You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
Health care practitioners prescribe opioid medications to treat pain and sometimes for other health problems, such as severe coughing. Opioid medications are available as immediate or extended release and in different forms, such as a pill, liquid, or a patch worn on the skin. Opioids slow down some processes of the body, such as breathing and heartbeat, by binding with certain receptors in the body. Over time, the body becomes tolerant to opioids, which means that larger doses of opioid medications are needed to achieve the same effect. People may use opioids in a manner other than as prescribed—that is, they can be misused. Because opioids are highly addictive substances, they can pose serious risks when they are misused, which can lead to addiction and death. Symptoms of an opioid use disorder include a strong desire for opioids, the inability to control or reduce use, and continued use despite interference with major obligations or social functioning. Another concern associated with prescribed opioids is the potential for diversion for illegal purposes, such as nonmedical use or financial gain. Research has shown that MAT—which combines behavioral therapy and the use of certain medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone)—can be more effective in reducing opioid use and increasing retention (i.e., reducing dropouts) compared to abstinence based treatment—that is when patients are treated without medication. Three medications are currently approved by FDA for use in MAT for opioid use disorders—methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Methadone: Methadone is a full opioid agonist, meaning it binds to and activates opioid receptors to help prevent withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings. It has a long history of use for the treatment of opioid dependence in adults. Methadone suppresses withdrawal symptoms during detoxification therapy, which involves stabilizing patients who are addicted to opioids by withdrawing them in a controlled manner. Methadone also controls the craving for opioids during maintenance therapy, which is ongoing therapy meant to prevent relapse and increase treatment retention. Methadone can be administered to patients as an oral solution or in tablet form. Buprenorphine: Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist, meaning it binds to opioid receptors and activates them, but not to the same degree as full opioid agonists. It reduces or eliminates opioid withdrawal symptoms, including drug cravings. It can be used for detoxification treatment and maintenance therapy. It is available for MAT for opioid use disorder in tablet form for sublingual (under the tongue) administration, in film form for sublingual or buccal (inside the cheek) administration, and as a subdermal (under the skin) implant. Naltrexone: Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist, meaning it binds to opioid receptors but does not activate them. It is used for relapse prevention following complete detoxification from opioids. Naltrexone prevents opioid drugs from binding to and activating opioid receptors, thus blocking the euphoria the user would normally feel. It also results in withdrawal symptoms if recent opioid use has occurred. It can be taken daily in an oral tablet form or as a once-monthly injection given in a doctor’s office. Two of the three medications used to treat opioid use disorders— methadone and buprenorphine—are drugs that carry a potential for misuse. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), treatment involving these medications can take place in certain authorized settings: as part of federally regulated OTPs or in other settings, such as a physician’s office, within certain restrictions. OTPs. OTPs provide MAT, including methadone and buprenorphine, for people diagnosed with an opioid use disorder. Methadone may generally only be administered or dispensed within an OTP, as prescriptions for methadone cannot be issued when used for opioid use disorder treatment. Buprenorphine may be administered or dispensed within an OTP, or may also be prescribed by a qualifying practitioner who has received a waiver from SAMHSA. Naltrexone is not a controlled substance and can be used in OTPs and other settings. Office-Based and Other Settings. Under a Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) waiver, practitioners may prescribe buprenorphine to up to 30 patients in the first year of their waiver, 100 patients in the second year, and up to 275 patients in the third year. Practitioners at the 275-patient level must meet additional qualifications and requirements. Naltrexone does not have similar restrictions. HHS has implemented five key efforts from 2015 through August 2017 that focus on expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders. Four of these are grant programs, including programs focused on health centers or primary care practices in rural areas. Targeted Capacity Expansion: Medication Assisted Treatment – Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction (MAT-PDOA). This grant program is administered by SAMHSA and provides funding to states to increase their capacity to provide MAT and recovery support services to individuals with opioid use disorders. Grant recipients are expected to identify a minimum of two high-risk communities within the state and partner with local government or community- based organizations to address the MAT-related treatment needs in these communities. Among other things, recipients are to use outreach and other engagement activities to increase participation in and access to MAT for diverse populations at risk for opioid use disorders. In August 2015, SAMHSA awarded 3-year grants to 11 states, under which each of the states will receive up to $1 million in each grant year. In September 2016, SAMHSA awarded 11 additional 3-year grants to other states. Total funding is expected to be up to $66 million for all 22 grants. SAMHSA announced the availability of up to 5 additional 3-year grants for fiscal year 2017. Applications for these grants of up to $2 million per year were due in July 2017 and as of August 2017 they had not been awarded. Substance Abuse Service Expansion Supplement to Health Centers. This grant program is administered by HRSA and provides funds for existing health centers to improve and expand their delivery of substance abuse services, including services with a specific focus on MAT for opioid use disorders in underserved populations. Health centers that receive these grants are required to increase the number of patients with health center-funded access to MAT for opioid use or for other substance abuse disorders treatment by adding at least one full-time substance abuse provider and supporting new or enhanced existing substance abuse services. HRSA awarded 2-year grants in March 2016 