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.

Screening and Brief Intervention With Low-Income Youth in Community-Based Settings.

PURPOSE: We described screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) results and assessed whether SBIRT is associated with positive changes in substance use, risky use, and educational/employment outcomes for youth in community-based settings that are not healthcare focused. METHODS: YouthBuild USA serves youth of ages 16-24 who are neither in school nor employed. In an SBIRT intervention, youth completed substance use surveys and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Drug Abuse Screening Test screenings at entry and program completion. Staff reported on services provided in response to screening scores. Regression models compared changes in youth screening results and substance use from intake to follow-up and, with aggregate program-level data, youth outcomes across programs with and without the SBIRT intervention. RESULTS: Youth significantly reduced Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (3.1 vs. 2.3, p < .001) and Drug Abuse Screening Test (1.9 vs. 1.4, p < .001) scores, positive screens (64% vs. 54%, p < .001), and need for referrals to treatment (48% vs. 37%, p < .001), indicating less risky substance use, although self-reports of substance use in the past 30 days did not decrease. Proportionately more youth in SBIRT programs attained a high school diploma or equivalent (49% vs. 42%, p = .01) and were still in educational/job placements 3 months after program completion (67% vs. 59%, p = .02), compared to youth in non-SBIRT programs. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that community-based SBIRT is associated with positive outcomes-both reduced risky substance use and improved education and employment-that relate to longer-term positive development for youth. SBIRT appears to be an evidence-based approach to intervene and help youth.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings.

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

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.

Rates and predictors of brief intervention for women veterans returning from recent wars: Examining gaps in service delivery for unhealthy alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in four women veterans accessing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) engage in unhealthy alcohol use. There is substantial evidence for gender-sensitive screening (AUDIT-C = 3) and brief intervention (BI) to reduce risks associated with unhealthy alcohol use in women veterans; however, VA policies and incentives remain gender-neutral (AUDIT-C = 5). Women veterans who screen positive at lower-risk-level alcohol use (AUDIT-C = 3 or 4) may screen out and therefore not receive BI. This study aimed to examine gaps in implementation of BI practice for women veterans through identifying rates of BI at different alcohol risk levels (AUDIT-C = 3-4; =5-7; =8-12), and the role of alcohol risk level and other factors in predicting receipt of BI. METHODS: From administrative data (2010-2016), we drew a sample of women veterans returning from recent wars who accessed outpatient and/or inpatient care. Of 869 women veterans, 284 screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at or above a gender-sensitive cut-point (AUDIT-C ≥ 3). We used chart review methods to abstract variables from the medical record and then employed logistic regression comparing women veterans who received BI at varying alcohol risk levels to those who did not. RESULTS: While almost 60% of the alcohol positive-risk sample received BI, among the subset of women veterans who screened positive for lower-risk alcohol use (57%; AUDIT-C = 3 or 4) only 34% received BI. Nurses in primary care programs were less likely to deliver BI than other types of clinicians (e.g., physicians, psychologists, social workers) in mental health programs; further, nurses in women's health programs were less likely to deliver BI than other types of clinicians in mixed-gender programs; Those women veterans with more medical problems were no more likely to receive BI than those with fewer medical problems. CONCLUSIONS: Given that women veterans are a rapidly growing veteran population and a VA priority, underuse of BI for women veterans screening positive at a lower-risk level and those with more medical comorbidities requires attention, as do potential gaps in service delivery of BI in primary care and women's health programs. Women veterans health and well-being may be improved by tailoring screening for a younger cohort of women veterans at high-risk for, or with co-occurring disorders and then training providers in best practices for BI implementation.

Evaluating the feasibility and impact of case rate payment for recovery support navigator services: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Acute 24-h detoxification services (detox) are necessary but insufficient for many individuals working towards long-term recovery from opiate, alcohol or other drug addiction. Longer engagement in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment can lead to better health outcomes and reductions in overall healthcare costs. Connecting individuals with post-detox SUD treatment and supportive services is a vital next step. Toward this end, the Massachusetts Medicaid program reimburses Community Support Program staff (CSPs) to facilitate these connections. CSP support services are typically paid on a units-of-service basis. As part of a larger study testing health care innovations, one large Medicaid insurer developed a new cadre of workers, called Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs). RSNs performed similar tasks to CSPs but received more extensive training and coaching and were paid an experimental case rate (a flat negotiated reimbursement). This sub-study evaluates the feasibility and impact of case rate payments for RSN services as compared to CSP services paid fee-for-service. METHODS: We analyzed claims data and RSN service data for a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population who had more than one detox admission in the last year and also engaged in post-discharge CSP or RSN services. Qualitative data from key informant interviews and Learning Collaboratives with CSPs and RSNs supplemented the findings. RESULTS: Clients receiving RSN services under the case rate utilized the service significantly longer than clients receiving CSP services under unit-based billing. This resulted in a lower average cost per member per month for RSN clients. However, when calculating total SUD treatment costs per member, RSN client costs were 50% higher than CSP client costs. Provider organizations employing RSNs successfully implemented case rate billing. Benefits included allowing time for outreach efforts and training and coaching, activities not paid under the unit-based system. Yet, RSNs identified staffing and larger systems level challenges to consider when using a case rate payment model. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction is a chronic disease that requires long-term investments. Case rate billing offers a promising option for payers and providers as it promotes continued engagement with service providers. To fully realize the benefits of case rate billing, however, larger systems level changes are needed.

