Implementation science on the margins: How do we demonstrate the value of implementation strategies?

Implementation science (IS) has developed as a field to assess effective ways to implement and disseminate evidence-based practices. Although the size and rigor of the field has improved, the economic evaluation of implementation strategies has lagged behind other areas of IS (Roberts, Healey, & Sevdalis, 2019). Beyond demonstrating the effectiveness of implementation strategies, there needs to be evidence that investments in these strategies are efficient or financially sustainable. In this editorial, we lay out conceptual challenges in applying economic evaluation to IS and the implications for conducting economic analyses in integrated primary care research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Behavioral Health Coverage In The Individual Market Increased After ACA Parity Requirements.

As of January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act designated mental health and substance use services as an essential health benefit in Marketplace plans and extended parity protections to the individual and small-group markets. We analyzed documents for seventy-eight individual and small-group plans in 2014 (after parity provisions took effect) and sixty comparison plans in 2013 (the year before parity provisions took effect) to understand the degree to which coverage for mental health and substance use care improved relative to medical/surgical benefits. The results suggest that plan issuers did what the provisions required them to do. Although in 2013 a lower proportion of plans covered mental health or substance use care, compared to medical/surgical care, in 2014 the proportions were the same. If essential health benefit requirements were to be removed and mental health and substance use coverage becomes similar to that in 2013, as many as 20 percent of the plans in our sample would not cover these conditions. To determine whether increases in behavioral health coverage will result in improved access to behavioral health services requires complementary data on the size of provider networks and use of services.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of computerized vs. in-person motivational interventions in the criminal justice system.

INTRODUCTION: Although substance use is common among probationers in the United States, treatment initiation remains an ongoing problem. Among the explanations for low treatment initiation are that probationers are insufficiently motivated to seek treatment, and that probation staff have insufficient training and resources to use evidence-based strategies such as motivational interviewing. A web-based intervention based on motivational enhancement principles may address some of the challenges of initiating treatment but has not been tested to date in probation settings. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a computerized intervention, Motivational Assessment Program to Initiate Treatment (MAPIT), relative to face-to-face Motivational Interviewing (MI) and supervision as usual (SAU), delivered at the outset of probation. METHODS: The intervention took place in probation departments in two U.S. cities. The baseline sample comprised 316 participants (MAPIT = 104, MI = 103, and SAU = 109), 90% (n = 285) of whom completed the 6-month follow-up. Costs were estimated from study records and time logs kept by interventionists. The effectiveness outcome was self-reported initiation into any treatment (formal or informal) within 2 and 6 months of the baseline interview. The cost-effectiveness analysis involved assessing dominance and computing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Implementation costs were used in the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis, which excludes both a hypothetical license fee to recoup development costs and startup costs. An intent-to-treat approach was taken. RESULTS: MAPIT cost $79.37 per participant, which was ~$55 lower than the MI cost of $134.27 per participant. Appointment reminders comprised a large proportion of the cost of the MAPIT and MI intervention arms. In the base case, relative to SAU, MAPIT cost $6.70 per percentage point increase in the probability of initiating treatment. If a decision-maker is willing to pay $15 or more to improve the probability of initiating treatment by 1%, estimates suggest she can be 70% confident that MAPIT is good value relative to SAU at the 2-month follow-up and 90% confident that MAPIT is good value at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based MAPIT may be good value compared to in-person delivered alternatives. This conclusion is qualified because the results are not robust to narrowing the outcome to initiating formal treatment only. Further work should explore ways to improve access to efficacious treatment in probation settings.

Sustaining SBIRT in the wild: simulating revenues and costs for Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs.

