Background The US 21st Century Cures Act provided $7.5 billion in grant funding to states and territories for evidence-based responses to the opioid epidemic. Currently, little is known about optimal strategies for sustaining these programs beyond this start-up funding. Methods Using an inductive, conventional content analysis, we conducted key informant interviews with former and current state leaders (n = 16) about barriers/facilitators to sustainment and strategies for sustaining time-limited grants. Results Financing and reimbursement, service integration, and workforce capacity were the most cited barriers to sustainment. Status in state government structure, public support, and spending flexibility were noted as key facilitators. Effective levers to increase chances for sustainment included strong partnerships with other state agencies, workforce and credentialing changes, and marshalling advocacy through public awareness campaigns. Conclusions Understanding the strategies that leaders have successfully used to sustain programs in the past can inform how to continue future time-limited, grant-funded initiatives.

IntroductionThe opioid epidemic has evolved into a combined stimulant epidemic, with escalating stimulant and fentanyl-related overdose deaths. Primary care providers are on the frontlines grappling with patients’ methamphetamine use. Although effective models exist for treating opioid use disorder in primary care, little is known about current clinical practices for methamphetamine use.MethodsSix semistructured group interviews were conducted with 38 primary care providers. Interviews focused on provider perceptions of patients with methamphetamine use problems and their care. Data were analyzed using inductive and thematic analysis and summarized along the following dimensions: (1) problem identification, (2) clinical management, (3) barriers and facilitators to care, and (4) perceived needs to improve services.ResultsPrimary care providers varied in their approach to identifying and treating patient methamphetamine use. Unlike opioid use disorders, providers reported lacking standardized screening measures and evidence-based treatments, particularly medications, to address methamphetamine use. They seek more standardized screening tools, Food and Drug Administration–approved medications, reliable connections to addiction medicine specialists, and more training. Interest in novel behavioral health interventions suitable for primary care settings was also noteworthy.ConclusionsThe findings from this qualitative analysis revealed that primary care providers are using a wide range of tools to screen and treat methamphetamine use, but with little perceived effectiveness. Primary care faces multiple challenges in effectively addressing methamphetamine use among patients singularly or comorbid with opioid use disorders, including the lack of Food and Drug Administration–approved medications, limited patient retention, referral opportunities, funding, and training for methamphetamine use. Focusing on patients’ medical issues using a harm reduction, motivational interviewing approach, and linkage with addiction medicine specialists may be the most reasonable options to support primary care in compassionately and effectively managing patients who use methamphetamines.