By 2009, 17.6% of states ever had a complete formulary for at least 1 of the 3 conditions and 7.8% ever had a complete formulary for all 3 conditions simultaneously. The most commonly included medication-assisted therapies were for the treatment of tobacco dependence (15.7% ever had a complete formulary), followed by opioid dependence (11.8%) and alcohol dependence (9.8%). Over half of states (60.8%) ever had a partial formulary for at least 1 of the 3 conditions, and 9.8% ever had a partial formulary for all 3 conditions simultaneously. Most states (58.8%) ever had a partial formulary for tobacco, followed by 35.3% for opioids and 9.8% for alcohol.
A handful of states were classified as offering all guideline-concordant medications because they had open formularies (rather than listing each medication explicitly). Two states had an open formulary in 2001, 3 states had an open formulary from 2002 to 2006 and 2008 to 2009, and 4 states had an open formulary in 2007.
Virtually no states (other than those with open formularies) included medication-assisted therapies for alcohol dependence on their formularies. The one exception was Indiana, which included disulfiram (2001) and naltrexone (1999 and 2001). Acamprosate was not included by any state other than states that were presumed to offer it via their open formulary. The only states meeting the complete formulary criteria were those with an open formulary. Among the tobacco medications, buproprion was the most commonly included medication (51.0% of states adopted by 2009), followed by varenicline (21.6% adoption by 2009). Only 9.8% of states ever adopted nicotine replacement therapy. Among opioid medications, methadone was the most commonly included medication (25.5% of states adopted by 2009), followed by buprenorphine and levo-alpha acetyl methadol (7.8% and 5.1%, respectively). One state (Oregon) adopted buprenorphine before it was FDA approved in 2002.
We examined state ADAP formularies to document the extent to which states covered medications to treat alcohol, tobacco, and opioid dependence over time. We found that the most frequently included medication-assisted therapies were those to treat tobacco dependence, followed by medications to treat opioid dependence. Few state ADAPs covered medications to treat alcohol dependence. No states covered acamprosate, and only 1 state included disulfiram and naltrexone. Only states with open formularies offered the complete list of recommended medications. In any given year, less than one-tenth of states covered the complete set of recommended medications for at least 1 condition and less than half of states covered a partial formulary for at least 1 condition.
Overall the small fraction of states including these medication-assisted therapies is consistent with recent research demonstrating that less than two-fifths of publicly funded substance abuse treatment programs self-reported having prescribed any medication-assisted therapies in the past year. Some of this variation in prescribing patterns may be attributable to differences in program administrators’ perceptions about the state policy environment, including their single state agencies’ perceived support for medications and awareness of their states’ funding policies for medication-assisted therapies.22
Having tobacco medications as the most commonly included medication-assisted therapy for SUD is consistent with data that tobacco use is the most prevalent SUD among HIV-infected individuals.1–3 This may also be a result of a federal policy that allows states to restrict smoking cessation medications from their Medicaid formularies.41 As a payer of last resort, state ADAPs may therefore prioritize placing tobacco cessation medications on their formularies to wrap around gaps in their states’ Medicaid coverage. However, this finding may also be due to bupropion being included to treat depression and not nicotine dependence.
It was notable that there was virtually no coverage of medication-assisted therapies for alcohol dependence, despite evidence of the importance of addressing alcohol dependence among HIV-infected individuals.6,7,27 It was also surprising that coverage of medications to treat opioid dependence was so low, given that opioid dependence is commonly discussed as a major risk factor for HIV infection and that it has such a strong documented relationship with HIV medication adherence and treatment outcomes.42 In particular, it is striking that although methadone is the most prevalent ADAP medication for opioid dependence, it is also the only medication-assisted therapy that cannot be provided in HIV primary care settings outside methadone clinics.34 Two medications (buprenorphine and varenicline) received FDA approval during the study period. After their approval, there was a modest uptick in the inclusion of varenicline (21.6% of states had ever adopted by 2009) but few states adopted buprenorphine (7.8% ever adopted). (These figures do not count the 4 states that included these medications as part of their open formularies.)
One possible explanation for the limited availability of medication-assisted therapies for SUD is that although clinical guidelines exist for the treatment of SUD, knowledge regarding the safety and efficacy of all these medications for HIV-infected individuals are not known. Only recently, a study determined the safety of naltrexone and continued efficacy of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected individuals,43 and HIV treating physicians are less likely to prescribe antiretroviral therapy if a patient has an active or recent SUD, irrespective of CD4 count or other indications for treatment.44 Other potential reasons for these findings are HIV providers’ inadequate training on addiction medicine and conceptual differences between HIV and SUD treatment,13 which may reduce the extent to which HIV providers advocate for the inclusion of medication-assisted therapies on their states’ ADAP formularies. The strong stigma attached to SUD affect diagnosis, treatment, public education, and funding.45 It is also likely contribute to incomplete data and training on integration of HIV and SUD clinical care and limited advocacy to include medication-assisted therapies on ADAP formularies.