AIMS: To examine the conditions under which Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs can be sustained by health insurance payments. DESIGN: A mathematical model was used to estimate the number of patients needed for revenues to exceed costs. SETTING: Three medical settings in the United States were examined: in-patient, out-patient and emergency department. Components of SBIRT were delivered by combinations of health-care practitioners (generalists) and behavioral health specialists. PARTICIPANTS: Practitioners in seven SBIRT programs who received grants from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). MEASUREMENTS: Program costs and revenues were measured using data from grantees. Patient flows were measured from administrative data and adjusted with prevalence and screening estimates from the literature. FINDINGS: SBIRT can be sustained through health insurance reimbursement in out-patient and emergency department settings in most staffing mixes. To sustain SBIRT in in-patient programs, a patient flow larger than the national average may be needed; if that flow is achieved, the range of screens required to maintain a surplus is narrow. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the results are very sensitive to changes in the proportion of insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in the United States can be sustained by health insurance payments under a variety of staffing models. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs can be sustained only in an in-patient setting with above-average patient flow (more than 2500 screens). Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in out-patient and emergency department settings can be sustained with below-average patient flows (fewer than 125 000 out-patient visits and fewer than 27 000 emergency department visits).

Behavioral Health Outcomes Among Adults: Associations With Individual and Community-Level Economic Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relationship between state and local economic conditions and serious psychological distress, substance use disorders, and mental health service utilization among adults in the United States. METHODS: Using data from 21,100 adults who responded to the 2008-2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population living in households, the study used multivariate methods to examine associations between selected macroeconomic conditions and behavioral health outcomes. RESULTS: Living in states in the top three quartiles for serious mortgage delinquency rate and in counties in the top three quartiles for unemployment rate was associated with a lower likelihood of using mental health services among individuals experiencing serious psychological distress (adjusted relative risk [ARR]=.54, .52, and .73, and ARR=.58, .62, and .71, respectively, versus quartile 1). Individual-level characteristics were the primary predictors associated with higher odds of having substance use disorders or experiencing serious psychological distress, but macroeconomic variables were not statistically significant predictors of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and population-level macroeconomic conditions were associated with behavioral health outcomes. Prevalence of serious psychological distress and substance use disorders and use of mental health services varied by economic measure. The findings suggest that access to and availability of mental health services for individuals experiencing serious psychological distress may be more challenging for those who do not have health insurance or who reside in regions with higher rates of mortgage foreclosures or higher rates of unemployment.

Cost of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Health Care Settings.

AIMS: This study analyzed service unit and annual costs of substance abuse screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) programs implemented in emergency department (ED), inpatient, and outpatient medical settings in three U.S. states and one tribal organization. METHODS: Unit costs and annual costs were estimated from the perspective of service providers. Data for unit costs came from 26 performance sites, and data for annual costs came from 10 programs. A bottom-up approach was used to derive unit costs and included labor, space, and materials used in each SBIRT activity. Activities included direct SBIRT services and activities that support direct service delivery. Labor time spent in each activity was collected by trained observers using a time-and-motion approach. A top-down approach used cost questionnaires completed by program administrators to calculate annual costs and included labor, space, contracted services, overhead, training, travel, equipment, and supplies and materials. Costs were estimated in 2012 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Average unit costs for prescreening, screening, brief intervention, brief treatment, and referral to treatment were $0.61, $6.59, $10.48, $22.63, and $12.06 in ED; $0.86, $6.33, $9.07, $27.61, and $8.03 in inpatient; and $0.84, $3.98, $7.81, $27.94, and $9.23 in outpatient settings, respectively; over half of the costs were attributable to support activities. Across all settings, the average cost to provide SBIRT per positive screen, for 1year, was about $400. CONCLUSIONS: Support activities comprise a large proportion of costs. Health administrators can use the results to budget and compare how much sites are reimbursed for SBIRT to how much services actually cost.

National estimates of behavioral health conditions and their treatment among adults newly insured under the ACA.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 25 million individuals are projected to gain insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This study estimated the prevalence of behavioral health conditions and their treatment among individuals likely to gain coverage. METHODS: Pooled 2008-2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for adults (ages 18-64) were used. Estimates were created for all adults, current Medicaid beneficiaries, and uninsured adults with incomes that might make them eligible for the Medicaid expansion or tax credits for use in the health insurance marketplace. RESULTS: Individuals who may gain insurance under the ACA had lower rates of serious mental illnesses (5.4%, Medicaid expansion; 4.7%, marketplace) compared with current Medicaid beneficiaries (9.6%). They had higher rates of substance use disorders (13.6%, Medicaid expansion; 14.3%, marketplace) compared with Medicaid recipients (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant need for behavioral health treatment among individuals who may gain insurance under the ACA.

