logo
Data shows medication-assisted treatment works for opioid use disorder—so why aren't more people getting it?

Data shows medication-assisted treatment works for opioid use disorder—so why aren't more people getting it?

Yahoo12-05-2025

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a treatable but potentially life-threatening condition. Yet millions of people still lack access to the most effective treatment options. According to recently released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medications for OUD, especially buprenorphine and methadone, can significantly reduce the risk of overdose and improve long-term health outcomes. Despite this, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) remains widely underused.
In 2022, an estimated 9.4 million U.S. adults needed treatment for OUD, but only one in four (25.1%) received evidence-based MAT, according to the CDC. Nearly half (42.7%) didn't even perceive a need for treatment, which highlights how misinformation, stigma, and systemic barriers continue to shape access to care.
Access to MAT is also far from equitable. CDC data shows that white adults are more likely to receive these medications than Black or Hispanic adults, and men are more likely to access them than women. Adults aged 35-49 had higher rates of medication use than their younger or older peers.
The disparities go deeper: People with lower incomes, those who are unemployed, and individuals involved in the criminal legal system had the highest need for OUD treatment. At the same time, they were among the least likely to receive medication-based care, according to the CDC. These gaps underscore the urgent need for more equitable, accessible MAT programs.
To better understand the treatment gap, Charlie Health examined the latest research on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including how they work, who they reach, and who's still being left behind.
CDC data shows that in 2022, nearly one-third of people with OUD (30%) received treatment without medication—an approach used more often than MAT, even though it's less effective at lowering the risk of overdose. Encouragingly, individuals with severe OUD were significantly more likely to receive medication-based treatment than those with mild or moderate cases, according to a 2021 national study.
Concerns about medication safety sometimes prevent people or providers from pursuing MAT. But data consistently shows that MAT is safe, even for people with co-occurring physical health issues. A 2024 study found no increase in ER visits or hospitalizations among people with congestive heart failure who received MAT, supporting its safety across populations with different conditions.
Expanding access to MAT in rural areas can be life-changing for those with OUD, especially since people struggling with opioid addiction in rural areas face disproportionate barriers to care. A 2022 study of a Colorado pilot program—which trained 15 new providers and delivered care to more than 1,000 patients—found that, after six months, participants reported reduced opioid, heroin, and alcohol use, along with better physical and mental health. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and pain all decreased.
Programs that make MAT more accessible don't just improve health outcomes; they also reduce healthcare costs. In Vermont, Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in the state's "Hub & Spoke" program (which expanded access to MAT) had lower ER use and fewer hospitalizations than those who received treatment without medication, research shows. These findings support policy approaches that invest in MAT for OUD not just as a clinical best practice but as a cost-saving public health strategy.
The national study conducted in 2021 found that people who accessed care via telehealth were 38 times more likely to receive MAT for OUD than those who didn't. This suggests that virtual care can play a critical role in overcoming geographic or logistical barriers, especially for people in rural or underserved areas.
This story was produced by Charlie Health and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Measles misinformation is hurting our kids while Trump government self-destructs
Measles misinformation is hurting our kids while Trump government self-destructs

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Measles misinformation is hurting our kids while Trump government self-destructs