Given the strong interrelationship between SUD and HIV, integrating SUD treatment into HIV care will be necessary to meet the National HIV/AIDS Strategy’s goals to increase access to care, improve health outcomes, and reduce new infections.46 President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget includes additional funding for Ryan White, including an increase of $67 million above 2012 levels for ADAP. This reinforces the Administration’s stated political commitment to addressing the HIV epidemic and supporting ADAP.47 By including medication-assisted therapies for SUD on their formularies, state ADAPs can play an important role in expanding access to SUD treatment among HIV-infected individuals. This is especially important for vulnerable populations such as HIV-infected individuals who are transitioning from criminal justice settings to communities because HIV treatment outcomes are commonly disrupted during the postrelease period due to relapse to drug and alcohol use.48,49 New data suggest that SUD treatment at the time of release leads to sustained HIV treatment outcomes.50 Because most prisoners lose their Medicaid coverage during incarceration, ADAP is a critical source of medications on release.
Moving forward, there are several upcoming policy changes that may facilitate the integration of substance abuse treatment into HIV care. As part of the Affordable Care Act, in 2014, there will be a major Medicaid expansion and also the availability of state-administered health insurance exchanges with sliding scale subsidies.51 SUD treatment must be included in health insurance plans offered on the exchange and also in Medicaid.52 These changes should improve access to these medications. In 2009, the longstanding ban on using federal funding for syringe exchange programs was temporarily lifted. The ban has been reinstated, and the effect of the ban’s temporary repeal was primarily symbolic because no new funds were committed.53 However, this policy change could signal changing attitudes among federal policymakers about the importance of addressing SUD as an important component of HIV care and prevention.
On the other hand, there are several policy challenges to increasing HIV patients’ access to medication-assisted therapies through state ADAPs. Ongoing state budget shortfalls that have resulted in formulary restrictions, waiting lists, and other cost containment strategies40 may limit further expansion of ADAP formularies and the availability of state funding for treatment facilities. ADAP has an uncertain future, as the program’s reauthorization is scheduled for 2013, 1 year before the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act are implemented.51 The recent elections will have consequences for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.54 Although the Medicaid expansion should improve access to care among low-income individuals, this effect may not be uniform across states. Medicaid programs are required to offer all FDA-approved medications, although tobacco cessation and benzodiazepines are major exceptions. In addition, some states limit medications through mechanisms such as caps on the number of prescriptions per month, not reimbursing for brand name or over-the-counter medications, requiring prior authorization for certain medications, and imposing cost-sharing requirements.55 In addition, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the Medicaid expansion cannot be mandated by the Federal government may result in some states not electing to expand coverage.56 Because Ryan White is a payer of last resort, ADAPs in states with less generous Medicaid programs need to cover a larger portion of low-income HIV patients. Cost constraints may make it nearly impossible to add non-HIV medications to their formularies.
This analysis has some limitations that suggest future areas of research. First, because there were few states that adopted these medication-assisted therapies for SUD over time, there was not enough variation in the outcome to perform more extensive regression analysis to untangle why some states were more likely to adopt than others. Future qualitative research could be used to understand the factors that led to these decisions. For example, Oregon adopted buprenorphine starting in 1998, 4 years before FDA approval. Second, in addition to qualitative research to understand why states made these formulary decisions, it would be useful to understand the mix of payers for SUD treatment among HIV patients, and how this varies across states. States could use this information to identify strategies to improve resource allocation and coordination among payers. Third, the nature of the data (drug formulary lists) makes it impossible to measure intent. For example, it is unclear whether bupropion was included to treat depression or tobacco cessation, or whether methadone was included for pain management or opioid dependence. It is also difficult to synthesize the extent to which the medications were used in practice. These published formularies may not be the most accurate representation of medications available to patients because the formularies may be updated throughout the year.
In summary, although state ADAPs have the potential to provide access to medication-assisted therapies for SUD to a significant number of HIV patients, these medications have not been widely covered throughout the program’s history. In particular, alcohol medications are largely excluded, and few states routinely offer medications to treat opioid dependence. Where an HIV patient lives affects his or her coverage for SUD treatment, which has important implications for medical outcomes and also HIV prevention. Increased availability of medication-assisted therapies through state ADAPs could facilitate integrated HIV and SUD care. Recognizing that state APAPs are facing extreme budgetary constraints, adding additional medications to their formularies may be difficult, particularly in states that do not choose to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the Affordable Care Act.
The authors are grateful to Taryn Couture for research assistance.
1. Burkhalter JE, Springer CM, Chabra R, et al.. Tobacco use and readiness to quite smoking in low-income HIV-infected persons. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7:511–522.
2. Niaura R, Shandel WG, Morrow K, et al.. Human immunodeficiency virus, AIDS, and smoking cessation: the time is now. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:808–812.
3. Tesoriero JM, Gieryic SM, Carrascal A, et al.. Smoking among HIV positive New Yorkers: prevalence, frequency, and opportunities for cessation. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:824–835.
4. Blackstock OJ, Wang KH, Fiellin DA. State variation in AIDS Drug Assistance Program prescription drug coverage for modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:1426–1433.