The cost of implementing a jail diversion program for people with mental illness in San Antonio, Texas.

Jail diversion programs for people with mental illness are designed to redirect offenders with mental illness into community treatment. Although much has been published about program models and their successes, little detail is available to policy makers and community stakeholders on the resources required to start and implement a jail diversion program and which agencies bear how much of the burden. The current study used data on a model jail diversion program in San Antonio, Texas, to address this research gap. Data on staff costs, client contacts, planning, and implementation were collected for three types of diversion: pre-booking police, post-booking bond, and post-booking docket. An activity-based costing algorithm was developed to which parameter values were applied. The start-up cost for the program was $556,638.69. Pre-booking diversion cost $370 per person; 90% of costs were incurred by community mental health agencies for short-term monitoring and screening (>80% of activities). Post-booking bond and docket diversion cost $238 and $205 per person, respectively; the majority of costs were incurred by the courts for court decisions. Developing a multiple-intercept jail diversion program requires significant up-front investment. The share of costs varies greatly depending on the type of diversion.

A prospective study of the associations among housing status and costs of services in a homeless population.

OBJECTIVE: The complex needs of homeless populations result in use of a wide range of services and high costs for housing programs and psychiatric and general medical care. Allocation of resources often is not congruent with assessed needs. A series of cost-congruence hypotheses was developed to test assumptions that needs are associated with resources provided for appropriate services in homeless populations. METHODS: Individuals (N=255) who were homeless were followed for two years and were categorized by housing status over time (consistently housed, housed late, lost housing, or consistently homeless). Detailed information about the individuals was obtained at baseline, and follow-up data were collected one and two years later. Extensive data about the costs of services provided by type (medical, psychiatric, substance abuse, and homeless maintenance and amelioration) were derived from 23 agencies, and service use information was collected from the agencies and by self-report. Multiple regression models were used to test the hypotheses. RESULTS: Medical, psychiatric, and homeless maintenance costs varied by housing status. Serious mental illness predicted costs for psychiatric services, as expected, but also costs for substance abuse services and acute behavioral health care and total costs. Alcohol use disorders predicted substance abuse service costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study followed a homeless cohort prospectively and provided estimates of costs of service use derived from a large number of agencies. This research increases the understanding of patterns of service use in a homeless population and informs the provision of services appropriate to the complex needs of this difficult-to-serve population.

Program- and service-level costs of seven screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs.

This paper examines the costs of delivering screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services within the first seven demonstration programs funded by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Service-level costs were estimated and compared across implementation model (contracted specialist, inhouse specialist, inhouse generalist) and service delivery setting (emergency department, hospital inpatient, outpatient). Program-level costs were estimated and compared across grantee recipient programs. Service-level data were collected through timed observations of SBIRT service delivery. Program-level data were collected during key informant interviews using structured cost interview guides. At the service level, support activities that occur before or after engaging the patient comprise a considerable portion of the cost of delivering SBIRT services, especially short duration services. At the program level, average costs decreased as more patients were screened. Comparing across program and service levels, the average annual operating costs calculated at the program level often exceeded the cost of actual service delivery. Provider time spent in support of service provision may comprise a large share of the costs in some cases because of potentially substantial fixed and quasifixed costs associated with program operation. The cost structure of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment is complex and discontinuous of patient flow, causing annual operating costs to exceed the costs of actual service provision for some settings and implementation models.

Deriving costs of service use among an urban homeless population.

