Cited by 308Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealthcare Policy and Management

Has the treatment gap for opioid use disorder narrowed in the U.S.?: a yearly assessment from 2010 to 2019

Open access
Krawczyk, Noa, Rivera, Bianca D., Jent, Victoria, Keyes, Katherine M., Jones, Christopher M., Cerdá, Magdalena·2022·International Journal of Drug Policy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The United States overdose crisis continues unabated. Despite efforts to increase capacity for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S., how actual treatment receipt compares to need remains unclear. In this cross-sectional study, we estimate progress in addressing the gap between OUD prevalence and OUD treatment receipt at the national and state levels from 2010 to 2019. METHODS: We estimated past-year OUD prevalence rates based on the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), using adjustment methods that attempt to account for OUD underestimation in national household surveys. We used data from specialty substance use treatment records and outpatient pharmacy claims to estimate the gap between OUD prevalence and number of persons receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during the past decade. RESULTS: Adjusted estimates suggest past-year OUD affected 7,631,804 individuals in the U.S. in (2,773 per 100,000 adults 12+), relative to only 1,023,959 individuals who received MOUD (365 per 100,000 adults 12+). This implies approximately 86.6% of individuals with OUD nationwide who may benefit from MOUD treatment do not receive it. MOUD receipt increased across states over the past decade, but most regions still experience wide gaps between OUD prevalence and MOUD receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some progress in expanding access to MOUD, a substantial gap between OUD prevalence and treatment receipt highlights the critical need to increase access to evidence-based services.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103786

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The SUD treatment gap among college students is larger than the treatment gap observed among non-students in this sample (8.1%), the general US population, and other subpopulations of people with SUDs, including young adults.

    “This discrepancy is larger than the treatment gap observed among non-students in this sample (8.1 %), the general US population, and other subpopulations of people with SUDs, including young adults (Krawczyk et al., 2022, Mekonen et al., 2021, Sahker et al., 2024).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Alderks CE (2017). Trends in the use of methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone at substance abuse treatment facilities: 2003–2015 (Update). In The CBHSQ report (pp. 1– 8). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US). 29200242
  2. Adams Z, Noa Krawczyk N, Simon R, Sue K, Suen L, & Joudrey P (2022). To save lives from opioid overdose deaths, bring methadone into mainstream medicine. Health Affairs Forefront 10.1377/forefront.20220524.911965. · DOI

Authors
Krawczyk, N., Rivera, B. D., Jent, V., Keyes, K. M., Jones, C. M., & Cerdá, M.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Krawczyk, Noa
Venue
International Journal of Drug Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
110
Pages
103786
ISSN
0955-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4289841403
Cited by
308
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 6
FWCI
57.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Drug Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
opioid use disorder, treatment gap, medication-assisted treatment, opioid epidemic, treatment access, prevalence estimates, state-level disparities, addiction treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Buprenorphine, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Opioid-Related Disorders, United States, Opiate Substitution Treatment, Drug Overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review