A Descriptive Study on Opioid Misuse Prevalence and Office-Based Buprenorphine Access in Ohio Prior to the Removal of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 Waiver

Background Medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) are effective evidence-based strategies to reduce opioid overdose deaths. Strategies to optimize MOUD availability and uptake are needed. Objective We aim to describe the spatial relationship between the estimated prevalence of opioid misuse and office-based buprenorphine access in the state of Ohio prior to the removal of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) waiver requirement. Methods We conducted a descriptive ecological study of county-level (N=88) opioid misuse prevalence and office-based buprenorphine prescribing access in Ohio in 2018. Counties were categorized into urban (with and without a major metropolitan area) and rural. The county-level prevalence estimates of opioid misuse per 100,000 were derived from integrated abundance modeling. Utilizing data from the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as well as the state???s Physician Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), buprenorphine access per 100,000 was estimated by the number of patients in each county that could be served by office-based buprenorphine (prescribing capacity) and the number of patients served by office-based buprenorphine (prescribing frequency) for opioid use disorder. The ratios of opioid misuse prevalence to both prescribing capacity and frequency were calculated by county and mapped. Results Less than half of the 1,828 waivered providers in the state of Ohio in 2018 were prescribing buprenorphine, and 25% of counties had no buprenorphine access. The median estimated opioid misuse prevalence and buprenorphine prescribing capacity per 100,000 were highest in urban counties, particularly those with a major metropolitan area. Although the median estimated opioid misuse prevalence was lower in rural counties, all counties in the highest quartile of estimated misuse prevalence were rural. In addition, the median buprenorphine prescribing frequency was highest in rural counties. While the ratio of opioid misuse prevalence to buprenorphine prescribing capacity was lowest in urban counties, the ratio of opioid misuse prevalence to buprenorphine prescribing frequency was lowest in rural counties. Opioid misuse prevalence and buprenorphine prescribing frequency demonstrated similar spatial patterns, with highest levels in the southern and eastern portions of the state, while office-based buprenorphine prescribing capacity did not. Conclusion Urban counties had higher buprenorphine capacity relative to their burden of opioid misuse; however, access was limited by buprenorphine prescribing frequency. In contrast, in rural counties, a minimal gap was evident between prescribing capacity and frequency, suggesting that buprenorphine prescribing capacity was the major factor limiting access. While the recent deregulation of buprenorphine prescribing should help improve buprenorphine access, future research should investigate whether deregulation similarly impacts buprenorphine prescribing capacity and buprenorphine prescribing frequency.