The purpose of this study was to describe a novel approach to calculating service use costs across multiple domains of service for homeless populations. A randomly-selected sample of homeless persons was interviewed in St. Louis, MO and followed for 2 years. Service- and cost-related data were collected from homeless individuals and from the agencies serving them. Detailed interviews of study participants and of agency personnel in specific domains of service (medical, psychiatric, substance abuse, homeless maintenance, and homeless amelioration services) were conducted using a standardized approach. Service utilization data were obtained from agency records. Standardized service-related costs were derived and aggregated across multiple domains from agency-reported data. Housing status was not found to be significantly associated with costs. Although labor intensive, this approach to cost estimation allows costs to be accurately compared across domains. These methods could potentially be applied to other populations.

The impact on taxpayer costs of a jail diversion program for people with serious mental illness.

Mental illness is prevalent among those incarcerated. Jail diversion is one means by which people with mental illness are treated in the community - often with some criminal justice system oversight - instead of being incarcerated. Jail diversion may lead to immediate reductions in taxpayer costs because the person is no longer significantly engaged with the criminal justice system. It may also lead to longer term reductions in costs because effective treatment may ameliorate symptoms, reduce the number of future offenses, and thus subsequent arrests and incarceration. This study estimates the impact on taxpayer costs of a model jail diversion program for people with serious mental illness. Administrative data on criminal justice and treatment events were combined with primary and secondary data on the costs of each event. Propensity score methods and a quasi-experimental design were used to compare treatment and criminal justice costs for a group of people who were diverted to a group of people who were not diverted. Diversion was associated with approximately $2800 lower taxpayer costs per person 2 years after the point of diversion (p<.05). Reductions in criminal justice costs drove this result. Jail diversion for people with mental illness may thus be justified fiscally.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of motivational interviewing with feedback to reduce drinking among a sample of college students.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. METHOD: Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions. RESULTS: Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes.

Benefits and costs of substance abuse treatment programs for state prison inmates: results from a lifetime simulation model.

Reflecting drug use patterns and criminal justice policies throughout the 1990s and 2000s, prisons hold a disproportionate number of society's drug abusers. Approximately 50% of state prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence, but only 10% receive medically based drug treatment. Because of the link between substance abuse and crime, treating substance abusing and dependent state prisoners while incarcerated has the potential to yield substantial economic benefits. In this paper, we simulate the lifetime costs and benefits of improving prison-based substance abuse treatment and post-release aftercare for a cohort of state prisoners. Our model captures the dynamics of substance abuse as a chronic disease; estimates the benefits of substance abuse treatment over individuals' lifetimes; and tracks the costs of crime and criminal justice costs related to policing, adjudication, and incarceration. We estimate net societal benefits and cost savings to the criminal justice system of the current treatment system and five policy scenarios. We find that four of the five policy scenarios provide positive net societal benefits and cost savings to the criminal justice system relative to the current treatment system. Our study demonstrates the societal gains to improving the drug treatment system for state prisoners.

The cost of screening and brief intervention in employee assistance programs.

Few studies examine the costs of conducting screening and brief intervention (SBI) in settings outside health care. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by examining the employer-incurred costs of SBI in an employee assistance program (EAP) when delivered by counselors. Screening was self-administered as part of the intake paperwork, and the brief intervention (BI) was delivered during a regular counseling session. Training costs were $83 per counselor. The cost of a screen to the employer was $0.64; most of this cost comprised the cost of the time the client spent completing the screen. The cost of a BI was $2.52. The cost of SBI is lower than cost estimates of SBI conducted in a health care setting. The low costs for the current study suggest that only modest gains in outcomes would likely be needed to justify delivering SBI in an EAP setting.