to 271 health centers. According to HRSA documents, total funding could be up to $200 million for all grants over 2 years. HRSA announced the availability of another set of grants to health centers for fiscal year 2017. Applications for these grants were due in July 2017, and as of August 2017 they had not been awarded. Increasing Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment in Rural Primary Care Practices. This grant program is administered by AHRQ and funds demonstration research projects that aim to expand access to MAT for opioid use disorders in primary care practices in rural areas of the United States. Grant recipients are expected to recruit and engage primary care providers and their practices, provide training, and support physicians and their practices in initiating treatment. The program also identifies and tests strategies for overcoming the challenges associated with implementing MAT in primary care settings and creates training and other resources for implementing MAT. AHRQ awarded these 3-year grants of up to $1 million per year to four recipients—the recipients are teams of state health departments, academic health centers, local community organizations, physicians, and others—with project start dates of September 30, 2016. According to AHRQ documents, total funding is expected to be up to $12 million for the four grants over 3 years. State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grants (Opioid STR). This grant program is administered by SAMHSA and provides funding to states and others to increase access to treatment services for opioid use disorders, including MAT; reduce unmet treatment needs; and reduce opioid overdose deaths. Grant recipients are expected to implement or expand access to evidence-based practices, particularly the use of MAT, and to report on the number of people who receive opioid use disorder treatment, the number of providers implementing MAT, and the number of providers trained to use MAT. SAMHSA awarded 2-year grants starting in May 2017 to 50 states, the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories and the free associated states of Micronesia and Palau. According to SAMHSA documents, total funding could be up to $970 million for all grants over 2 years. Figure 1 displays the implementation timeframes, the number of grants, and funding levels for the four HHS grant programs related to MAT. As the figure shows, some of these awards were made in fiscal year 2015, while others were made as recently as May 2017. As of August 2017, these efforts were ongoing. In addition to these four grant programs, HHS’s fifth key effort increases treatment capacity by expanding the waivers that practitioners may receive to prescribe buprenorphine. Specifically, SAMHSA issued a regulation that became effective August 8, 2016 increasing the number of patients that eligible practitioners can treat with buprenorphine outside of an OTP (e.g., in an office-based setting). Previously, qualified practitioners could request approval to treat up to 30 patients at a time, and after 1 year the limit could increase to 100 patients at a time upon SAMHSA approval. The new regulation expanded access to MAT by allowing eligible practitioners who have had waivers to prescribe buprenorphine to 100 patients for at least 1 year to request approval to treat up to 275 patients thereafter. Similarly, SAMHSA has implemented provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) that expanded the types of practitioners who can receive a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in an office-based setting to include qualifying nurse practitioners and physician assistants. CARA generally requires that these nurse practitioners and physician assistants complete 24 hours of training to be eligible for a waiver. According to HHS documents, as of early 2017, nurse practitioners and physician assistants who have completed this training could request a waiver from SAMHSA to treat up to 30 patients at a time. In addition to its five key efforts focused specifically on expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders, HHS has other efforts with broader focuses, such as treating multiple types of substance abuse. While these efforts are not specifically focused on expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders, they may result in expanded access to MAT. For example, CMS has approved section 1115 Medicaid demonstration projects to allow states to undertake comprehensive reforms of their delivery of substance abuse services, including provisions to enhance the use of MAT for opioid use disorders. In July 2015, CMS issued a state Medicaid Director letter informing states that they may seek approval of section 1115 demonstrations to undertake comprehensive substance use service reforms. According to CMS, all participating states are using the demonstration authority to develop a full continuum of care for individuals with substance abuse disorders, including coverage of short-term residential treatment services not otherwise covered by Medicaid. In addition, FDA has programs to help expedite development and to provide for faster review of marketing applications for certain drugs. According to FDA, it has conducted expedited reviews of Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual film), Vivitrol (extended release naltrexone injection) and Probuphine (buprenorphine subdermal implant). According to some federal officials and other stakeholders that we interviewed, as part of efforts to expand access to MAT for opioid use disorder, steps are being taken to prevent the possibility that the MAT medications could, in some cases, be diverted for illicit use, misuse, or for purposes not intended by a prescriber. For example, OTPs and practitioners who request and receive a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat up to 275 patients outside of an OTP setting are required under federal regulations to maintain a diversion control plan. In addition, the MAT-PDOA grant program explicitly requires grant recipients to implement a diversion control plan, though the other grant programs do not have similar additional requirements. (See appendix I for an overview of the diversion control plan requirements for OTPs and the practitioners who prescribe buprenorphine outside of an OTP.) The 2016 Surgeon General’s report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health noted that decades of research have shown that the benefits of MAT greatly outweigh the risks associated with diversion, and that withholding these medications greatly increases the risk of relapse to illicit opioid use and overdose death. HHS officials told us that as of August 2017, the department is in the process of finalizing its approach for evaluating the implementation of its agencies’ collective efforts to address the opioid epidemic that were undertaken as part of the HHS