It is not surprising that the Trump administration is dismantling the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Anti-government and pseudo-science sentiment permeated his campaign. What is surprising is the rapidity and depth to which it took place. With constituent anger boiling over, new leaders were chosen who opted to destroy with a chainsaw rather than support and fix existing infrastructure. All of this is occurring while our nation is under siege from an all but extinct contagion — measles. Anti-vaxxers have increased their influence and have minimized the dangers of measles infections, while exaggerating the risks of vaccinations. Just this year, we have lost two unvaccinated healthy children to measles. One to two in every 1,000 cases will die. Measles can cause delayed symptoms, blindness, deafness and impaired cognitive performance. Measles can also suppress the immune system for at least a year, eliminating 11% to 73% of one's antibody reserves. Of concern are two recent studies that found that immune damage can persist for years. Patients can also develop a rare but almost always fatal brain disease, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), 10 or more years after their infection. We do not have an effective plan to stop this epidemic. Instead, our new leaders are providing misinformation and fueling conspiracy theories. Gerth: Where's Craig? Greenberg created this tennis center mess. He must fix it. | Opinion Below are the facts: The vaccine provides decades if not a lifetime of protection. Parents have been told that the measles vaccine's protection 'wanes very quickly." In fact, if you received the two-dose attenuated live virus vaccine after 1968, you should have lifelong immunity with 97% efficacy. The vaccine is much safer than getting the infection. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, there have been no deaths from the vaccine in healthy children. Importantly, the vaccine should not be given to immunocompromised individuals. However, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll (KFF), 19% of the public mistakenly believes the measles vaccine is probably or definitely more dangerous than getting an infection. This is a disturbing finding for a disease which requires a 95% rate of immunity to prevent outbreaks. The vaccine does not cause autism. A Danish study of 657,461 children found there was no difference in autism between those vaccinated and unvaccinated. Statements that controlled studies regarding the risks of autism and vaccines have not been done are false. However, according to the KFF Poll, 25% of the public mistakenly believes the measles (MMR) vaccine probably or definitely causes autism. Unfortunately, to sort out this debacle, a man who the State Board of Maryland reportedly found worked as a medical doctor without a license or even attending medical school was appointed to restudy vaccines and autism. Vitamin A does not prevent or cure measles. It will reduce complications in malnourished children, but its effect on children without a deficiency is unknown. What is known is that too much Vitamin A can be dangerous and that some children with measles in Texas have been treated for Vitamin A toxicity. The recent KFF Poll found 25% of the public mistakenly believe Vitamin A was probably or definitely effective in preventing measles. Andy Barr: Trump needs a proven winner to replace McConnell. That's me. The federal government's response to this disinformation and falling vaccination rates has not only been muted, but profoundly counterproductive. The secretary of Health and Human Services even praised a doctor who was treating patients while he was infected with measles. This not only placed children at risk but downplayed the dangers of the infection. At the same time, the CDC has been hobbled with massive budget cuts and layoffs. The agency reportedly had to scrap plans to help one Texas school system because of layoffs. CDC funds to state health departments, including $150 million in Kentucky, are at grave risk of being cut. Another federal government self-destructive behavior is not collecting needed data, the old "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. This has affected everything from drug use to maternal mortality to climate change. Public health has been directly affected, with the FDA recently not publicizing an E. coli outbreak in our food supply, and the CDC suppressing their measles forecast, which also encouraged vaccinations. Hyper-politicization of the measles epidemic is also hindering our ability to stop the virus' spread. Seventh-six percent of Democrats are worried about the measles outbreak, compared to only 28% of Republicans. Vaccines are one of the greatest success stories of modern medicine. Since 1975, an estimated 154 million lives have been saved with vaccines. The consequences of our abandonment of public health are only now becoming apparent. Unfortunately, it is our children who appear to be paying the heftiest price. A price which for some will be paid with interest for decades to come. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Kevin Kavanagh is a retired physician from Somerset, Kentucky and chairman of Health Watch USA. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Trump government destruction worsens measles misinformation | Opinion

COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.
COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice.

The recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' announcement to no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and children may be one of the worst public health decisions in the history of the United States, having a long-lasting detrimental impact on the future of our society, our children. The logic behind this decision is obscure at best, which may be why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention referred questions regarding this policy to the U.S. Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and to the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services. For women and children, COVID-19 can be a serious disease, and COVID-19 vaccines and boosters help protect the pregnant mother, newborns and children. Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe COVID-19. The British Medical Journal published a large review of studies and concluded that COVID-19 increases the risk of maternal death and severe maternal morbidities (e.g., mechanical ventilation, thromboembolic disease). On one hand, the federal government recommends a COVID-19 booster for those over the age of 65 and for younger adults and children who have at least one risk factor, but then not recommend for those who are at risk because they are pregnant. COVID-19 vaccinations have been observed to effectively increase antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) and reduce the chances of a premature delivery. COVID-19 boosters are also safe during pregnancy and have not been found to be associated with spontaneous abortions. The decision to withhold COVID-19 vaccinations for children demonstrates a myopic approach to science and a lack of critical thinking. It appears policymakers are only focused on the prevention of death and hospitalization, defining this outcome as severe disease and assuming everything else is mild. This approach ignores the severe and chronic disabling effects of long COVID in children. It is true that on average children have milder COVID-19 infections and develop long COVID less commonly than adults. However, milder does not mean mild, and less common does not mean uncommon. It is estimated that approximately 4% of children will develop long COVID, compared to 10% to 26% for adults. This is way too high of an incidence for children, especially when re-infections are all too common. Long COVID in children can be serious. COVID-19 increases the chances of a child developing diabetes, other seemingly unrelated infections (for example respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] infections) and cognitive, mental health problems. Vaccinations have been found to reduce the chances of children developing long COVID. So maybe we should recommend and not discourage their use. Children can also spread the disease and place others at risk. This was known early on in the pandemic. I'm not sure how the public began to believe children did not pose a risk to others. Children are germ magnets, a life principle held by many parents and grandparents. Children readily spread every respiratory disease that I can think of. Why would COVID be any different? Opinion: Measles misinformation is hurting our kids while Trump government self-destructs How does our nation confront these public health risks? Simple, blame problems on lockdowns, ignore epidemiological evidence and quit counting cases. Then recommend against pregnant mothers and children receiving the vaccine. Clinical studies, medical record data and data from the V-Safe program have documented the vaccine's safety. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is not intended or designed to determine the risks of complications, only to identify potential complications to be investigated. Similar to Facebook, inaccurate or malicious reports can also be entered by AI bots and foreign adversaries to stir social discontent. In general, vaccines are watered-down infections. They boost your immunity while markedly decreasing, but not completely eliminating, severe complications. The mRNA vaccine does not change one's DNA, and the dosage of the spike protein is much smaller than one receives from an infection. If vaccines are as dangerous as social media disinformation says, then multiply these dangers by several magnitudes when an infection develops. If one is worried about mRNA, then obtain the protein-based vaccine, Novavax, which may have lower side effects and should have better standardization of the delivery dosage. Opinion: We have money to fight Kentucky's opioid crisis. Let's not waste it. We soon will be at risk of facing another wave of COVID from the Nb.1.8.1 variant, which is currently spreading across Southeast Asia and just landed in the United States. This variant has increased infectivity and immune-evasive properties. Everyone should become vaccinated and up to date with their COVID-19 boosters, including pregnant women and children. COVID is not over, it is still dangerous, and can cause serious long-term sequelae that may not be evident for months or years after the acute infection. We need to update our nation's vaccination policy, not based on political populism, but to reflect the realities of the world we are living in. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Kevin Kavanagh is a retired physician from Somerset, Kentucky and chairman of Health Watch USA. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: I'm a retired doctor. Kennedy's COVID policy will hurt US. | Opinion

Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks
Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks

Brian Edwards' op-ed ('Kentucky's bourbon business is vital to our economy. Don't let DC dry it up") seems wrongheaded. If there is a near-prohibition lobby as he claims, I, too, would disagree and think them Menken's Puritans. While I will make the argument for consumption here, doing so on economic grounds for a substance that the National Institutes for Health estimates costs the nation $249 billion and results in 178,000 annual deaths according to the Center for Disease Control seems antithetical. To start, the science is clear: 'We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn't matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker's health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is … the less you drink, the safer it is' (Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges, World Health Organization, 2022). Further, the purported health benefits of alcohol use have been repudiated. From JAMA ('Association of Habitual Alcohol Intake With Risk of Cardiovascular Disease', March 2022): 'Observational studies have repeatedly demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular disease with light to moderate alcohol intake compared with either abstinence or heavy consumption, suggesting J- or U-shaped epidemiologic associations. However, the observed cardiac benefits of alcohol have been hypothesized to be the product of residual confounding (variables) because of favorable lifestyle, socioeconomic and behavioral factors that tend to coincide with modest alcohol intake.' In sum, there is no safe use and no cardiovascular benefit of alcohol. Opinion: COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice. However, there is evidence of human use of alcohol from 900,000 years ago, and alcohol is a well-established part of life in America. The National Academies notes that many alcohol-containing beverages provide flavors and sensations that people enjoy, and the effect on how we act and respond in social situations are two of several reasons for widespread alcohol use in our culture. Concerning responsible drinking, the data are split. The United States Census Bureau estimates that there are 258.3 million adult Americans. The National Institutes for Health estimates that 63% use alcohol at least on occasion, or 177 million Americans imbibe. Among these, the Centers for Disease Control estimates 29.6% of young adults and over 10% of seniors binge drink by consuming toxic amounts in one sitting. The CDC estimates that there are, separately, 15 million heavy drinkers who drink beyond moderation every week. The NIH estimates that there are 54 million Americans who need treatment for Substance Use Disorder. Let's use some rough, back of the envelope math, allowing that the groups defined above overlap, let us say that we have at least 100 million Americans who drink responsibly but very many who do not. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines moderate drinking as two drinks per day and seven per week for men and one drink per day and four a week for women (alcohol is on the whole metabolized differently by gender). A standard drink is 12 ounces of beer at 5% alcohol by volume (ABV), 5 ounces of wine at 12% ABV, or 1.5 ounces of spirits at 40% ABV. Opinion: Share Parkland's present, shape its future at Courier Journal mobile newsroom Concerning risk, it is also true that Americans take similar and more severe risks than alcohol use on a regular basis. For instance, Driving Test America estimates that in 2021 Americans drove cars and light trucks 3 trillion miles. These drivers are guided by rules of the road and formal laws that guide their driving behavior, and the manufacture of automobiles is very regulated for safety purposes. Nonetheless, there were 6.1 million vehicular crashes, resulting in 1.7 million injuries and 39.3 thousand deaths in 2021. This analogy falls apart at some point, as all do, but the point is made that alcohol use is not the only widely popular, risk-taking behavior in America. Applause to Mr. Edwards for contributing to the public debate. We would agree about a near-prohibition agenda if, as he says, such exists. America and most of Europe have tried prohibition. We know how that ends. Further, regulating the amount of consumption would be a regulatory nightmare. However, holding up the economic benefit as a reason to ignore the science is not the way to go. Better for the alcoholic beverage industry to recognize and promote responsible use and take those steps within their ken to reduce heavy and binge drinking. A market of 100 million American adults should suffice. For the nation as a whole, increasing access to treatment would be a far better use of our time and treasure. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Gene Gilchrist is the chief executive officer for Stay Clean, a cloud-based addiction treatment and recovery community. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky shouldn't ignore alcohol's health risks for profit | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store