A
Federal requirements for MAT are too onerous .
FIGURE 2 Attitudes from Providers Currently Providing MAT
MAT is adequately reimbursed by insurance . I have support from staff to provide MAT .
I have support from fellow physicians to provide MAT . I have institutional support to provide MAT .
MAT substitutes one [ harmful ] drug for another . MAT us effective .
Patients on MAT are difficult to deal with .
Patients with OUD benefit from MAT . I would utilize support programs if issued by insurance companies . I would utilize support programs if issued by professional societies .
The number of providers willing to manage MAT is adequate . I feel comfortable treating / managing OUD with MAT . I feel adequately trained to manage OUD with MAT .
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %
100 %
Strongly Agree / Agree Neither / Neutral
Strongly Disagree / Disagree
B
Perceived Barriers to Expanding Practice in MAT by All Providers
Other No barriers
Workforce challenges Lack of support for prescribers
Existing care burden Culture / stigma Infrastructure
Reimbursement Formularies
Lack of administrative support Regulations / legislative rules
Lack of behavioral health coverage 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A ) Attitudes toward different aspects of MAT practice by providers who are currently providing MAT services ( n = 29 ) verses
B ) Attitudes on barriers to providing MAT services as reported by all providers . Providers were asked , “ Please identify perceived barriers to expanding your practice to include treatment for MAT ” ( n = 294 ).
West Virginia Medical Journal • September 2022 • 33