Cited by 22Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentHealthcare Policy and ManagementSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application

Open access
Bowser, Diana, Bohler, Robert, Davis, Margot T., Hodgkin, Dominic, Horgan, Constance·2024·Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed. METHODS: We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study. RESULTS: We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

Overview

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.josat.2024.209441

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Utilization management strategies are commonly used in Medicaid and private insurance plans to regulate SUD treatment benefits through mechanisms such as prior authorization, drug testing, annual maximums, duration restrictions, high deductibles, and monthly caps on total prescriptions.

    “Moreover, utilization management strategies are commonly used in Medicaid and private insurance plans to regulate SUD treatment benefits through mechanisms such as prior authorization, drug testing, annual maximums, duration restrictions, high deductibles, and monthly caps on total prescriptions,24, 26, 34-35”

    From County-Level Variation in Substance Use Disorder Service Utilization by Insurance Payers and Self-Pay in the United States (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction identifies prior authorization as a health-plan utilization-management technique, and Results > Patient perspective describes duration restrictions and Medicaid monthly prescription caps. Discussion > Impact on patients also discusses high deductibles as a cost barrier. The cited passages do not establish drug testing or annual maximums as mechanisms, or classify high deductibles as utilization management; the paper addresses MOUD specifically rather than SUD treatment benefits generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The finding that 43.0% of SUD service utilizations were self-pay is consistent with documented barriers to SUD treatment, including lack of insurance, inadequate coverage benefits, cash-only payment acceptance, and patients' self-pay preference due to stigma-related privacy concerns.

    “our finding that 43.0% of SUD service utilizations were self-pay is consistent with documented barriers to SUD treatment, including lack of insurance,24 inadequate coverage benefits across various insurance types,24, 31-36 cash-only payment acceptance (i.e., non-acceptance of any insurance) by SUD treatment providers,36 and patients’ self-pay preference due to stigma-related privacy concerns.24”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Davis, 2023, The role of health plans in addressing the opioid crisis: A qualitative study, Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 149, 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209022 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bowser, D., Bohler, R., Davis, M. T., Hodgkin, D., & Horgan, C.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Southern University (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Bohler, Robert
  • Davis, Margot T.
  • Hodgkin, Dominic
  • Horgan, Constance
Venue
Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
165
Pages
209441
ISSN
2949-8759 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399801988
Cited by
19
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA035772)
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  • National Institutes of Health (R01GM987654, UM1DA049412, NCT04111939)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
opioid use disorder, medication-assisted treatment, access to treatment, treatment retention, health insurance coverage, cost sharing, provider reimbursement, administrative burden, opioid treatment programs, methadone, buprenorphine, HEALing Communities Study, opioid epidemic, payment reform
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Buprenorphine, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Massachusetts, Methadone, Opioid-Related Disorders, United States, Opiate Substitution Treatment

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