Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder: Rates and Predictors of Prescription Order and Fill in Outpatient Settings.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are prevalent and responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality; yet efficacious treatments are underused. Previous studies have identified demographic and clinical predictors of medication fills, yet these studies typically do not include patients who were prescribed a medication but did not fill it. OBJECTIVES: To examine rates of and factors associated with prescription order and prescription fill for medications for AUD (MAUD) among individuals diagnosed with AUD in outpatient settings. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional analysis, we used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with prescription order and fill. PATIENTS: We used data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse that linked 2016-2021 de-identified claims and electronic health record (EHR) data, allowing us to observe prescription orders and whether they were filled. We identified 14,674 patients aged ≥ 18 who had an index outpatient encounter with an AUD diagnosis in the EHR. KEY MEASURES: We computed the proportion for whom a MAUD prescription was ordered within 1 year of index visit, and for whom one was filled within 30 days of the order. KEY RESULTS: 5.8% of the sample had a MAUD prescription order within 1 year of their index visit. Among those with an order, 87% filled their MAUD prescription within 30 days of receipt (i.e., 5.1% of full sample). After multivariable adjustment, receipt of a MAUD prescription order was more likely for patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) [95%CI] = 1.44 [1.24-1.67]), or had moderate or severe AUD (1.74 [1.50-2.01]). Patients receiving an order were more likely to fill it if they had a comorbid mental disorder (1.64 [1.09-2.49]). CONCLUSIONS: The low rate of prescription orders was notable. Low use of MAUD appears to result chiefly from prescription order decisions, rather than from prescription fill decisions made by patients.

Mobile clinics for opioid use disorders: What they do and how they do it. A qualitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: People with substance use disorders (SUD) face many barriers to receiving evidence-based treatments including access to and cost of treatment. People who use drugs face stigma that limits access to traditional office-based clinics. With the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality, mobile clinics reduce many of these barriers by providing harm reduction and on-demand low-threshold medical care. METHODS: In 2020 Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) Mobile Addiction Services Program expanded a program called Community Care in Reach building on its success in reducing barriers to care and increasing patient encounters. In the current evaluation we conducted site visits to the four new mobile clinics and conducted one individual semi-structured provider interview at each of the four clinics. In addition, we supported a monthly learning collaborative of staff in four agencies involved with this initiative. The current evaluation used the RE-AIM framework to analyze the implementation of the mobile clinics. RESULTS: Clinicians described many challenges and opportunities. The typical patient is unhoused, having a substance use disorder, and disconnected from traditional pathways to care. Clinicians are able to initiate people on buprenorphine largely due to the trust they establish with patients. Referral networks are facilitated by established community linkages. The philosophy of care is patient-centered. Mobile clinics provide a wide range of healthcare services including harm reduction, although finding a location to park and relations with police can be challenging. The workflow is uneven due to the model that is built on unscheduled visits. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into how mobile clinics address the gaps in care for persons with OUD and fatal opioid overdoses. Harm reduction services are a critical intervention and financial sustainability of mobile clinics has to be tested.

Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application.

BACKGROUND: The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed. METHODS: We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study. RESULTS: We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