Impact of recovery support navigators on continuity of care after detoxification.

Although evidence points to the benefits of continuity of care after detoxification (detox), especially when continuity of care occurs within a short time after discharge from a detox episode, the rate at which clients engage in continued treatment after detox remains low. The goal of the study was to develop and deploy a specially trained workforce, called recovery support navigators (RSNs), to increase the likelihood of clients continuing onto treatment after detox. Continuity of care is defined as receiving any substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service within 14 days of discharge from the index detox. We examined whether clients in the RSN Intervention group were more likely to meet the continuity of care after detox criteria than clients in the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group. A quasi-experimental intervention versus comparison group study was conducted. Data were from the Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership (MBHP), a Beacon Health Options company that manages behavioral health benefits for a subset of Medicaid beneficiaries in the state. Inclusion in the analytic sample (N = 4,236) required that the client's index admission to detox was between 3/29/13 and 3/31/15. RSN Intervention versus TAU status was assigned based on provider organization where the index detox occurred. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. Overall, the continuity of care rate across all study groups was 42%. The rate by study group was 38% for the TAU and 45% for the RSN group. Clients who were in the RSN group were significantly more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox than those in the TAU (OR = 1.233, p < .05, 95% CI = 1.044, 1.455). Clients who entered detox at a site that provided specialized training to RSN, which included motivational interviewing and educational sessions related to treatment issues, and allowing them to bill with a flexible daily case rate instead of the usual fee-for-service billing, were more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox compared to clients in the TAU group.

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.

Design and impact of bundled payment for detox and follow-up care.

INTRODUCTION: Recent payment reforms promote movement from fee-for-service to alternative payment models that shift financial risk from payers to providers, incentivizing providers to manage patients' utilization. Bundled payment, an episode-based fixed payment that includes the prices of a group of services that would typically treat an episode of care, is expanding in the United States. Bundled payment has been recommended as a way to pay for comprehensive SUD treatment and has the potential to improve treatment engagement after detox, which could reduce detox readmissions, improve health outcomes, and reduce medical care costs. However, if moving to bundled payment creates large losses for some providers, it may not be sustainable. The objective of this study was to design the first bundled payment for detox and follow-up care and to estimate its impact on provider revenues. METHODS: Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries' behavioral health, medical, and pharmacy claims from July 2010-April 2013 were used to build and test a detox bundled payment for continuously enrolled adults (N=5521). A risk adjustment model was developed using general linear modeling to predict beneficiaries' episode costs. The projected payments to each provider from the risk adjustment analysis were compared to the observed baseline costs to determine the potential impact of a detox bundled payment reform on organizational revenues. This was modeled in two ways: first assuming no change in behavior and then assuming a supply-side cost sharing behavioral response of a 10% reduction in detox readmissions and an increase of one individual counseling and one group counseling session. RESULTS: The mean total 90-day detox episode cost was $3743. Nearly 70% of the total mean cost consists of the index detox, psychiatric inpatient care, and short-term residential care. Risk mitigation, including risk adjustment, substantially reduced the variation of the mean episode cost. There are opportunities for organizations to gain revenue under this bundled payment design, but many providers will lose money under a bundled payment designed using historic payment and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a bundled payment for detox and follow-up care is feasible, but low case volume and the adequacy of the payment are concerns. Thus, a detox episode-based payment will likely be more challenging for smaller, independent SUD treatment providers. These providers are experiencing many changes as financing shifts away from block grant funding toward Medicaid funding. A detox bundled payment in practice would need to consider different risk mitigation strategies, provider pooling, and costs based on episodes of care meeting quality standards, but could incentivize care coordination, which is important to reducing detox readmissions and engaging patients in care.

Massachusetts Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations' Perspectives on the Affordable Care Act: Changes in Payment, Services, and System Design.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded insurance benefits and coverage for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and encouraged delivery and payment reforms. Massachusetts passed a similar reform in 2006. This study aims to assess Massachusetts SUD treatment organizations' responses to the ACA. Organizational interviews addressing challenges of and responses to the ACA were conducted in person June-December 2014 with 31 leaders at 12 treatment organizations across Massachusetts. Many organizations were affiliated with medical or social services and offered a range of SUD services. Sampling was based on services offered (detoxification only, detoxification and outpatient, outpatient only). Framework analysis was used. Challenges identified were considered similar to ongoing challenges, not unique to the ACA. Organizations experienced insurance expansions in 2006 and faced new challenges, including insurance coverage, payment arrangements, expansion of services, and system design. System design efforts included care coordination/integration, workforce development, and health information technology. Differences in responses related to connections with medical and social service organizations. Many organizations engaged in efforts to respond to changing policies by expanding capacity and services. Offering a range of SUD treatment (e.g., detoxification and outpatient) and affiliating with a medical organization could enable organizations to respond to new insurance, delivery, and payment reforms.

