The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
A bipartisan group of state health policymakers from both the executive and legislative branches who are focused on improving population health.
Networks of state officials, advocates, and others aiming to invest in and transform primary care.
A program dedicated to advancing state-based efforts to make health care more affordable for residents, employers, and states.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
A leadership development program for early and mid-career state government officials who are committed to improving the health of all people in their communities.
A leadership program for senior state government officials who are committed to improving population health.
The Fund focuses on creating an affordable health care system built on strong primary care and partnerships that improve health outcomes for all.
Improving state leaders’ ability to enact and implement evidence-based health policies.
Advancing policies that create a more prevention- and primary care-oriented health system.
Improving population health through policies that contain health care cost growth.
Our state health policy resources offer relevant data analysis and best practices.
The Fund publishes reports, issues briefs, and case studies on state health policy issues.
Short takes on health policy issues from Milbank staff and guest authors.
Insights from Milbank President Debra Lubar on state health policymaking.
Reported articles and Q&As on timely health policy issues, as well as foundation updates.
Milbank Memorial Fund and Milbank Quarterly webinars featuring state health policymakers and researchers.
Updates and expert contact information for reporters.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is a private foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges (Volume 103)
Quarterly Article
STEPHAN R. LINDNER
JENNIFER HALL
BRYNNA MANIBUSAN
JORDAN BYERS
KYLE HART
ANDREA BARON
Dennis McCarty
K. John McConnell
Deborah J. Cohen
December 2025
September 2025
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
See all articles in the special issue, Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges Facing the United States: What Can State Policymakers Do?
Context: Starting in 2015, states could apply for section 1115 substance use disorder (SUD) waivers to strengthen their continuum of care for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Prior research found substantial variation in changes to medication use for OUD associated with waiver implementation. The objective of this study was to identify strategies that states undertook as part of their waivers that were associated with increases in methadone and buprenorphine treatment in eight waiver states (Indiana, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia).
Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we combined quantitative difference-in-differences analyses of 2016-2021 Medicaid data with qualitative analyses of states’ waiver application documents (N = 8) and interviews (N = 23) with individuals involved in waiver implementation.
Findings: SUD waiver implementation was associated with increased use of methadone in Virginia (estimate: 15.4 percentage points [pp]; p < 0.001), Indiana (estimate: 13.2 pp; p < 0.001), West Virginia (estimate: 9.5 pp; p < 0.001), Louisiana (estimate: 7.2 pp; p < 0.001), and New Jersey (estimate: 4.2 pp; p < 0.05). Qualitative information indicated that these states used a variety of strategies, including adding coverage, increasing reimbursement rates, and engaging providers and managed care organizations. By contrast, we observed limited or no strategies to increase the use of methadone in the other states. SUD waiver implementation was associated with increased buprenorphine prescribing in Pennsylvania (estimate: 5.2 pp; p < 0.001), Washington (estimate: 5.2 pp; p < 0.001), New Hampshire (estimate: 4.4 pp; p < 0.01), Louisiana (estimate: 4.2 pp; p < 0.01), and Indiana (estimate: 4.2 pp; p < 0.01). Qualitative analyses suggested that states with and without increases in this outcome implemented similar changes (e.g., education and training activities).
Conclusions: Qualitative findings helped explain state-level variation in methadone treatment following SUD waiver implementation but not for buprenorphine. Strategies identified in higher-performing states may offer useful insights for other states aiming to expand access to methadone for OUD.