Table 1. Characteristics of Residential Treatment Programs by Reported Availability of OATa.
| All respondents, No. (%) | OAT available for maintenance treatment, No. (%)b | Adjusted difference, % (95% CI)c | OAT available for detoxification only, No. (%) | Adjusted difference, % (95% CI)c | OAT not available or unclear, No. (%) | Adjusted difference, % (95% CI)c | Anti-OAT statements made, No. (%)d | Adjusted difference, % (95% CI)c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 368 (100) | 107 (29) | 114 (31) | 143 (39) | 78 (21) | ||||
| Profit status | |||||||||
| For profit | 226 (61) | 66 (29) | 1 [Reference] | 97 (43) | 1 [Reference] | 61 (27) | 1 [Reference] | 57 (25) | 1 [Reference] |
| Not for profit | 120 (33) | 36 (31) | 4.8 (−7.3 to 16.8) | 17 (14) | −12.2 (−23.8 to −0.7) | 65 (55) | 7.2 (−4.0 to 18.4) | 20 (17) | −2.1 (−13.0 to 8.9) |
| Public (local and state)e | 22 (6) | 5 (23) | −3.8 (−23.9 to 16.3) | 0 | NA | 17 (77) | 30.7 (9.6 to 51.8) | 1 (5) | −17.9 (−29.3 to −6.4) |
| Offering detoxification | |||||||||
| Yes | 163 (44) | 53 (33) | 1 [Reference] | 69 (43) | 1 [Reference] | 38 (24) | 1 [Reference] | 31 (19) | 1 [Reference] |
| No | 163 (44) | 38 (23) | −11.3 (−22.4 to −0.3) | 28 (17) | −11.2 (−22.4 to −0.0) | 96 (59) | 23.4 (12.4 to 34.4) | 33 (20) | 4.7 (−5.3 to 14.7) |
| Missing data | 42 (11) | 16 (38) | 7.9 (−18.8 to 34.6) | 17 (40) | 0.9 (−26.6 to 28.5) | 9 (21) | 5.2 (−17.4 to 27.7) | 14 (33) | 3.1 (−17.1 to 23.3) |
| CARF accredited | |||||||||
| Yes | 97 (26) | 27 (28) | −2.7 (−14.9 to 9.5) | 24 (25) | 10.8 (−1.9 to 23.6) | 45 (47) | −3.1 (−13.8 to 7.5) | 20 (21) | 7.5 (−4.7 to 19.7) |
| No | 271 (74) | 80 (30) | 1 [Reference] | 90 (34) | 1 [Reference] | 98 (37) | 1 [Reference] | 58 (22) | 1 [Reference] |
| Joint Commission accredited | |||||||||
| Yes | 178 (48) | 53 (30) | −2.0 (−14.4 to 10.4) | 87 (50) | 29.9 (17.0 to 42.8) | 35 (20) | −26.0 (−38.3 to −13.8) | 48 (27) | 9.9 (−1.4 to 21.3) |
| No | 190 (52) | 54 (29) | 1 [Reference] | 27 (14) | 1 [Reference] | 108 (57) | 1 [Reference] | 30 (16) | 1 [Reference] |
| State licensed | |||||||||
| Yes | 336 (91) | 99 (30) | 8.1 (−8.1 to 24.2) | 99 (30) | −9.8 (−26.5 to 7.0) | 135 (41) | 2.3 (−15.1 to 19.8) | 66 (20) | −9.9 (−27.1 to 7.3) |
| No | 32 (9) | 8 (26) | 1 [Reference] | 15 (48) | 1 [Reference] | 8 (26) | 1 [Reference] | 12 (39) | 1 [Reference] |
Abbreviations: CARF, Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities; NA, not applicable; OAT, opioid agonist therapy.
Facilities with missing data on OAT availability and anti-OAT statements (n = 4) were excluded from all estimates.
OAT available for maintenance treatment, OAT available for detoxification only, and OAT not available or unclear were 3 mutually exclusive outcomes for OAT availability at facilities. Percentages may not sum exactly to 100% because of rounding.
Adjusted marginal differences were estimated using logistic regression models and the “margins” function in Stata (version 14) for each of the outcomes above, controlling for all variables in the table as well as length of residential treatment offered (>30 days, ≤30 days, or both) and Census division of the facility (9 divisions: East North Central, East South Central, Middle Atlantic, Mountain, New England, Pacific, South Atlantic, West North Central, and West South Central).
“Anti-OAT statements made” was an independent outcome capturing whether facilities discouraged simulated patients from pursuing OAT when they inquired about its availability. The 3 most common anti-OAT statements were that OAT is “not clean” (n = 32), “trading one addiction for another” (n = 22), or that OAT is “addictive” (n = 16).
Public facilities (a subset of nonprofit facilities) were defined as those owned and operated by local or state governments.