Factors affecting problem-solving court team decisions about medications for opioid use disorder

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) provide alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for drug-related crimes and offer integrated support for people who have lost custody of children due to drug use. Methadone and buprenorphine are lifesaving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) but are underused by PSC clients. Even when PSCs lack a court-level prohibition against MOUD, court staff still make individualized decisions about whether a court client can use MOUD. Therefore, we sought to identify factors involved in such individualized PSC court decisions about clients' use of MOUD.

We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups between Summer and Fall 2022 with a convenience sample of 54 PSC staff members from 33 courts across four states. Data were analyzed using iterative categorization.

Interviewees indicated that their courts had eliminated blanket prohibitions against MOUD due to federal and state policy funding requirements, widespread dissemination of voluntary best practice standards, fear of lawsuits, and MOUD education targeting courts. Courts allowed MOUD if the court client accessed it through a treatment provider with whom the court collaborates. Some courts only allowed court clients to access MOUD from non-partnering treatment providers after a court-led "vetting" process of the proposed MOUD provider. MOUD provider characteristics considered during the vetting process included the provider's willingness to communicate with the court, frequent drug testing, adjustments of medication or dosage in response to aberrant results, offering of counseling, and acceptance of Medicaid or sliding scale payments. PSC staff were least comfortable with court clients using methadone treatment.

The presence (or lack of) a PSC-MOUD partnership is a key factor involved in court staff decisions when a court client desires MOUD. Therefore, increasing the number of partnerships between PSCs and MOUD providers could lead to higher rates of MOUD utilization. It is unclear whether court-led vetting processes for non-partnering MOUD treatment providers are necessary or appropriate, and such vetting processes could reduce treatment choice or access in communities with few MOUD providers.