Association Between Intensity and Timing of Specialty Palliative Care and Hospice Exposure With Quality of End-of-Life Care.

Background: Gaps remain in our understanding of the intensity and timing of specialty palliative care (SPC) exposure on end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. Objective: Examine the association between intensity and timing of SPC and hospice (HO) exposure on EOL care outcomes. Design, Settings, Participants: Data for this cohort study were drawn from 2021 adult decedents from Kaiser Permanente Southern California and Colorado (n = 26,251). Caregivers of a decedent subgroup completed a postdeath care experience survey from July to August 2022 (n = 424). Measurements: SPC intensity (inpatient, outpatient, and home-based) and HO exposure in the five years before death were categorized as: (1) No SPC or HO; (2) SPC-only; (3) HO-only; and (4) SPC-HO. Timing of SPC exposure (<90 or 90+ days) before death was stratified by HO enrollment. Death in the hospital and potentially burdensome treatments in the last 14 days of life were extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) and claims. EOL care experience was obtained from the caregiver survey. Results: Among the EMR cohort, exposure to SPC and HO were: No SPC or HO (38%), SPC-only (14%; of whom, 55% received inpatient SPC only), HO-only (20%), and SPC-HO (28%). For decedents who did not enroll in HO, exposure to SPC 90+ days versus <90 days before death was associated with lower risk of receiving potentially burdensome treatments (adjusted relative risk, aRR: 0.69 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.62-0.76], p < 0.001) and 23% lower risk of dying in the hospital (aRR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.73-0.81], p < 0.001). Caregivers of patients in the HO-only (aRR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.98-1.63], p = 0.07) and SPC-HO cohorts (aRR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.93-1.52], p = 0.18) tended to report more positive care experience compared to the no SPC or HO cohort. Conclusion: Earlier exposure to SPC was important in reducing potentially burdensome treatments and death in the hospital for decedents who did not enroll in HO. Increasing availability and access to community-based SPC is needed.

Improving quality and performance in substance use treatment programs: What is being done and why is it so hard?

SUMMARY: As states plan to implement system-wide change of any kind, it is important to understand program directors' perspectives on challenges they face. This is especially true with quality improvement reforms. Much research has focused on quality improvement in medicine, but there is a gap in our knowledge about programs that treat individuals with drug or alcohol use. From 2007 to 2016, Maine contracted with selected substance use treatment programs using financial incentives to improve quality, with focus on treatment access, engagement, retention, and completion as measures of quality. Using surveys and in-depth interviews, this research documents strategies that programs used to improve performance and challenges faced in implementing reforms. Only programs that received federal block grant funding through the state to provide substance use treatment were eligible for an incentive contract, creating a natural experiment with non-block grant programs (non-incentive). Directors were interviewed in incentive (n=13) and non-incentive programs (n=12). FINDINGS: Thematic analysis revealed that: 1) programs focused on QI, but those eligible for incentives focused on different quality measures, 2) most of the reforms in both groups targeted improving treatment access and retention, and 3) programs faced substantial challenges in undertaking reforms. Despite efforts, many programs could not meet quality measures consistently over time and faced barriers over which they had little control. APPLICATIONS: Policy makers and program administrators will benefit from knowing the challenges of undertaking QI initiatives and provide support for the programs.

Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Program-level financial incentives are used by some payers as a tool to improve quality of substance use treatment. However, evidence of effectiveness is mixed and performance contracts may have unintended consequences such as creating barriers for more challenging clients who are less likely to meet benchmarks. This study investigates the impact of a performance contract on waiting time for substance use treatment and client selection. Admission and discharge data from publicly funded Maine outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) substance use treatment programs (N = 38,932 clients) were used. In a quasi-experimental pre-post design, pre-period (FY 2005-2007) admission data from incentivized (IC) and non-incentivized (non-IC) programs were compared to post-period (FY 2008-2012) using propensity score matching and multivariate difference-in-difference regression. Dependent variables were waiting time (incentivized) and client selection (severity: history of mental disorders and substance use severity, not incentivized). Despite financial incentives designed to reduce waiting time for substance use treatment among state-funded outpatient programs, average waiting time for treatment increased in the post period for both IC and non-IC groups, as did client severity. There were no significant differences in waiting time between IC and non-IC groups over time. Increases in client severity over time, with no group differences, indicate that programs did not restrict access for more challenging clients. Adequate funding and other approaches to improve quality may be beneficial.