Author:
Sud Abhimanyu,Campbell Chloe,Sivakumar Arani,Upshur Ross,Moineddin Rahim,Chiu Kellia
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Federal deregulation of opioid agonist therapies are an attractive policy option to improve access to opioid use disorder care and achieve widespread beneficial impacts on growing opioid-related harms. There have been few evaluations of such policy interventions and understanding effects can help policy planning across jurisdictions.
Methods
Using health administrative data from eight of ten Canadian provinces, this study evaluated the impacts of Health Canada’s decision in May 2018 to rescind the requirement for Canadian health professionals to obtain an exemption from the Canadian Drugs and Substance Act to prescribe methadone for opioid use disorder. Over the study period of June 2017 to May 2019, we used descriptive statistics to capture overall trends in the number of agonist therapy prescribers across provinces and we used interrupted time series analysis to determine the effect of this decision on the trajectories of the agonist therapy prescribing workforces.
Results
There were important baseline differences in the numbers of agonist therapy prescribers. The province with the highest concentration of prescribers had 7.5 more prescribers per 100,000 residents compared to the province with the lowest. All provinces showed encouraging growth in the number of prescribers through the study period, though the fastest growing province grew 4.5 times more than the slowest. Interrupted time series analyses demonstrated a range of effects of the federal policy intervention on the provinces, from clearly positive changes to possibly negative effects.
Conclusions
Federal drug regulation policy change interacted in complex ways with provincial health professional regulation and healthcare delivery, kaleidoscoping the effects of federal policy intervention. For Canada and other health systems such as the US, federal policy must account for significant subnational variation in OUD epidemiology and drug regulation to maximize intended beneficial effects and mitigate the risks of negative effects.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Health Canada, Substance Use and Addiction Program
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and, Medicine H, Division M, Board on Health Sciences Policy. et al. Medications for opioid Use Disorder Save lives. National Academies; 2019. p. 174.
2. Pijl EM, Alraja A, Duff E, et al. Barriers and facilitators to opioid agonist therapy in rural and remote communities in Canada: an integrative review. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2022;17(1):62.
3. Antoniou T, Ala-Leppilampi K, Shearer D, et al. Like being put on an ice floe and shoved away: a qualitative study of the impacts of opioid-related policy changes on people who take opioids. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;66:15–22.
4. Auriacombe M, Fatséas M, Dubernet J, et al. French field experience with buprenorphine. Am J Addict. 2004;13(Suppl 1):S17–28.
5. Sud A, Chiu K, Friedman J et al. Buprenorphine deregulation as an opioid crisis policy response - a comparative analysis between France and the United States. ijdp. 2023.