5. Crum NF, Riffenburgh RH, Wegner S, et al.. Comparisons of causes of deaths and mortality rates among HIV-infected persons: analysis of the pre, early, and late HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) eras. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;41:194–200.
6. Congliaro J, Gordon AJ, McGinnis KA, et al.. How harmful is hazardous alcohol use and abuse in HIV infection: do healthcare providers know who is at risk? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;33:521–525.
7. Baum MK, Rafie C, Lai S, et al.. Alcohol use accelerates HIV disease progression. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2010;26:511–518.
9. Altice FL, Kamarulzaman A, Soriano VV, et al.. Treatment of medical, psychiatric, and substance-use comorbidities in people infected with HIV who use drugs. Lancet. 2010;376:367–387.
10. Altice FL, Bruce RD, Lucas GM, et al.. HIV treatment outcomes among HIV-infected opioid-dependent patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone treatment within HIV clinical care settings: results from a multisite study. J. Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(suppl 1):S22–S32.
11. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Treatment for HIV-Infected Alcohol and Other Drug Abusers. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1995.
12. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance Abuse Treatment for Persons with HIV/AIDS. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2000.
13. Finkelstein R, Netherland J, Sylla L, et al.. Policy implications of integrating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment and HIV care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(suppl 1):S98–S104.
14. Volkow ND, Montaner J. The urgency of providing comprehensive and integrated treatment for substance abusers with HIV. Health Aff. 2011;30:1411–1419.
16. Cheever LW, Kresina TF, Cajina A, et al.. A model federal collaborative to increase patient access to buprenorphine treatment in HIV primary care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(suppl 1):S3–S6.
18. Institute of Medicine. Monitoring HIV Care in the United States: Indicators and Data Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
19. Conover CJ, Weaver M, Ang A, et al.. Insurance coverage among people living with combined HIV/AIDS, chronic mental illness, and substance abuse disorders. J Health Care Poor Uninsured. 2010;21:1009–1030.
21. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Inventory of State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Activities and Expenditures. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. NCJ 216918); 2006.
22. Knudson HK, Abraham AJ. Perceptions of the state policy environment and adoption of medications in the treatment of substance use disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63:19–25.
25. Department of Health and Human Services. The Ryan White Program. 2012. Available at: http://hab.hrsa.gov/about
. Accessed January 24, 2012.
26. Martin EG, Barry CL. The adoption of mental health drugs on state AIDS Drug Assistance Program formularies. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:1103–1109.
27. Samet JH, Cheng DM, Libman H, et al., . Alcohol consumption and HIV disease progression. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46:194–199.
28. Palepu A, Horton NJ, TIbbetts N, et al.. Uptake and adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected people with alcohol and other substance use problems: the impact of substance abuse treatment. Addiction. 2004;99:361–368.
29. Tobacco Use and Dependence Guideline Panel. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
30. A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: a US public health service report. JAMA. 2000;283:3244–3254.
31. The Smoking Cessation Clinical Practice Guideline Panel and Staff. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research smoking cessation clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 1996;275:1270–1280.
32. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. LAAM in the Treatment of Opiate Addiction. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1995.
33. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Matching Treatment to Patient Needs in Opioid Substitution Therapy. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1995.
34. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2004.
35. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Medication-assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2005.
36. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Naltrexone and Alcoholism Treatment. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1998.
37. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician's Guide—Updated 2005, version 2007. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health; 2007.
38. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician's Guide. 2005 ed. NIH Publication No. 05-37692005. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health; 2005.
39. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Incorporating Alcohol Pharmacotherapies into Medical Practice. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2009.
42. Fiellin DA. Substance use disorders in HIV-infected patients: impact and new treatment strategies. Top HIV Med. 2004;12:77–82.
43. Tetrault JM, Tate JP, McGinnis KA, et al.. Hepatic safety and antiretroviral effectiveness in HIV-infected patients receiving naltrexone. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36:318–324.
44. Westergaard RP, Ambrose BK, Mehta SH, et al.. Provider and clinic-level correlates of deferring antiretroviral therapy for people who inject drugs: a survey of North American HIV providers. J Int AIDS Soc. 2012;15:10.
45. Geppert CMA, Bogenschutz MP. Ethics in substance use disorder treatment. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2009;32:283–297.
48. Springer SA, Pesanti E, Hodges J, et al.. Effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected prisoners: reincarceration and the lack of sustained benefit after release to the community. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1754–1760.
49. Baillargeon J, Giordano TP, Rich JD, et al.. Accessing antiretroviral therapy following release from prison. JAMA. 2009;301:848–857.
50. Springer SA, Qiu J, Saber-Tehrani AS, et al.. Retention on buprenorphine is associated with high levels of maximal viral suppression among HIV-infected opioid dependent released prisoners. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38335.
51. Martin EG, Schackman BR. What does US health reform mean for HIV clinical care? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;60:72–76.
53. Green TC, Martin EG, Bowman SE, et al.. Life after the ban: an assessment of US syringe exchange programs' attitudes about and early experiences with federal funding. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:e9–e16.
54. Blendon RJ, Benson JM, Brule A. Understanding health care in the 2012 election. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1658–1661.