Financial Sustainability of Novel Delivery Models in Behavioral Health Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the US, much of the research into new intervention and delivery models for behavioral health care is funded by research institutes and foundations, typically through grants to develop and test the new interventions. The original grant funding is typically time-limited. This implies that eventually communities, clinicians, and others must find resources to replace the grant funding -otherwise the innovation will not be adopted. Diffusion is challenged by the continued dominance in the US of fee-for-service reimbursement, especially for behavioral health care. AIMS: To understand the financial challenges to disseminating innovative behavioral health delivery models posed by fee-for-service reimbursement, and to explore alternative payment models that promise to accelerate adoption by better addressing need for flexibility and sustainability. METHODS: We review US experience with three specific novel delivery models that emerged in recent years. The models are: collaborative care model for depression (CoCM), outpatient based opioid treatment (OBOT), and the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) model. These examples were selected as illustrating some common themes and some different issues affecting diffusion. For each model, we discuss its core components; evidence on its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; how its dissemination was funded; how providers are paid; and what has been the uptake so far. RESULTS: The collaborative care model has existed for longest, but has been slow to disseminate, due in part to a lack of billing codes for key components until recently. The OBOT model faced that problem, and also (until recently) a regulatory requirement requiring physicians to obtain federal waivers in order to prescribe buprenorphine. Similarly, the CCBHC model includes previously nonbillable services, but it appears to be diffusing more successfully than some other innovations, due in part to the approach taken by funders. DISCUSSION: A common challenge for all three models has been their inclusion of services that were not (initially) reimbursable in a fee-for-service system. However, even establishing new procedure codes may not be enough to give providers the flexibility needed to implement these models, unless payers also implement alternative payment models. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: For providers who receive time-limited grant funding to implement these novel delivery models, one key lesson is the need to start early on planning how services will be sustained after the grant ends. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: For research funders (e.g., federal agencies), it is clearly important to speed up the process of obtaining coverage for each novel delivery model, including the development of new billable service codes, and to plan for this as early as possible. Funders also need to collaborate with providers early in the grant period on sustainability planning for the post-grant environment. For payers, a key lesson is the need to fold novel models into stable existing funding streams such as Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage, rather than leaving them at the mercy of revolving time-limited grants, and to provide pathways for contracting for innovations under new payment models. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: For researchers, a key recommendation would be to pay greater attention to the payment environment when designing new delivery models and interventions.

Development of an addiction recovery patient-reported outcome measure: Response to Addiction Recovery (R2AR).

BACKGROUND: Recovery, a primary goal of addiction treatment, goes beyond abstinence. Incorporating broad domains with key elements that vary across individuals, recovery is a difficult concept to measure. Most addiction-related quality measurement has emphasized process measures, which limits evaluation of treatment quality and long-term outcomes, whereas patient-reported outcomes are richer and nuanced. To address these gaps, this study developed and tested a patient-reported outcome measure for addiction recovery, named Response to Addiction Recovery (R2AR). METHODS: A multi-stage mixed methods approach followed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measure development standard. People with lived experience (PWLE) of addiction, treatment providers, and other experts contributed to item distillation and iterative measure refinement. From an item bank of 356 unique items, 57 items were tested via survey and interviews, followed by focus groups and cognitive interviews. RESULTS: Face validity was demonstrated throughout. PWLE rated item importance higher and with greater variance than providers, yet both agreed that "There are more important things to me in my life than using substances" was the most important item. The final R2AR instrument has 19 items across 8 recovery domains, spanning early, active, and long-term recovery phases. Respondents assess agreement for each item as (1) a strength, and (2) importance to ongoing recovery. CONCLUSION: R2AR allows PWLE to define what is important to their recovery. It is designed to support treatment planning as part of clinical workflows and to track recovery progress. Inclusion of PWLE and providers in the development process enhances its face validity. Including PWLE in the development of R2AR and using the tool to guide recovery planning emphasizes the importance of patient-centeredness in designing clinical tools and involving patients in their own care.

Prescribing Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physician Decision Making.

PURPOSE: Over 29 million Americans have alcohol use disorder (AUD). Though there are effective medications for AUD (MAUD) that can be prescribed within primary care, they are underutilized. We aimed to explore how primary care physicians familiar with MAUD make prescribing decisions and to identify reasons for underuse of MAUD within primary care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 primary care physicians recruited from a large online database of medical professionals. Physicians had to have started a patient on MAUD within the last 6 months in an outpatient setting. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was informed by the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS: Physicians endorsed that it is challenging to prescribe MAUD due to several reasons, including: (1) somewhat negative personal beliefs about medication effectiveness and likelihood of patient adherence; (2) competing demands in primary care that make MAUD a lower priority; and, (3) few positive subjective norms around prescribing. To make MAUD prescribing a smaller component of their practice, physicians reported applying various rules of thumb to select patients for MAUD. These included recommending MAUD to the patients who seemed the most motivated to reduce drinking, those with the most severe AUD, and those who were also receiving other treatments for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: There is a challenging implementation context for MAUD due to competing demands within primary care. Future research should explore which strategies for identifying a subset of patients for MAUD are the most appropriate and most likely to improve population health and health equity.

