Background Evidence demonstrates that medications for treating opioid use disorder (MOUD) —namely buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone—are effective at treating opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing associated harms. However, MOUDs are heavily underutilized, largely due to the under-supply of providers trained and willing to prescribe the medications. Methods To understand comparative beliefs about MOUD and barriers to MOUD, we conducted a mixed-methods study that involved focus group interviews and an online survey disseminated to a random group of licensed U.S. physicians, which oversampled physicians with a preexisting waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Focus group results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Results Study findings suggest that physicians have higher perceptions of efficacy for methadone and buprenorphine than for extended-release naltrexone, including for patients with co-occurring mental health disorders. Insurance obstacles, such as prior authorization requirements, were the most commonly cited barrier to prescribing buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. Regulatory barriers, such as the training required to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, were not considered significant barriers by many physicians to prescribing buprenorphine and naltrexone in office-based settings. Nor did physicians perceive diversion to be a prominent barrier to prescribing buprenorphine. In focus groups, physicians identified financial, logistical, and workforce barriers—such as a lack of addiction treatment specialists—as additional barriers to prescribing medications to treat OUD. Conclusions Additional education is needed for physicians regarding the comparative efficacy of different OUD medications. Governmental policies should mandate full insurance coverage of and prohibit prior authorization requirements for OUD medications.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the size and distribution of the advanced practice psychiatric nurse workforce relative to the total psychiatry workforce to determine whether nurses are predominantly working in areas with higher or lower levels of behavioral health specialists. METHODS: State-level data for psychiatric nurses were obtained from the American Nurses Credentialing Center, and included mental health psychiatric nurse practitioners, adult psychiatric nurse practitioners, child psychiatric clinical nurse specialists, and adult psychiatric clinical nurse specialists. Supply estimates of the full psychiatry workforce were calculated for comparison purposes. State population estimates were obtained from U.S. Census Bureau data. State workforce estimates were converted to a 1:100,000 provider-to-population ratio to analyze the density of providers across states. RESULTS: In 2018, the psychiatric workforce supply was estimated to be composed of 66,740 providers, including psychiatrists ( n = 47,046; 71%), psychiatric nurses ( n = 17,534; 26%), physician assistants ( n = 1,164; 2%), and psychiatric pharmacists ( n = 966; 1%). Overall, psychiatric providers appeared to be most densely concentrated in the northeast region of the United States. A dearth of providers was most pronounced within areas in the 12-state Midwest region, southern states, California, and Nevada. The average concentration of psychiatric workers was 22.61 per 100,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study find inconsistent pattern of how psychiatric nurses are distributed relative to the rest of the workforce, but reinforce the idea that they are essential in addressing care needs in areas with low concentrations of psychiatry specialists—especially if they are authorized to work to the full extent of their training/education.

No abstract

Introduction: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and prompted by recent federal and state policy shifts impacting behavioral health care delivery, the use of telebehavioral health has rapidly increased. This qualitative study describes behavioral health provider perspectives on the use of telebehavioral health before and during the pandemic and how policy changes impacted access to and utilization of behavioral health services in Michigan. Materials and Methods: A convenience sample of 31 licensed and nonlicensed behavioral health providers operating in Michigan participated in semi-structured interviews between July and August 2020. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using inductive methods. Results: The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: (1) increased access to care; (2) maintenance of quality of care; (3) minimal privacy concerns; and (4) client and provider satisfaction. Discussion: During and post-pandemic, providers need flexibility to determine whether in-person or telebehavioral health services, including audio-only, best meet client needs. Providers identified several populations for which telebehavioral health was less accessible: clients with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, those with no broadband Internet access, children, and older adults. Additional training in telebehavioral health service provision can positively impact quality of care. Conclusion: Policies that support reimbursement parity and expand provider use of telebehavioral health services should be maintained after the COVID-19 pandemic ends to avoid imposing barriers to accessing behavioral health care barriers post-pandemic.