Typology of laws restricting access to methadone treatment in the United States: A latent class analysis.
Law
Methadone
Opioid agonist treatment
Opioid treatment program
USA
Journal
The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
10
02
2023
revised:
09
07
2023
accepted:
14
07
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
4
8
2023
entrez:
4
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership. A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated. States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22). States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership.
METHODS
A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated.
RESULTS
States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22).
CONCLUSIONS
States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37540917
pii: S0955-3959(23)00188-3
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104141
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Methadone
UC6VBE7V1Z
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104141Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: CT has received speaker fees from Abbvie and Gilead and has received a research grant from Merck outside the submitted work. JG is a consultant/advisor and has received research grants from Abbvie, bioLytical, Camurus, Cepheid, Gilead Sciences, Hologic, and Indivior. NK provides testimony for ongoing opioid litigation. AC, FM, SD, VB, ADM, CSD, SC and MC have nothing to disclose.