Medication costs to private insurers of diversion of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: The diversion of prescription stimulants for misuse, particularly those used in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is potentially a significant problem for public health and for healthcare funding and delivery. Most prior research on the diversion of prescription stimulants for misuse, particularly those used in the treatment of ADHD, has focused on the 'end users' of diverted medications rather than the suppliers. Furthermore, little is known about the direct costs of diversion for third-party insurance payers in the US. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to estimate the prevalence in the US of people whose private insurance paid costs for ADHD prescriptions that they gave or sold to another person (diversion), and to estimate medication costs of diversion to private insurers. METHODS: Estimates are from a cross-sectional survey of respondents from two Internet survey panels targeting individuals aged 18-49 years in the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population, principally for those who filled prescriptions for ADHD medications in the past 30 days that were covered by private health insurance. Analysis weights were post-stratified to control totals from the Current Population Survey and National Health Interview Survey. Weighted prevalence rates and standard errors for diversion are reported, as are the costs of diverted pills using drug prices reported in the 2008 Thomson Reuters RED BOOK™. Sensitivity analyses were conducted that varied the cost assumptions for medications. RESULTS: Among individuals aged 18-49 years whose private insurance paid some costs for ADHD medications in the past 30 days, 16.6% diverted medications from these prescriptions. Men aged 18-49 years for whom private insurance paid some costs of ADHD drugs in the past 30 days were more than twice as likely as their female counterparts to divert medications from these prescriptions (22.5% vs 9.1%; p = 0.03). After a pro-rated co-payment share was subtracted, the estimated value of diverted medications in a 30-day period was $US8.0 million. Lower- and upper-bound estimates were $US6.9 million to $US17 million, for a range of $US83 million to $US204 million annually. Overall, diversion accounted for about 3.6% of the total costs that private insurers paid for ADHD medications (range: 3.5-4.5%). The percentages varied by medication category, although relative differences were sensitive to inclusion of a pro-rated co-payment. A higher percentage of the costs of extended-release (XR) medications was lost to diversion compared with that for immediate-release (IR) medications. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of ADHD medications paid for by private insurers that were lost to diversion were small relative to the total estimated medication costs and relative to total estimated healthcare costs for treating ADHD. Nevertheless, there may be significant cost savings for insurers if diversion can be reduced, particularly for XR medications. These findings represent a first step to informing policies to reduce diversion both in the interest of public health and for direct and indirect cost savings to insurers.

Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy.

ISSUES: Many policy review articles have concluded that alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is both cost-effective and cost-beneficial. Yet a recent cost-effectiveness review for the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that these conclusions may be premature. APPROACH: This article offers a brief synopsis of the various types of economic analyses that may be applied to SBI, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis and other types of economic evaluation. A brief overview of methodological issues is provided, and examples from the SBI evaluation literature are provided. KEY FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the cost, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of SBI and about the impact of SBI on health-care utilisation.[Cowell AJ, Bray JW, Mills MJ, Hinde JM. Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy.

Costs of using motivational interviewing for problem drinking in the U.S. Air Force.

Despite the popularity of motivational interviewing (MI) to address heavy drinking, limited evidence exists on the costs of using MI to address heavy drinking. This study examines the costs of using MI to address heavy drinking at four U.S. Air Force (USAF) bases. Clients were referred to and assessed at a base program to address their drinking as a result of an incident; those who were not alcohol dependent were invited to participate in the study. Participants consented and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention arms: individual MI (IMI), group MI (GMI), and Substance Abuse Awareness Seminar (SAAS). Three cost perspectives were taken: USAF, client, and the two combined. Data were collected from bases and public sources. The start-up cost per base ranged from $1340 to $2400 per provider staff member. Average implementation costs across bases were highest for the SAAS intervention ($148 per client).

Utilization of substance abuse treatment services under Medicare, 2001-2002.

In 2006, the Medicare program covered 37 million elderly persons and 7 million persons younger than 65 years, but little is known about substance abuse (SA) service utilization. Using the 5% Sample of Medicare claims data, the study examines individuals who used SA detoxification ("detox") and/or rehabilitation ("rehab") services under Medicare in 2001 and 2002. SA claimants less than 65 years of age (disabled) were compared to claimants more than 65 years of age (elderly). The disabled were more likely to have a co-occurring mental disorder than elderly claimants (50% vs. 14%) and more likely to have serious mental illness (21% vs. 2.3%). Disabled claimants were more than three times as likely to receive any detox service as elderly claimants (17% vs. 6%). The rate of claimants receiving rehab services within 30 days of detox is about one third for disabled claimants and one quarter for elderly claimants.