Opioid Initiative and will continue under the new administration’s Opioid Strategy. HHS officials provided a draft of the evaluation’s schedule. According to the officials, the evaluation will include, but not be limited to, efforts to expand access to MAT. In September 2016, HHS awarded a 2-year contract to Research Triangle Institute International (RTI) to evaluate HHS agencies’ collective efforts. HHS officials told us that they are still working with RTI to finalize the evaluation approach given new leadership priorities. Specifically, in April 2017, the new Secretary of HHS announced a revised strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic that will continue to address access to MAT for opioid use disorders but also include additional priority areas. According to HHS officials, to be responsive to the new priorities, the evaluation will focus initially on whether HHS’s efforts have been implemented as intended, and officials expect the evaluation to also provide information on any challenges HHS has faced in implementing these efforts. According to HHS officials, while the evaluation of MAT expansion efforts will use information from several sources, they have not yet determined exactly which information will be used or how it will be used. This information may include, for example, results from a separate, planned evaluation of one of the grant programs, Opioid STR, as well as other information HHS agencies collect as part of their ongoing monitoring efforts for each of their individual MAT grant programs. While the reporting requirements vary across the four MAT grant programs, the grantees provide HHS with information related to expanding access to MAT. Specifically, Targeted Capacity Expansion: Medication Assisted Treatment – Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction (MAT-PDOA): Every 6 months, grant recipients are expected to submit progress reports to SAMHSA on the planned and actual number of patients treated, as well as information on other performance measures. Increasing Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment in Rural Primary Care Practices: Grant recipients are expected to submit quarterly progress reports to AHRQ with various information, such as information on the number of physicians who have been certified to prescribe buprenorphine and the number of primary care practices successfully initiating the delivery of MAT services as a result of the grant project. Substance Abuse Service Expansion Supplement to Health Centers: Health centers that received these grants were expected to submit quarterly progress reports to HRSA through the second quarter of 2017 on the number of physicians who have obtained a DATA 2000 waiver and the number of patients who received MAT from these physicians. Health centers must now report these data elements in their annual performance reporting along with information on the number of certified nurse practitioners and physician assistants who have received a DATA 2000 waiver. State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grants (Opioid STR): Every 6 months, grant recipients are expected to submit progress reports to SAMHSA on the number of individuals who receive opioid use disorder treatment, the number who receive opioid use disorder recovery services, and the number of providers implementing MAT, among other measures. While HHS’s evaluation will focus on whether HHS’s efforts have been implemented as intended, officials told us that in the future an evaluation may also focus on the effectiveness of these efforts, including the effectiveness of efforts to expand access to MAT. Doing so would be consistent with federal standards for internal control, which call for agencies to evaluate results. HHS has some of the information that could be used in a future evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts to expand access to MAT. In particular, an HHS document describing the department’s fiscal year 2016 – 2017 goals identifies expanding MAT access as an important strategy for the success of HHS’s longer-term goal of reducing opioid use disorders and opioid overdoses. In addition, HHS has identified three potential ways to measure access to MAT: the number of prescriptions for MAT medications, the treatment capacity of practitioners who are authorized to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorders through a DATA 2000 waiver, and the treatment capacity of OTPs certified to administer methadone and other medications. In addition, HHS has data that could be useful for tracking progress in these areas (see table 1). However, HHS has not adopted specific performance measures with targets specifying the magnitude of the increases HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts to expand access to MAT, and by when. For example, HHS has not established a long-term target specifying the percentage increase in the number of prescriptions for buprenorphine HHS would like to achieve, which would help to show whether efforts by HHS and others are resulting in sufficient progress in increasing prescriptions for this MAT medication. HHS has also not chosen a specific method of measuring treatment capacity or established targets associated with it, which would help to show whether a sufficient number of providers are becoming available to evaluate and treat patients who may benefit from MAT. Without specifying these performance measures and associated targets, HHS will not have an effective means to determine whether its efforts are helping to expand access to MAT. The lack of such performance measures with associated targets is inconsistent with federal internal control standards that specify that management should define objectives and evaluate results. According to these standards, using performance information such as performance measures can help agencies monitor results and determine progress in meeting program goals. In the context of HHS’s efforts to expand access to MAT, establishing appropriate performance measures with associated targets would allow HHS to determine whether its efforts are making sufficient progress or whether they need to be improved. Gauging this progress is particularly important, given the large nationwide MAT treatment gap identified in 2015 between the total number of individuals who could benefit from MAT and the limited number who can access it based on provider availability. This gap was estimated at nearly 1 million people as of 2012, and according to HHS officials and other stakeholders, lack of providers continues to be a challenge. Until HHS establishes performance measures with associated targets for the factors related to access to MAT, the department will be unable to evaluate its progress expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders. In addition, as of August 2017, HHS has not finalized its approach for the planned evaluation