required to partner with a substantial percentage of primary care and substance use disorder providers in their region, as well as peer-based supports, community health workers, and community-based organizations that provide social and support services. Each of the integrated delivery networks work to promote integration of physical and behavioral health, improve care transitions, and increase treatment capacity.
Vermont’s statewide Blueprint for Health program, which connects recognized patient-centered medical homes with multidisciplinary community health teams, provided a foundation for the establishment of the , which built a comprehensive regional, “hub-and-spoke” system of treatment designed to provide more accessible and better coordinated care for individuals with an opioid use disorder. Under this model, funded in part by the state under the health home state plan option, accredited Opioid Treatment Programs offering methadone treatment serve as hubs. Buprenorphine-waivered providers, offering office-based opioid treatment, serve as the spokes. The Care Alliance significantly augmented services for individuals seeking substance use disorder treatment by expanding buprenorphine treatment, connecting individuals receiving care at Opioid Treatment Programs to primary care, and embedding registered nurses and masters-level clinicians trained in addiction medicine into primary care practices.
The role of primary care providers is especially critical in combatting the growing national opioid epidemic. Primary care providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants collectively write about half of all opioid prescriptions in the United States, which makes these providers well-positioned to ensure appropriate opioid use.[v] State prescription drug monitoring programs, utilization management policies such as prior authorization, and expanded access to Naloxone are important state levers to support the ability for primary care providers to prevent opioid misuse and overdose. Additionally, a recent study found the majority of states have passed Naloxone Access and/or Good Samaritan Laws and these policies have been shown to significantly reduce opioid related deaths with no evidence of increased recreational use.[vi]
A new issue brief written by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) further discusses the evidence-based interventions that can be implemented in primary care settings, current state payment and delivery system reforms, and key policy considerations to support primary care providers in combatting the nation’s growing opioid epidemic highlighted in this blog.
This work was made possible by The Commonwealth Fund.
[i] National Institutes of Health, “10 Percent of US Adults Have Drug Use Disorder at Some Point in Their Lives,” news release, November 18, 2015, https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/executive-summary.pdf.
[ii] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014), https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf.
[iii] Brendan Saloner and Shankar Karthikeyan, “Changes in Substance Abuse Treatment Use Among Individuals with Opioid Use Disorders in the United States, 2004-2013,” JAMA 314, no. 14 (October 13, 2015): 1515–17.
[iv] National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2012), https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/drug-addiction-treatment-worth-its-cost
[v] “Prescribing Data.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last modified December 20, 2016, Accessed February 6, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html.
[vi] Daniel I. Rees, et al., With a Little Help from My Friends: The Effects of Naloxone Access and Good Samaritan Laws on Opioid-Related Deaths (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017), https://www.nber.org/papers/w23171.
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Washington, DC Office:
1233 20th St., N.W., Suite 303Washington, DC 20036
p: (202) 903-0101
f: (202) 903-2790
Contact Us
Phone: 202-903-0101



For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 























































































































































