The US is confronted with a rise in opioid use disorder (OUD), opioid misuse, and opioid-associated harms. Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD)—including methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone—is the gold standard treatment for OUD. MOUD reduces illicit opioid use, mortality, criminal activity, healthcare costs, and high-risk behaviors. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has invested in several national initiatives to encourage access to MOUD treatment. Despite these efforts, by 2017, just over a third of all Veterans diagnosed with OUD received MOUD. VHA OUD specialty care is often concentrated in major hospitals throughout the nation and access to this care can be difficult due to geography or patient choice. Recognizing the urgent need to improve access to MOUD care, in the Spring of 2018, the VHA initiated the Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder, Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) Initiative to facilitate access to MOUD in VHA non-SUD care settings. The SCOUTT Initiative's primary goal is to increase MOUD prescribing in VHA primary care, mental health, and pain clinics by training providers working in those settings on how to provide MOUD and to facilitate implementation by providing an ongoing learning collaborative. Thirteen healthcare providers from each of the 18 VHA regional networks across the VHA were invited to implement the SCOUTT Initiative within one facility in each network. We describe the goals and initial activities of the SCOUTT Initiative leading up to a two-day national SCOUTT Initiative conference attended by 246 participants from all 18 regional networks in the VHA. We also discuss subsequent implementation facilitation and evaluation plans for the SCOUTT Initiative. The VHA SCOUTT Initiative could be a model strategy to implement MOUD within large, diverse health care systems.

The increase in Medicaid enrollees receiving MT in the years following buprenorphine's approval is encouraging. However, it is concerning that MT trends varied so dramatically by characteristics of the county population and that increases in utilization were substantially lower in counties with populations that historically have been disadvantaged with respect to health care access and quality. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that MT benefits are equitably distributed across society and reach disadvantaged individuals who may be at higher risk of experiencing opioid use disorders.

A rise in addiction and overdose deaths involving opioids in the United States has spurred a series of initiatives focused on reducing opioid risks, including several related to prescription of opioids in care of pain. Policy analytical scholarship provides a conceptual framework to assist in understanding this response. Prior to 2011, a 'policy monopoly' of regulators and pharmaceutical manufacturers allowed and encouraged high levels of opioid prescribing. This permissive policy fell apart in the face of adverse outcomes brought to public attention by an 'advocacy coalition' consisting of officials, thought leaders, journalists and interest groups who shared common beliefs. This coalition has generated a more cautious prescribing regimen that has incentivized involuntary termination of opioids in otherwise stable patients, with resultant reports of harm. Its emphasis on dose reduction, regardless of outcomes, mirrors in some ways the prior focus on minimizing pain scores, regardless of outcomes. Central to the present analysis is that policies cannot be comprehensively rational; rather, they emerge from a range of actors and agencies constrained in their ability to assimilate complex data, evaluate the data objectively and to command necessary resources in an iterative, rapid response fashion. The imbalance between strong prescription control and weak pain and addiction treatment expansion exemplifies the policy scholar's notion of 'bounded rationality'. Results have been suboptimum: opioid prescriptions have fallen, but harms to pain patients and overdose deaths have risen. US policymakers could revise the course through a more thoroughgoing engagement with patients, families and communities now coping with both pain and addiction.

Buprenorphine is one of the gold standard medication treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD), with proven effectiveness in preventing overdose, increasing abstinence, and improving quality of life. In the United States, buprenorphine can be legally prescribed and administered in office-based settings from clinicians who are specially credentialed to provide that care under the X-waiver. We believe the X-waiver will ultimately be repealed, but there is a need for a variety of strategies to create a new treatment system after the X-waiver. Building a new tier of treatment capacity will require educational outreach, systems strategies, and enhanced payments.

The Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) acknowledges that racism profoundly affects persons who use alcohol and other drugs. Racism's deadly effects compounded with other social determinants of health result in a cascade of negative impacts. The AMERSA Board of Directors (BOD) proposes an initial set of strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion using a framework that speaks to four key AMERSA experiences: engagement, education, mentorship, and leadership. Through these strategies, AMERSA commits to promoting equity and inclusion to dismantle the individual, institutional, and structural racism that has permeated the United States for centuries.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone and buprenorphine, are effective strategies for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing overdose risk. MOUD treatment rates continue to be low across the US, and currently, some evidence suggests access to evidence-based treatment is becoming increasingly difficult for those with OUD as a result of the 2019 novel corona virus (COVID-19). A major underutilized source to address these serious challenges in the US is community pharmacy given the specialized training of pharmacists, high levels of consumer trust, and general availability for accessing these service settings. Canadian, Australian, and European pharmacists have made important contributions to the treatment and care of those with OUD over the past decades. Unfortunately, US pharmacists are not permitted to prescribe MOUD and are only currently allowed to dispense methadone for the treatment of pain, not OUD. US policymakers, regulators, and practitioners must work to facilitate this advancement of community pharmacy-based through research, education, practice, and industry. Advancing community pharmacy-based MOUD for leading clinical management of OUD and dispensation of treatment medications will afford the US a critical innovation for addressing the opioid epidemic, fallout from COVID-19, and getting individuals the care they need.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a critical concern among US veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommends buprenorphine as a first-line treatment for OUD; however, only 35% of veterans with an OUD currently receive medication treatment. Practical barriers, including the capacity of providers to prescribe, may affect delivery of buprenorphine. We examined the current state of buprenorphine treatment within the VHA. Methods: National VHA administrative databases were queried to identify all providers credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine as of January 2018. Data were extracted on providers’ prescribing capacity (30, 100, or 275 patients concurrently) and number of patients who received buprenorphine in the prior 180 days. Results: A total of 1458 VHA providers were credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine. Forty-three percent of providers had not prescribed buprenorphine to any VHA patients in the past 180 days. Of those that prescribed to at least 1 patient, providers still prescribed to fewer patients than their capacity, regardless of their patient panel size (30, 100, or 275), prescribing to 18.5 patients on average. Conclusions: VHA providers are prescribing buprenorphine below their capacity. A multipronged approach to increase the number of credentialed providers and address barriers to prescribing is needed to ensure that veterans get effective treatment for OUD.

Background In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nationally implemented a transgender e-consultation (e-consult) program with expert clinical guidance for providers. Objective This mixed-methods project aimed to describe providers’ program experiences, reasons for nonuse of the program, and ways to improve the program use. Methods From January to May 2017, 15 urban and rural VA providers who submitted at least one e-consult in the last year participated in semistructured interviews about their program experiences, which were analyzed using content analysis. From November to December 2017, 53 providers who encountered transgender patients but did not utilize the program participated in a brief online survey on the reasons for nonuse of the program and the facilitators encouraging use. Results Qualitative analysis showed that providers learned of the program through email; colleagues; the electronic health record (EHR) system; and participation in the VA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender committees or educational trainings. Providers used the program to establish care plans, hormone therapy recommendations, sexual and reproductive health education, surgical treatment education, patient-provider communication guidance, and second opinions. The facilitators of program use included understandable recommendations, ease of use through the EHR system, and status as the only transgender resource for rural providers. Barriers to use included time constraints, communication-related problems with the e-consult, impractical recommendations for underresourced sites, and misunderstanding of the e-consult purpose. Suggestions for improvement included addition of concise or sectioned responses, expansion of program awareness among providers or patients, designation of a follow-up contact person, and increase in provider education about transgender veterans and related care. Quantitative analysis showed that the common reasons for nonuse of the program were no knowledge of the program (54%), no need of the program (32%), and receipt of help from a colleague outside of e-consult (24%). Common suggestions to improve the program use in quantitative analyses included provision of more information about where to find e-consult in the chart, guidance on talking with patients about the program, and e-mail announcements to improve provider awareness of the program. Post hoc exploratory analyses showed no differences between urban and rural providers. Conclusions The VA transgender e-consult program is useful for providers, but there are several barriers to implementing recommendations, some of which are especially challenging for rural providers. Addressing the identified barriers and enhancing the facilitators may improve program use and quality care for transgender veterans.