activities, including timeframes. ASPE officials said that timeframes for a finalized evaluation approach had not been established because they were still working with RTI to finalize the evaluation approach given the new leadership priorities. When we spoke with the officials, they provided us with a draft evaluation schedule that covered the contract period ending September 2018. As of October 2017, HHS had not provided a finalized evaluation approach or schedule. Federal internal controls call for management to establish and operate monitoring activities and evaluate results. Without an implementation timeframe for the evaluation’s activities, HHS increases the risk that its evaluation of its agencies’ efforts will not be completed as expeditiously as possible, including an evaluation of HHS’s efforts to expand access to MAT. Officials from selected state health departments and behavioral health agencies, private health insurers, and national associations reported using several different efforts to help expand patients’ access to MAT for opioid use disorders. All of the stakeholders we interviewed reported conducting outreach efforts to communicate information about the importance of MAT and how to access it, or providing training to educate providers on prescribing MAT medications. Efforts by states. State health officials we spoke to described several planned or ongoing efforts to expand access to MAT, some of which are supported by federal funding, including federal grant programs. Officials from all five selected states told us that they are offering outreach to and training for providers to help expand access to MAT. For example, several state officials told us that they are promoting training to (1) encourage physicians to obtain authorization (DATA 2000 waivers) to prescribe buprenorphine and (2) encourage physicians with waivers to treat patients up to their patient limit or to request a higher patient limit. According to the stakeholders, all five selected states have implemented or are planning to implement a health care delivery model or approach that will expand access to MAT. Specifically, these models or approaches focus on integrating the use of MAT into primary care settings. For example, health officials from three states described use of a hub-and-spoke model. This model generally involves centralized intake and initial management of patients at a “hub” (e.g., an OTP) and then connecting these patients to community providers at “spokes” (e.g., primary care clinics) for ongoing care, with ongoing support provided by the hub as needed. Additionally, officials from two states described offering remote MAT-related consultations through telehealth that connects patients in rural areas with addiction specialists. According to a 2017 Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Partnership whitepaper, telehealth expands the reach of the addiction professional workforce and the existing pool of MAT providers, and it supports remote forms of behavioral therapy to make trained professionals more accessible to those in underserved or isolated communities. Officials from three states described focusing their MAT expansion efforts in various settings, such as in the criminal justice setting and emergency room departments. State health officials from four of the five states told us that programs in their states are using peer specialists (individuals who have successfully recovered from substance abuse disorders) in emergency rooms and other settings to engage with addicted patients and refer them to addiction specialists or behavioral health counselors. Officials from the selected states said that some of these and other efforts are funded through federal sources, such as MAT expansion grants awarded by SAMHSA, or with state funds to the extent they are available. Efforts by private health insurers. Officials from private health insurers reported that they are expanding access to MAT through outreach or training for providers and through the following three efforts: Eliminating the need for prior authorization to prescribe MAT medications. Officials from three insurers reported removing prior authorization requirements for MAT medications, thereby making it easier for patients to access needed MAT medications more readily, rather than undergoing a waiting period for approval to receive the medications. Other private health insurers told us that they continue to require prior authorization, intended for safety reasons and to reduce drug misuse, and officials from one insurer told us that they will allow a patient to access a limited amount of MAT medications for a period of 24 to 72 hours while making a determination about the appropriate treatment services for the patient. Modifying health benefit coverage. Officials from one private health insurance plan told us that the company is redesigning the benefit coverage for methadone and has removed member copays. This effort is intended to make MAT medications more affordable and allow members who are not able to use buprenorphine to have an alternative, such as methadone, that is not cost-prohibitive. Incentivizing providers and health insurance plan members to use MAT. Officials from four private health insurance plans described plans to offer incentives to providers or patients to use MAT. For example, officials from three health plans stated that they are offering alternative payment models or paying higher rates to providers that offer MAT, and another private health insurer is offering incentives to its members who are enrolled in behavioral health programs that provide access to MAT. Efforts by national associations. Officials we interviewed from the national associations—including the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the National Governors Association, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials—told us that they are helping to expand access to MAT through outreach and training for their members and by developing tools and resource guides for their members. An official from one association told us that it shares federal grant announcements, including those that are focused on expanding access to MAT, with its members. Officials from another association said it provides training to providers on how to appropriately prescribe MAT medications. In addition, officials from one association told us that they developed an opioid-related road map that identifies examples of strategies—including MAT—that state policymakers can use in their ongoing efforts to address the opioid epidemic. Examples of strategies include reducing the stigma associated with MAT through educating the public and potential providers. Another strategy in the road map is changing payment policies to expand access to MAT services, such as ensuring that Medicaid and other state health programs adequately cover all MAT medications and behavioral interventions and