Protocol for the implementation of a statewide mobile addiction program.

With overdose deaths increasing, improving access to harm reduction and low barrier substance use disorder treatment is more important than ever. The Community Care in Reach® model uses a mobile unit to bring both harm reduction and clinical care for addiction to people experiencing barriers to office-based care. These mobile units provide many resources and services to people who use drugs, including safer consumption supplies, naloxone, medication for substance use disorder treatment, and a wide range of primary and preventative care. This protocol outlines the evaluation plan for the Community in Care® model in MA, USA. Using the RE-AIM framework, this evaluation will assess how mobile services engage new and underserved communities in addiction services and primary and preventative care.

Prevalence and Correlates of Positive Follow-up Screens in Primary Care for Unhealthy Alcohol and Other Drug Use After a Negative Screen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion and characteristics of adults in primary care (PC) who screen positive for unhealthy substance use (SU) (alcohol and/or other drug) 1 year or more after screening negative. METHODS: Screening consisted of single-item questions for unhealthy use of alcohol and other drugs (illicit drugs and prescription medications). Health educators conducted in-person screening of patients presenting for a PC appointment. SU severity (low, moderate, high) was assessed with the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated predictors of a positive follow-up screen. RESULTS: Among 9215 patients who previously screened negative, 237 (2.6%) screened positive for unhealthy SU (42% alcohol only, 43% other drug only, 15% alcohol and other drug). The mean interval between screens was 19 months. Most alcohol use was low risk (ASSIST score ≤10) (81%), whereas most drug use was moderate risk (ASSIST score 4-26) (77%). Patients between ages of 18 to 25 had a higher proportion of positive follow-up screens (7.4% [33/ 443]) as well as those with a self-identified history of SU problems (9.4% [40/421]). Patients with a higher odds of a positive follow-up screen were male (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.64; 95% CI: 2.02-3.45), used tobacco (AOR 2.38; 95% CI: 1.75-3.23), had a longer interval between screenings (AOR 3.26; 95% CI: 1.84-5.75). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for unhealthy SU 1 year or more after screening negative identified additional patients at-risk. These findings highlight the need to empirically determine the incremental benefits of screening all PC patients annually.

The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders.

INTRODUCTION: The federal Opioid State Targeted Response (Opioid STR) grants provided funding to each state to ramp up the range of responses to reverse the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S. Washington State used these funds to develop and implement an integrated care model to expand access to medication treatment and reduce unmet need for people with opioid use disorders (OUD), regardless of how they enter the treatment system. This paper examines the design, early implementation and results of the Washington State Hub and Spoke Model. METHODS: Descriptive data were gathered from key informants, document review, and aggregate data reported by hubs and spokes to Washington State's Opioid STR team. RESULTS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model reflects a flexible approach that incorporates primary care and substance use treatment programs, as well as outreach, referral and social service organizations, and a nurse care manager. Hubs could be any type of program that had the required expertise and capacity to lead their network in medication treatment for OUD, including all three FDA-approved medications. Six hub-spoke networks were funded, with 8 unique agencies on average, and multiple sites. About 150 prescribers are in these networks (25 on average). In the first 18 months, nearly 5000 people were inducted onto OUD medication treatment: 73% on buprenorphine, 19% on methadone, and 9% on naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model built on prior approaches to improve the delivery system for OUD medication treatment and support services, by increasing integration of care, ensuring "no wrong door," engaging with community agencies, and supporting providers who are offering medication treatment. It used essential elements from existing integrated care OUD treatment models, but allowed for organic restructuring to meet the population needs within a community. To date, there have been challenges and successes, but with this approach, Washington State has provided medication treatment for OUD to nearly 5000 people. Sustainability efforts are underway. In the face of the ongoing opioid crisis, it remains essential to develop, implement and evaluate novel models, such as Washington's Hub and Spoke approach, to improve treatment access and increase capacity.

Cost Savings from a Navigator Intervention for Repeat Detoxification Clients.

BACKGROUND: Many clients with substance use disorders (SUD) have multiple admissions to a 24-hour level of care for detoxification without ever progressing to SUD treatment. In the US, health insurers have become concerned about the high costs and ineffective results of repeat detox admissions. For other diseases, health systems increasingly target high-risk, high-cost patients with individually tailored interventions delivered by `navigators' who help patients negotiate the complex health care system. Patient incentives are another increasingly common intervention. AIMS OF THE STUDY: (i) To examine how health care spending was affected by an intervention intended to improve entry to SUD treatment among clients who had multiple detox admissions. (ii) To see whether spending effects, overall and by type of service, differed by intervention arm. (iii) To assess whether the intervention resulted in net savings from the payer perspective, after subtracting implementation costs. METHODS: The intervention was implemented in a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population, and used Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs) who were trained to effectively engage and connect clients with SUD to follow-up care and community resources. Services were funded using a flat daily rate per client. Additionally, in one of the two intervention arms, clients were offered successive incentive payments for meeting pre-specified milestones to reinforce recovery-oriented behaviors. For this paper, multivariate analyses of claims and administrative data were used to measure the intervention's effect on health care spending, and to estimate net savings to the payer. RESULTS: Health care spending grew 1.6 percentage points more slowly for intervention-enrolled members than for others, implying gross savings of $68 per member per month. After subtracting intervention-related costs, net savings were estimated at $57 per member per month. The intervention was also associated with shifts in the health care service mix from more to less acute settings. DISCUSSION: While the results for total spending did not reach statistical significance, they suggest some potential for insurers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox utilization by using a navigator-based intervention. Analyses reported elsewhere found that this intervention had favorable effects on rates of initiation of SUD treatment. Limitations of the study include the fact that neither subjects nor sites were randomized between study groups; lack of data on crime or productivity outcomes; low participant use of RSN services; and a policy change which altered the participant pool and truncated follow-up for some. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: These results suggest some potential for payers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox by using a navigator-based intervention. To the extent that this results in shifting resources from repeat detox to actual treatment, the result should provide longer term benefit to the population coping with SUD. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: These results may encourage Medicaid and other payers to further experiment with similar interventions using navigators to decrease health care costs and improved the lives of SUD patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: It could be informative to test similar navigator interventions for detox patients in other settings where enrollment periods are longer.

Substance abuse treatment in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: gaps, consequences and solutions.

This issue brief outlines five strategies for improving the quality of treatment in Massachusetts: (1) Engaging detoxification clients in a broader continuum of treatment, (2) Improving retention in treatment, (3) Providing client/family-centered services, (4) Increasing the use of evidence-based treatment approaches, and (5) Supporting recovery to address the chronic nature of substance use disorders. These strategies are essential to maximizing the impact of our substance abuse dollars. We need to do it right and then expand access to treatment more broadly and fill the treatment gap. Although not the focus of this report we need to think harder about upfront prevention and efforts to encourage more people to seek care. Part of the public strategy also requires better coordination between BSAS, MassHealth, provider organizations, and other state agencies, including criminal justice and mental health agencies. Through these efforts we can reduce the costs and consequences of substance abuse and build a healthier, more productive community.