The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
September 2015 (Volume 93)
September 2015 | Bradley D. Stein, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Adam J. Gordon, Rachel M. Burns, Douglas L. Leslie, Mark J. Sorbero, Sebastian Bauhoff, Todd W. Mandell, Andrew W. Dick | Original Investigation
Context: Opioid use disorders are a significant public health problem. In 2002, the FDA approved buprenorphine as an opioid use disorder treatment when prescribed by waivered physicians who were limited to treating 30 patients at a time. In 2006, federal legislation raised this number to 100 patients. Although federal legislators are considering increasing these limits further and expanding prescribing privileges to nonphysicians, little information is available regarding the impact of such changes on buprenorphine use. We therefore examined the impact of the 2006 legislation—as well as the association between urban and rural waivered physicians, opioid treatment programs, and substance abuse treatment facilities—on buprenorphine distributed per capita over the past decade.
Methods: Using 2004-2011 state-level data on buprenorphine dispensed and county-level data on the number of buprenorphine-waivered physicians and substance abuse treatment facilities using buprenorphine, we estimated a multivariate ordinary least squares regression model with state fixed effects of a state’s annual total buprenorphine dispensed per capita as a function of the state’s number of buprenorphine providers.
Findings: The amount of buprenorphine dispensed has been increasing at a greater rate than the number of buprenorphine providers. The number of physicians waivered to treat 100 patients with buprenorphine in both rural and urban settings was significantly associated with increased amounts of buprenorphine dispensed per capita. There was no significant association in the growth of buprenorphine distributed and the number of physicians with 30-patient waivers.
Conclusions: The greater amounts of buprenorphine dispensed are consistent with the potentially greater use of opioid agonists for opioid use disorder treatment, though they also make their misuse more likely. The changes after the 2006 legislation suggest that policies focused on increasing the number of patients that a single waivered physician could safely and effectively treat could be more effective in increasing buprenorphine use than would alternatives such as opening new substance abuse treatment facilities or raising the overall number of waivered physicians.
Author(s): Bradley D. Stein, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Adam J. Gordon, Rachel M. Burns, Douglas L. Leslie, Mark J. Sorbero, Sebastian Bauhoff, Todd W. Mandell, and Andrew W. Dick
Keywords: opioid-related disorders, health policy, substance abuse treatment, buprenorphine
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 93, Issue 3 (pages 561–583)
Published in 2015
On the Outskirts of National Health Reform: A Comparative Assessment of Health Insurance and Access to Care in Puerto Rico and the United States
The Institutional Effects of Incarceration: Spillovers From Criminal Justice to Health Care