encouraging or requiring commercial health plans to adopt similar policies. HHS funds grant programs and has taken other steps to expand access to MAT, which has been shown to be effective in reducing the prevalence of opioid use disorders and with them, the likelihood of drug overdoses. HHS’s Opioid Initiative began in 2015, and the grants that support it are ongoing, so it is likely too early to determine how effective HHS’s efforts have been in expanding access to MAT and in meeting HHS’s other priorities related to addressing the opioid epidemic. According to HHS, access to MAT can be measured in terms of the number of prescriptions for MAT and by the treatment capacities of OTPs and practitioners who are authorized to prescribe buprenorphine. Our review suggests, however, that HHS may not be ready to perform this evaluation. While HHS told us that it may evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts in the future, the department has not established performance measures with targets that would specify the results that HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts, and by when. Furthermore, HHS has not established timeframes for the activities that will make up its planned evaluation of whether HHS’s efforts have been implemented as intended. Without performance measures with targets and evaluation timeframes, HHS increases the risk that the evaluation will not be completed in a timely manner or that HHS will not know whether its MAT- related efforts are successful or whether new approaches are needed. The evaluation is particularly important, given the hundreds of millions of dollars HHS has invested in its MAT-related grant programs. We are making the following two recommendations to HHS. The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders. (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish timeframes in its evaluation approach that specify when its evaluation of efforts to expand access to MAT will be implemented and completed. (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review, and HHS provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its written comments, HHS concurred with both of our recommendations. Specifically, for our first recommendation to establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders, HHS stated that developing such measures is appropriate and that the department will continue to work to develop robust performance measures, including measures related to MAT, as part of its overall Opioid Strategy, which includes the department’s most recent efforts to address the opioid epidemic. For our second recommendation to establish timeframes in its evaluation approach that specify when its evaluation of efforts to expand access to MAT will be implemented and completed, HHS agreed that timeframes are important to any evaluation. HHS noted that its evaluation is being conducted under a 2-year contract that is scheduled to end in September 2018. HHS has also provided us with a draft evaluation schedule. We clarified in our report, however, that HHS has not yet provided a finalized approach for the planned evaluation or a finalized schedule establishing timeframes for the activities that will make up the evaluation. Until it finalizes its evaluation approach and establishes related timeframes, HHS increases the risk that it will not complete its planned evaluation by September 2018. We are sending copies of this report to the HHS, and appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or curdae@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a diversion control plan is a set of documented procedures intended to reduce the possibility that controlled substances will be transferred or used illicitly. Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and practitioners who prescribe buprenorphine at the highest patient level through a Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) waiver are required to have these plans. OTPs are programs that may administer or dispense medication- assisted treatment (MAT) for people diagnosed with an opioid use disorder, including the use of methadone and buprenorphine. In addition, under a DATA 2000 waiver, practitioners may prescribe buprenorphine for patients, up to a 30-, 100-, or 275 patient limit. An OTP must maintain a current diversion control plan that contains specific measures to reduce the possibility of diversion of controlled substances from legitimate treatment use. Per federal guidelines, the goal of the diversion control plan is to reduce the scope and significance of diversion and its impact on communities. The guidelines state that each OTP’s diversion control plan should make every effort to balance diversion control against the therapeutic needs of the individual patient. They also state that diversion control plans should address at least four general areas of concern: program environment, dosing and take-home medication, prevention of multiple program enrollment, and prescription medication misuse. The guidelines include details about each of these areas: Program environment: Diversion in the program environment can be deterred and detected by regular surveillance and the monitoring of areas in and around the program, where opportunities for diversion may exist. A visible human presence at a program’s location gives community members the opportunity to approach staff with concerns and communicates the program’s commitment to assuring a safe environment and a positive impact on the surrounding community. Dosing and take-home medication: In the area of dosing and take- home medication, diversion control encompasses careful control of inventory, attentive patient dosing, and close supervision of take- home medication. Observing a patient take his or her dose and having each of them drink and speak after dosing are fundamental components of diversion control. Take-home dosing should be provided with careful attention to regulatory compliance and the therapeutic benefit and safety these regulations are meant to promote. Prevention of multiple program enrollment: Reasonable measures should be taken to prevent patients from enrolling in treatment provided by more than one clinic or individual practitioner. An OTP, after obtaining patient consent, may contact other OTPs within a reasonable geographic distance (100 miles) to verify that a patient is not enrolled in another OTP. Misuse of prescription medication: The misuse of prescription medication has become an area of great concern nationally and impacts diversion control planning at OTPs. All OTP physicians and other healthcare providers, as permitted, should register to use their respective state’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and query it for each newly admitted patient prior to initiating dosing. The PDMP should be checked periodically (for example, quarterly) through the course of each individual’s