Implementation of Client Incentives within a Recovery Navigation Program.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple detoxification admissions among clients with substance use disorders (SUD) are costly to the health care system. This study explored the impact on behavior and cost outcomes of recovery support navigator (RSN) services delivered with and without a contingent incentive intervention. METHODS: New intakes at four detoxification programs were offered RSN-only (N=1116) or RSN plus incentive (RSN+I; N=1551) services. The study used a group-level cross-over design with the intervention in place at each clinic reversed halfway through the enrollment period. RSN+I clients could earn up to $240 in gift cards for accomplishing 12 different recovery-oriented target behaviors. All eligible clients entering the detoxification programs were included in the analyses, regardless of actual service use. RESULTS: Among RSN+I clients, 35.5% accessed any RSN services compared to 22.3% in the RSN-only group (p<.01). Of RSN+I clients, 19% earned one, 12% earned two and 18% earned three or more incentives; 51% did not earn any incentives. The majority of incentives earned were for meeting with the RSN either during or after detoxification. Adjusted average monthly health care costs among clients in the RSN-only and RSN+I groups increased at a similar rate over 12 months post-detoxification. DISCUSSION: Possible explanations for limited uptake of the incentive program discussed include features of the incentive program itself, navigator-client communication, organizational barriers and navigator bias. The findings provide lessons to consider for future design and implementation of multi-target contingency management interventions in real-world settings.

Reducing Risky Alcohol Use: What Health Care Systems Can Do.

Risky, non-dependent alcohol use is prevalent in the United States, affecting 25% of adults (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b). Massachusetts has higher rates of alcohol use and binge drinking than most states (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015). Serious physical, social, and economic consequences result. Excessive alcohol use contributes to cancer, cardiovascular disease, sleep disorders, birth defects, motor vehicle injuries, and suicide, and it complicates management of chronic illnesses (Green, McKnight-Eily, Tan, Mejia, & Denny, 2016; Laramee et al., 2015; Mokdad, Marks, Stroup, & Gerberding, 2004; Rehm et al., 2009). Excessive alcohol use is one of the top causes of death, and over 240 alcohol-related deaths occur daily in the US (Mokdad et al., 2004; Stahre, Roeber, Kanny, Brewer, & Zhang, 2014). In comparison, 78 people die from an opioid overdose each day (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Excessive drinking is estimated to cost over $249 billion annually in the US and $5.6 billion in the Commonwealth (Sacks, Gonzales, Bouchery, Tomedi, & Brewer, 2015). This issue brief describes the scope of the risky drinking problem in the US and associated costs and consequences. The brief then examines the evidence base for tools to address risky drinking and outlines policy strategies that health care system stakeholders may employ to address further this critical public health issue. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address risky alcohol use, typically using a short validated screening tool followed by a brief counseling session if a patient screens positive. Research shows SBI conducted in primary care outpatient settings significantly reduces alcohol use (Bertholet, Daeppen, Wietlisbach, Fleming, & Burnand, 2005b; Bien, Miller, & Tonigan, 1993; Kaner et al., 2009; Saitz, 2010a), hospitalizations (Fleming, Barry, Manwell, Johnson, & London, 1997b) and mortality (Cuijpers, Riper, & Lemmers, 2004). Alcohol SBI saves an estimated $217.95 per person screened (Barbosa, Cowell, Bray, & Aldridge, 2015).

Improving Access to Substance Abuse Treatment and Reducing Incarceration and Recidivism.

Massachusetts faces an opioid and substance abuse crisis at the same time the U.S. and Massachusetts have some of highest rates of incarceration in the world. This issue brief examines the problem and economic costs and consequences of untreated substance abuse. It examines the benefits of expanding access to treatment in the community, at arrest and initial detention, within the courts, within jails and prisons, at re­entry and under community supervision, with the intent to reduce substance abuse, incarceration and recidivism and thereby improve health and public safety. The report recommends (1) implementing a pre­arrest program to divert low­level drug offenders to treatment, (2) enhancing and expanding specialty courts throughout the state, (3) increasing access to medication­assisted treatment (MAT), and (4) expanding a Medicaid enrollment program in DOC and HOC facilities to improve access to healthcare services immediately upon release. To facilitate change and judicious invest of resources, it also recommends instating governance structures to coordinate efforts between health and criminal justice organizations within the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government.

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.