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.

The role of health plans in addressing the opioid crisis: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Health plans are key players in substance use treatment in the United States, and the opioid crisis presents new challenges for them. This article is part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) funded by NIH, which seeks to facilitate communities' adoption of activities that might reduce overdose deaths, including overdose prevention education and naloxone distribution, medication for opioid use disorder, and safer opioid prescribing. We examine how health plans in one state (Massachusetts) are adapting to encourage and sustain activities that help communities to address opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with managers of behavioral health services at eight health plans in Massachusetts that that have Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial lines of business. Two plans in this sample contract with a specialized behavioral health organization ("carve-out"). The interviewees also completed a survey on policies regarding access to treatment and opioid prescribing. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis of the data included intended influence of the policies at three levels: member level (micro), group or community level (meso), and system or institutional level (macro). RESULTS: All health plans developed strategies to increase access to treatment for OUD, primarily through eliminating or decreasing cost-sharing, eliminating pre-authorization for MOUD, and increasing supply of providers. Health plans encourage qualified practitioners to offer MOUD, but most do not provide incentives or training. Identifying high risk populations is a focus of health plans in this sample. Naloxone is a covered benefit in all health plans, although with variation in monthly limits and cost-sharing. Most health plans take measures to influence opioid prescribing. Health plans' activities are predominately aimed at the micro (member) level with little ability to influence at the macro (wider system-level changes). CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into how health plans develop strategies to address the rise in OUD and fatal opioid overdoses, many of which are key in the HCS initiative. How active a role health plans play in addressing the opioid crisis varies, even within the insurance industry in one state (Massachusetts).

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.

Opioid use disorder Cascade of care framework design: A roadmap.

Unintentional overdose deaths, most involving opioids, have eclipsed all other causes of US deaths for individuals less than 50 years of age. An estimated 2.4 to 5 million individuals have opioid use disorder (OUD) yet a minority receive treatment in a given year. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the gold standard treatment for OUD however early dropout remains a major challenge for improving clinical outcomes. A Cascade of Care (CoC) framework, first popularized as a public health accountability strategy to stem the spread of HIV, has been adapted specifically for OUD. The CoC framework has been promoted by the NIH and several states and jurisdictions for organizing quality improvement efforts through clinical, policy, and administrative levers to improve OUD treatment initiation and retention. This roadmap details CoC design domains based on available data and potential linkages as individual state agencies and health systems typically rely on limited datasets subject to diverse legal and regulatory requirements constraining options for evaluations. Both graphical decision trees and catalogued studies are provided to help guide efforts by state agencies and health systems to improve data collection and monitoring efforts under the OUD CoC framework.

Financial sustainability of payment models for office-based opioid treatment in outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND: Office-Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) is a delivery model which seeks to make medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), particularly buprenorphine, widely available in general medical clinics and offices. Despite evidence supporting its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, uptake of the OBOT model has been relatively slow. One important barrier to faster diffusion of OBOT may be the financial challenges facing clinics that could adopt it. METHODS: We review key features and variants of the OBOT model, then discuss different approaches that have been used to fund it, and the findings from previous economic analyses of OBOT's impact on organizational finances. We conclude by discussing the implications of these analyses for the financial sustainability of the OBOT delivery model. RESULTS: Like other novel services, OBOT poses challenges for providers due to its reliance on services which are 'non-billable' in a fee-for-service environment. A variety of approaches exist for covering the non-billable costs, but which approaches are feasible depends on local payer policies. The scale of the challenges varies with clinic size, organizational affiliations and the policies of the state where the clinic operates. Small clinics in a purely fee-for-service environment may be particularly challenged in pursuing OBOT, given the need to fund a dedicated staff and extra administrative work. The current pandemic may pose both opportunities and challenges for the sustainability of OBOT, with expanded access to telemedicine, but also uncertainty about the durability of the expansion. CONCLUSION: The reimbursement environment for OBOT delivery varies widely around the US, and is evolving as Medicare (and possibly other payers) introduce alternative payment approaches. Clinics considering adoption of OBOT are well advised to thoroughly investigate these issues as they make their decision. In addition, payers will need to rethink how they pay for OBOT to make it sustainable.