treatment and, in particular, before ordering take-home doses as well as at other important clinical decision points. SAMHSA’s best-practice guidelines for using buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorders include multiple references to diversion, including monitoring for diversion, storage of this medication to minimize diversion, and use of formulations that may be less likely to be diverted. Specifically, the best practices state that, when possible, practitioners should use the combination buprenorphine/naloxone product, which increases safety and decreases the likelihood of diversion and misuse. Further, physicians who request and receive a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat up to 275 patients outside of an OTP are required to have a diversion control plan. According to an HHS official, as of July 13, 2017, roughly 3,330 of the over 39,000 practitioners with a waiver had a 275-patient limit waiver. The majority of these practitioners, just over 27,000, have a 30-patient limit. According to SAMHSA guidance, the diversion plan should contain specific measures to reduce the possibility of diversion of buprenorphine from legitimate treatment use and should assign specific responsibilities of the medical and administrative staff of the practice setting for carrying out these measures. Further, the guidance states that the plan should address how: the environment at the practice setting can prevent onsite diversion; to prevent diversion with regard to dosing and take-home medication; and to prevent patients from receiving a prescription from more than one practitioner and later diverting some of the prescribed medication. Elizabeth H. Curda, Director, (202) 512-7114 or curdae@gao.gov. In addition to the contact name above, Will Simerl, Assistant Director; Natalie Herzog, Analyst-in-Charge; La Sherri Bush; and Emily Wilson made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were Muriel Brown, Krister Friday, Sandra George, and Christina Ritchie.

 

 Report 2:
Congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy are kept separate from questions of funding. Broadly, the term authorization is used to describe legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies the organization or activities of a federal entity or program. By itself, such legislation does not provide funding for such purposes. Instead, the authority to obligate payments from the Treasury is left to separate appropriations measures. This distinction between appropriations and general legislation as two separate classes of measures, and their consideration in separate legislative vehicles, is a construct of congressional rules and practices. It has been developed and formalized by the House and Senate pursuant to the constitutional authority for each chamber to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings." This power permits each chamber of Congress to enforce, modify, waive, repeal, or ignore its rules as it sees fit. Because the two chambers exercise this rulemaking authority independently, they have developed differing (albeit generally similar) rules and practices. This report addresses solely developments in the House. According to Hinds' Precedents , the origin of a formal rule mandating the separation of general legislation from appropriations can be traced to 1835, when the House debated the increasing problem of delay in enacting appropriations due to the inclusion of "debatable matters of another character, new laws which created long debates in both Houses" and suggested that the Committee on Ways and Means should "strip the appropriation bills of every thing but were legitimate matters of appropriation." In the following Congress (25 th Congress, 1837-1839), language was added to House rules that stated: No appropriation shall be reported in such general appropriation bills, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law. This rule was applied broadly on occasion to exclude legislative provisions authorizing new expenditures as well, such as a case in 1838 when it was used to exclude an amendment that included a provision for refurnishing the White House. Gradually, the rule "became construed through a long line of decisions to admit amendments increasing salaries but as excluding amendments providing for decreases." As a consequence of this, in 1876, the language was expanded (at the suggestion of Representative William Holman of Indiana) to further state: Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto, changing existing law, be in order except such as, being germane to the subject matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures. As described by one scholar, this provision effectively granted the Appropriations Committee authority to include virtually any legislative provision in an appropriations measure so long as it reduced the number and salary of federal officials, the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury, or the amounts of money covered in an appropriation bill. According to one contemporary account, a broad initial construction of the rule by the House resulted in "putting a great mass of general legislation upon the appropriation bills." The rule was retained in this form until 1880 (46 th Congress), when it was modified to define retrenchments as the reduction of "the number and salary of officers of the United States, the reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or the reduction of the amounts of money covered by the bill." That form of the rule remained a part of House rules until the 49 th Congress eliminated it in 1885. It was reinserted in the rules for the 52 nd and 53 rd Congresses (1891-1895) but was again dropped for the 54 th through 61 st Congresses (1895-1911) before being readopted in the 62 nd Congress. Although the Holman rule has remained a part of House rules since that time, its language was amended at the start of the 98 th Congress (1983-1984). At that time, it was restructured to narrow the exception to the general prohibition against legislation to allow only retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill. In addition, the House rules for the 98 th Congress changed when retrenchment amendments could be offered. Amendments that only alter the items or amounts in an appropriation bill are generally in order when the measure is read for amendment and must be offered as the relevant paragraph or section of the bill is read. The new version of the rule provided, however, that germane amendments to retrench expenditures (as well as limitation amendments) would be in order only after the reading of a general appropriation bill and if a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report (essentially ending consideration of the bill) were rejected. Further stylistic changes were made when the House recodified its rules in the 106 th Congress (1999-2000) to make explicit