BACKGROUND: Inpatient addiction medicine consultation services (AMCS) have grown rapidly, but there is limited research of their impact on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether AMCS is associated with all-cause mortality and hospital utilization postdischarge. DESIGN: This was a propensity-score-matchedcasecontrol study from 2018 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: The intervention group included patients referred to the AMCS from October 2018 to March 2020. Matched control participants included patients hospitalized from October 2017 to September 2018 at an urban academic hospital with a large suburban and rural catchment area. MAIN MEASURES: The effect of treatment was estimated as the difference between the proportion of subjects experiencing the event (7-day and 30-day readmission, emergency department visits, and mortality within 90 days) for each group in the matched sample. KEY RESULTS: There were 711 patients in the intervention group and 2172 patients in the control group. The most common substance use disorders among the intervention group were primary alcohol use disorder (n=181; 25.5%) and primary opioid use disorder (n=175, 24.6%) with over a third with polysubstance use (n=257, 36.1%). Intervention patients showed a reduction in 90-day mortality post-hospital discharge (average treatment effect [ATE]: −2.35%, 95% CI: −3.57, −1.13; p-value <0.001) compared to propensity-matched controls. We found a statistically significant reduction in 7-day hospital readmission by 2.15% (95% CI: −3.65, −0.65; p=0.005) and a nonsignificant reduction in 30-day readmission (ATE: −2.38%, 95% CI: −5.20, 0.45; p=0.099). There was a statistically significant increase in 30-day emergency department visits (ATE: 5.32%, 95% CI: 2.19, 8.46; 0.001) compared to matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in 90-day allcause mortality for the AMCS intervention group compared to matched controls, although the impact on hospital utilization was mixed. AMCS are systems interventions that are effective tools to improve patient health and reduce all-cause mortality.

This commentary argues that the Federation of State Medical Board's (FSMB) recommendations concerning the use of buprenorphine for physicians in their state-affiliated monitoring programs falls short of effectively permitting an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. Although the FSMB acknowledges the benefits of medications for opioid use disorder and recommends that physicians who elect to start on buprenorphine receive treatment safely and privately, the FSMB is opposed to health care professionals practicing while on buprenorphine. Their rationale is based on the notion that physicians are exceptional in their ability to remain in recovery without medications for opioid use disorder and the unsupported assumption that buprenorphine causes significant cognitive impairment. This commentary contends that FSMB policy recommendations should work to destigmatize and indeed support evidence-based treatments for physicians with substance use disorders.

No abstract