Use of Electronic Health Information Technology in a National Sample of Hospitals That Provide Specialty Substance Use Care.

OBJECTIVE: Most U.S. acute care hospitals have adopted basic electronic health record (EHR) functionality and health information exchange (HIE) (84% and 88%, respectively, in 2017). This study examined whether rates of EHR and HIE adoption by hospital-based substance use disorder programs are lower than rates by acute care hospitals. METHODS: Data from the 2017 National Survey on Substance Abuse Treatment Services were analyzed to examine adoption of basic EHR functionality (i.e., assessment, progress monitoring, discharge, labs, and prescription dispensing) and use of HIE by hospital-based programs. Analyses used weighted multivariable models of EHR and HIE outcomes, adjusted for nonresponse. RESULTS: Of 894 hospital-based substance use disorder programs with EHR information, two-thirds (N=606, 68%) reported use of basic EHR functionality. Psychiatric hospitals were less likely than acute care hospitals to have adopted EHR (odds ratio [OR]=0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.35-0.71). Compared with nonprofit hospitals, for-profit (OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.16-0.35) and government-owned (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.33-0.83) hospitals were less likely to use basic EHR functionality. Hospital-based programs providing medications for alcohol or opioid use disorders were more likely than those not providing such medications to use basic EHR (OR=1.95, 95% CI=1.31-2.90). Of 839 hospitals with information on HIE use, 598 (71%) reported using electronic HIE. Adoption of basic EHR functionality was the strongest predictor of HIE use (OR=4.73, 95% CI=3.29-6.79). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based substance use disorder programs trail behind U.S. acute care hospitals in adoption of basic EHR and electronic HIE. Findings raise concerns about missed opportunities to improve hospital-based substance use disorder care quality and performance measurement.

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.

Access to and Engagement in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Over Time.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether access to and engagement in substance use disorder treatment has improved from 2010 to 2016. METHODS: Data submitted by commercial and Medicaid health plans, representing over 163 million beneficiaries from 2010 to 2016, were analyzed. RESULTS: For commercial plans, identification increased (from 1.0% to 1.6%, p<0.001), the initiation rate declined (from 41.9% to 33.7%, p<0.001), and the engagement rate also declined (from 15.8% to 12.1%, p<0.001). The decline in the initiation and engagement rates could not be explained by the increasing identification rates. For Medicaid plans, the identification rate increased (from 3.3% to 6.7%, p<0.001), and the initiation and engagement rates were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Although an increasing proportion of health plan members are being identified with substance use disorders, the majority of these individuals are not engaging in treatment.

Is it feasible to pay specialty substance use disorder treatment programs based on patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Some US payers are starting to vary payment to providers depending on patient outcomes, but this approach is rarely used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. PURPOSE: We examine the feasibility of applying a pay-for-outcomes approach to SUD treatment. METHODS: We reviewed several relevant literatures: (1) economic theory papers that describe the conditions under which pay-for-outcomes is feasible in principle; (2) description of the key outcomes expected from SUD treatment, and the measures of these outcomes that are available in administrative data systems; and (3) reports on actual experiences of paying SUD treatment providers based on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The economics literature notes that when patient outcomes are strongly influenced by factors beyond provider control and when risk adjustment performs poorly, pay-for-outcomes will increase provider financial risk. This is relevant to SUD treatment. The literature on SUD outcome measurement shows disagreement on whether to include broader outcomes beyond abstinence from substance use. Good measures are available for some of these broader constructs, but the need for risk adjustment still brings many challenges. Results from two past payment experiments in SUD treatment reinforce some of the concerns raised in the more conceptual literature. CONCLUSION: There are special challenges in applying pay-for-outcomes to SUD treatment, not all of which could be overcome by developing better measures. For SUD treatment it may be necessary to define outcomes more broadly than for general medical care, and to continue conditioning a sizeable portion of payment on process measures.