that retrenchment amendments are in order if the motion to rise and report is not offered—as well as if the motion is rejected. It also clarified that the effect of a point of order against legislation in an appropriations bill (and, by extension, the application of the Holman rule exception) is surgical so that it lies against an offending provision in the text and not against consideration of the entire bill. The Holman rule currently states the following: A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or possession of information not required by existing law for the period of the appropriation, except germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill [emphasis added]. The Holman rule, thus, does not circumscribe Congress's lawmaking authority but rather provides a limited exception to the general prohibition in House rules against legislation in appropriation measures. For the 115 th Congress, the House included a separate order as Section 3(a) of H.Res. 5 , adopting the rules of the House, that provides the following: During the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, any reference in clause 2 of rule XXI to a provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill shall be construed as applying to any provision or amendment (offered after the bill has been read for amendment) that retrenches expenditures by— (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill; (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States. As stated in a section-by section summary included in the Congressional Record by Representative Pete Sessions, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, the purpose of this provision is "to see if the reinstatement of the Holman rule will provide Members with additional tools to reduce spending during consideration of the regular general appropriation bill." The applicability of this separate order was extended under Section 5 of H.Res. 787 (115 th Congress) which provided that "Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking 'the first session of.'" This separate order was not adopted for the 116 th Congress, so the application of the rule reverts to being guided by prior precedents rather than this language. Since the period immediately after the initial adoption of the rule in the 19 th century, the House has interpreted it through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application. For example, early precedents established that while it was not always necessary that a retrenchment specify the amount of a reduction of expenditures, it must appear as a necessary result of the legislation to be in order and that it is not sufficient that such reduction would probably (or would in the opinion of the chair) result therefrom. For example, legislation that would simply confer discretionary authority to terminate employment of federal employees is not in order under the Holman exception because any resulting savings would be speculative. The reduction also may not be contingent on an event. Furthermore, the rule is not applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill. The Holman rule then is intended to apply only when an obvious reduction of funds in a general appropriations bill is achieved by the provision in question, such as the cessation of specific government activities, or through a specific reduction of total appropriations in the bill. In addition, the exception does not apply to limitations (on the grounds that such language is not legislative) or legislative language unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill. Legislation that is too broad has also typically not been allowed under the Holman rule exception. The House has held, for example, that a provision that stated no part of an appropriation could be expended for a specific, designated purpose qualified as a retrenchment. However, a proposal that effectively repealed the law under which appropriations for that purpose were authorized was held not to come within the exception. In another case, the House held that even when a provision does reduce expenditures, it may not be accompanied by additional legislative provisions not directly contributing to the reduction. The separate order for the 115 th Congress effectively reinstated language that had been stricken from the rule in 1983. While the full scope of amendments might be in order as a consequence of this language, it is possible to analyze its potential impact based on past precedents and the limited experience of the 115 th Congress. The additional language opened the door to the consideration of retrenchments resulting from a reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States or the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States. There are precedents regarding provisions allowed under the older, pre-1983 form of the rule that may be illustrative for understanding what might be in order. For example, a proposal that pay for a class of employees be limited to a smaller number of employees than authorized by law was allowed, as were proposals that would reduce the number of officers. The Holman rule also allowed proposals that would consolidate or eliminate offices. On at least one occasion, the Holman rule was the basis for allowing a proposal to replace civilian employees with lower paid U.S. Army enlisted personnel. In another case, the rule allowed for an amendment that capped the salaries of certain employees. In the 115 th Congress, one amendment was considered in order based on a plain reading of the text of the separate order to allow for "the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States." Although the amendment failed of passage, it would have provided that: The salary of Mark Gabriel, the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration, shall be reduced to $1. As cited above, however, neither the rule nor the separate order allows for retrenchments that would be applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill. In addition, the application of the broader exceptions in the separate order were still subject to the general requirement for germaneness. The Holman rule is not intended to open the door for legislative provisions that would expand the scope of the bill. As a consequence, even with the additional scope provided by the language of the separate order, it would likely not be in order to include broad legislative provisions in, or amendments to, a specific appropriation bill that would apply to the salary or number of federal employees funded through appropriations in other measures. Furthermore, House precedent establishes that simply providing for a reduction of the number and salaries of officers in a paragraph when it is complicated by other elements does not necessarily bring a proposition within the exception. The Holman rule was also cited as the basis for allowing the consideration of one additional amendment during the 115 th Congress. That amendment also failed to pass, but it would have abolished the Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office, comprising 89 employees with annual salaries aggregating $15 million, transferring responsibility for any duties imposed by law and regulation to the Office of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. When discussing the application of rules and precedents, it is important to note that the House Parliamentarian is the sole definitive authority on questions relating to the chamber's precedents and procedures and should be consulted if a formal opinion on any specific parliamentary question is desired.