for their insights, as well as Alex Osei-Kojo and Megan Lamiotte for their assistance with data acquisition.

Background: US local health departments (LHDs) have faced the COVID-19 pandemic and the opioid epidemic simultaneously. This article investigates the perceived impact of COVID-19 on the continuation of locally available services for addressing opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods: A national survey of US LHDs was conducted from November to December 2020. The survey asked key personnel in LHDs about the availability of OUD services in their jurisdiction, and how COVID-19 impacted such availability (i.e., whether terminated or continued at a reduced, the same, or an increased level after the arrival of COVID-19). Proportions for each impact category were estimated for prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services. Logistic regression tested for rural-urban and regional differences in perceived service impact. Results: An 11.4% (214 out of 1873) response rate was attained. Of the returned surveys, 187 were used in the analysis. Reported terminations were generally low, especially for treatment services. School-based prevention initiatives had the highest termination rate (17.2%, 95% CI = 11.4–25.1%). Prevention services had the highest proportions for continuing at a reduced level, except for recovery mutual help programs (53.9%, 95% CI = 45.2–62.4%). LHDs reported continuing services at an increased level at a higher frequency than terminating. Notably, 72.2% (95% CI = 62.7–80.0%) continued telehealth/telemedicine options for OUD at an increased level, and 23.8% (95% CI = 17.8–31.1%) and 10.0% (95% CI = 5.7–16.7%) reported doing the same for naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), respectively. More harm reduction services were continued at the same versus at a reduced level. Service continuation differed little between rural-urban LHDs or by region. Conclusions: The impacts of COVID-19 on OUD service availability in LHD jurisdictions may depend on the specific area of opioid response while the long-term consequences of these changes remain unknown.

Context: Despite attention to federal and state governments' response to the US opioid crisis, few studies have systematically examined local governments' role in tackling this problem. Objectives:To determine what opioid policy and programmatic activities local governments are implementing, which activities are more challenging and require a greater latent ability to implement, and what community, environmental, and institutional factors shape such ability. Design: A cross-sectional survey and multistage sampling procedure. Setting/Participants: Of all 358 county governments in 5 purposively selected states (Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington) surveyed, 171 counties (response rate = 47.8%) with complete data on self-reported policy and programmatic activities and predictor variables were eligible for analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Nineteen opioid policy and programmatic activities were analyzed individually and combined into a latent implementation ability index using empirical Bayes means estimates. Results: Item response theory and bivariate analysis were applied. Item response theory estimates suggested that having police officers carry naloxone and establishing a task force of community leaders were easier to implement than more challenging activities such as establishing needle exchanges and allowing arrest alternatives for opioid offenses. Covering individuals' treatment costs was predicted to involve the highest ability. County population size (r = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.47), population density (r = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.47), and being a Pennsylvania county (r = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.56) showed the strongest associations with latent implementation ability. Conclusions: Counties appear engaged in opioid policy and programmatic activity, although some activities are likely more difficult and may require greater ability to implement than others. More sparsely populated counties appear more disadvantaged in implementing activities for tackling the opioid crisis and may need additional assistance to leverage their ability to build a comprehensive policy and programmatic infrastructure.

Background: Local governments on the front lines of the opioid epidemic often collaborate across organizations to achieve a more comprehensive opioid response. Collaboration is especially important in rural communities, which can lack capacity for addressing health crises, yet little is known about how local collaboration in opioid response relates to key outputs like treatment capacity. Purpose: This cross-sectional study examined the association between local governments’ interorganizational collaboration activity and agonist treatment capacity for opioid use disorder (OUD), and whether this association was stronger for rural than for metropolitan communities. Methods: Data on the location of facilities providing buprenorphine and methadone were merged with a 2019 survey of all 358 counties in 5 states (CO, NC, OH, PA, and WA) that inquired about their collaboration activity for opioid response. Regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of a collaboration activity index and its constituent items on the capacity to provide buprenorphine or methadone in a county and whether this differed by urbanicity. Results: A response rate of 47.8% yielded an analytic sample of n = 171 counties, including 77 metropolitan, 50 micropolitan, and 44 rural counties. Controlling for covariates, a 1-unit increase in the collaboration activity index was associated with 0.155 (95% CI = 0.005, 0.304) more methadone facilities, ie, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), per 100 000 population. An interaction model indicated this association was stronger for rural (average marginal effect = 0.354, 95% CI = 0.110, 0.599) than for non-rural counties. Separate models revealed intergovernmental data and information sharing, formal agreements, and organizational reforms were driving the above associations. Collaboration activity did not vary with the capacity to provide buprenorphine at non-OTP facilities. Spatial models used to account for spatial dependence occurring with OUD treatment capacity showed similar results. Conclusion: Rural communities may be able to leverage collaborations in opioid response to expand treatment capacity through OTPs.