Referral to Treatment After Positive Screens for Unhealthy Drug Use in an Outpatient Veterans Administration Setting.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the rates and predictors of clinician recommendation for follow-up after a positive screen for unhealthy drug use, in a context of mandatory routine screening. To measure response to clinician recommendations and identification of new drug use diagnoses. METHODS: Data are from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center that introduced mandatory routine screening for unhealthy drug use in outpatient primary care and mental health settings, using a validated single question. This study analyzed VHA electronic health records data for patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use (n = 570) and estimated logistic regression models to identify the predictors of receiving a recommendation for any follow-up and for specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Bivariate tests were used for other analyses. RESULTS: Among patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use, 66% received no recommendation to return to primary care or another setting from the screening clinician. Further, among the 23% of patients who received a recommendation to visit specialty SUD treatment, only 25% completed the visit within 60 days. Six percent of all positive screens both received a referral to specialty SUD treatment and acted upon it. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of mandatory drug use screening using a single item, rates of clinician action and patient receipt of care appeared low. Improved follow-up will require health systems to provide more supports for clinicians and patients at each of the stages from positive screen to attending the follow-up appointment.

Rural Clients' Continuity Into Follow-Up Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Impacts of Travel Time, Incentives, and Alerts.

PURPOSE: Treatment after discharge from detoxification or residential treatment is associated with improved outcomes. We examined the influence of travel time on continuity into follow-up treatment and whether financial incentives and weekly alerts have a modifying effect. METHODS: For a research intervention during October 2013 to December 2015, detoxification and residential substance use disorder treatment programs in Washington State were randomized into 4 groups: potential financial incentives for meeting performance goals, weekly alerts to providers, both interventions, and control. Travel time was used as both a main effect and interacted with other variables to explore its modifying impact on continuity of care in conjunction with incentives or alerts. Continuity was defined as follow-up care occurring within 14 days of discharge from detoxification or residential treatment programs. Travel time was estimated as driving time from clients' home ZIP Code to treatment agency ZIP Code. FINDINGS: Travel times to the original treatment agency were in some cases significant with longer travel times predicting lower likelihood of continuity. For detoxification clients, those with longer travel times (over 91 minutes from their residence) are more likely to have timely continuity. Conversely, residential clients with travel times of more than 1 hour are less likely to have timely continuity. Interventions such as alerts or incentives for performance had some mitigating effects on these results. Travel times to the closest agency for potential further treatment were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among rural clients discharged from detoxification and residential treatment, travel time can be an important factor in predicting timely continuity.

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.

The importance of identification when measuring performance in addiction treatment.

Background: Identifying and effectively treating individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) is an important priority for state Medicaid programs, given the enormous toll that SUDs take on individuals, their families, and their communities. In this paper, we describe how the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure "Identification of Alcohol and Other Drug Services" can be used, along with eligible population prevalence rates, to expand states' ability to track how well their Medicaid programs identify enrollees with SUDs and link them with treatment (measured by initiation and engagement performance measures). Methods: We use the 2009 Medicaid MAX data on utilization and enrollment along with information from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to obtain state-level estimates of alcohol and drug abuse and dependence among Medicaid beneficiaries for 7 illustrative states. We calculate identification, initiation, and engagement measures using specifications from the National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA). Results: NSDUH data showed that the eligible population prevalence rate (the average rate of alcohol or drug abuse or dependence) among the 7 states was 10.0%, whereas the average identification rate was 2.9%. The gap between the prevalence and identification rates ranged from 5.1% to 11.0% among the 7 states. The initiation rates ranged from 36.9% to 57.1%. The states' engagement rates ranged from 11.8% to 31.1%, although rates differ by age, gender, and race/ethnicity in some states. Conclusion: Including identification along with initiation and engagement measures allows states to determine how well they are performing in a more complete spectrum from need, to recognition and documentation of enrollees with SUDs, to initiation of treatment, to continuation of early treatment.