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: The misuse of prescription opioid pain relievers and illicit opioids, such as heroin, has contributed to increases in overdose deaths. According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, in 2015 over 52,000 people died of drug overdose deaths, and about 63 percent of them involved an opioid. For those who are addicted to or misuse opioids, MAT has been shown to be an effective treatment. GAO was asked to review HHS and other efforts related to MAT for opioid use disorders. This report (1) describes HHS's key efforts to expand access to MAT, (2) examines HHS's evaluation, if any, of its efforts to expand access to MAT, and (3) describes efforts by selected stakeholders (states, private health insurers, and national associations) to expand access to MAT. GAO gathered information from HHS officials as well as a non-generalizable selection of 15 stakeholders selected based on their MAT expansion activities, among other factors. GAO also assessed HHS's evaluation plans using internal control standards for defining objectives and evaluating results. In an effort to reduce the prevalence of opioid misuse and the fatalities associated with it, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) established a goal to expand access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT). MAT is an approach that combines behavioral therapy and the use of certain medications, such as methadone and buprenorphine. HHS has implemented five key efforts since 2015 that focus on expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders—four grant programs that focus on expanding access to MAT in various settings (including rural primary care practices and health centers) and regulatory changes that expand treatment capacity by increasing patient limits for buprenorphine prescribers and allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe buprenorphine. Some of the grant awards were made in 2015, while others were made as recently as May 2017. (See figure.) As of August 2017, efforts under all the grant programs were ongoing. Grant recipients can use funding to undertake a range of activities, such as hiring and training providers and supporting treatments involving MAT. In addition, certain providers and grant recipients are required to develop plans for preventing MAT medications from being diverted for nonmedical purposes. HHS officials told GAO that as of August 2017, the department was in the process of finalizing its plans to evaluate its efforts to address the opioid epidemic. In September 2016, HHS awarded a contract to conduct the evaluation. HHS officials told GAO that they are still working with the contractor to finalize the evaluation approach and that it will focus on whether HHS's efforts to address the opioid epidemic have been implemented as intended. HHS officials said that in the future, HHS may also evaluate whether, or to what extent, its efforts have been effective in expanding access to MAT, in addition to evaluating implementation. While HHS has some of the information that could be used in a future evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts to expand access to MAT, it has not adopted specific performance measures with targets specifying the magnitude of the increases HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts to expand access to MAT, and by when. For example, HHS has not established a long-term target specifying the percentage increase in the number of prescriptions for buprenorphine HHS would like to achieve, which would help to show whether efforts by HHS and others are resulting in a sufficient number of prescriptions for MAT medications. HHS has also not chosen a specific method of measuring treatment capacity or established targets associated with it, which would help determine whether a sufficient number of providers are becoming available to evaluate and treat patients who may benefit from MAT. Without specifying these performance measures and associated targets, HHS will not have an effective means to determine whether its efforts are helping to expand access to MAT or whether new approaches are needed. Gauging this progress is particularly important given the large gap identified nationwide between the total number of individuals who could benefit from MAT and the limited number who can currently access it based on provider availability. In addition, GAO also found that as of August 2017, HHS had not finalized its approach for its planned evaluation activities, including timeframes. Without timeframes for the evaluation's activities, HHS increases the risk that the evaluation will not be completed as expeditiously as possible. In addition to HHS efforts to expand access to MAT, officials from selected states, private health insurers, and national associations reported using several efforts to expand patients' access to MAT for opioid use disorders. For example, several stakeholders provided GAO with the following examples of their efforts: States. State health officials from all five selected states have implemented or are planning approaches that focus on integrating the use of MAT into primary care, such as by providing services for centralized intake and initial management of patients or through telehealth that connects patients in rural areas with addiction specialists in a different location. Private health insurers. Three private health insurers reported removing prior authorization requirements for MAT medications so patients can avoid a waiting period before receiving the medications. National associations. Officials told GAO that they are conducting outreach and training for their members and developing tools and resource guides. For example, one association developed a road map with strategies that state policymakers can use to address the opioid epidemic, including strategies for reducing the stigma associated with MAT through educating the public and potential providers. GAO recommends that HHS take two actions: (1) establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT, and (2) establish timeframes for its evaluation of its efforts to expand access to MAT. HHS concurred with both recommendations.