ArticleJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2025
U.S. states opting out of expanded methadone take-home policies and associated mortality.
Article in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, federal regulations limited take-home methadone doses largely due to concerns about methadone-related overdose. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an emergency federal policy in March 2020 permitted states to expand take-home methadone doses. Our objective was to utilize state-level variation in take-home expansion to compare changes in methadone related overdose death rates among states that opted into and then out of expanded take-home dosing with states that opted into and continued the policy.
methodsWe used an extended two-way fixed effects difference-in-differences (DID) approach. The intervention group included states that initially opted into and then out of expanded take-home dosing, while the comparison group included states that opted into and continued the policy. Our primary outcome was the average treatment effect on the treated states (ATET) using quarterly rate of methadone-related overdose deaths per 100,000 persons from April 2020 to December 2022. Data sources included a state policy review, CDC WONDER, and U.S. Census Bureau.
resultsThe intervention group included three states that opted out of expanded take-home dosing, while the comparison group comprised 16 states maintaining the policy. We found no significant association between opting out of expanded take-home dosing and methadone-related overdose death rates [ATET = 0.02, 95 % CI = (-0.03, 0.47), p = 0.47]. Adjustments for non-methadone-related overdose variables yielded similar results.
conclusionStates who continued expanded take-home methadone dosing did not subsequently experience a detectable increase in methadone-related overdose deaths relative to states that opted out of the policy. This evidence suggests that policies expanding methadone take-homes are safe at a population level, which can inform deliberations within states that currently maintain strict restrictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.