Do benefits restrictions limit Medicaid acceptance in addiction treatment? Results from a national study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of restrictions on Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment to Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. DATA SOURCES: We collected primary data from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We created two measures of benefits restrictiveness. In the first, we calculated the number of addiction treatment services covered by each state Medicaid program. In the second, we calculated the total number of utilization controls imposed on each service. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we estimated the relationship between state Medicaid benefit restrictiveness for addiction treatment and adjusted odds of Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. DATA COLLECTION: Study data come from a nationally-representative sample of 695 addiction treatment programs (85.5% response rate), representatives from Medicaid programs in forty-seven states and the District of Columbia (response rate 92%), and data collected by the American Society for Addiction Medicine. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Addiction treatment programs in states with more restrictive Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment had lower odds of accepting Medicaid enrollees (AOR = 0.65; CI = 0.43, 0.97). The predicted probability of Medicaid acceptance was 35.4% in highly restrictive states, 48.3% in moderately restrictive states, and 61.2% in the least restrictive states. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction treatment programs are more likely to accept Medicaid in states with less restrictive benefits for addiction treatment. Program ownership and technological infrastructure also play an important role in increasing Medicaid acceptance.

Inernational research in health care management: its need in the 21st century, methodological challenges, ethical issues, pitfalls, and practicalities.

PURPOSE: This commentary argues in favor of international research in the 21st century. Advances in technology, science, communication, transport, and infrastructure have transformed the world into a global village. Industries have increasingly adopted globalization strategies. Likewise, the health sector is more internationalized whereby comparisons between diverse health systems, international best practices, international benchmarking, cross-border health care, and cross-cultural issues have become important subjects in the health care literature. The focus has now turned to international, collaborative, cross-national, and cross-cultural research, which is by far more demanding than domestic studies. In this commentary, we explore the methodological challenges, ethical issues, pitfalls, and practicalities within international research and offer possible solutions to address them. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The commentary synthesizes contributions from four scholars in the field of health care management, who came together during the annual meeting of the Academy of Management to discuss with members of the Health Care Management Division the challenges of international research. FINDINGS: International research is worth pursuing; however, it calls for scholarly attention to key methodological and ethical issues for its success. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This commentary addresses salient issues pertaining to international research in one comprehensive account.

Insights from a national survey into why substance abuse treatment units add prevention and outreach services.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that even limited prevention-related interventions can affect health behaviors such as substance use and risky sex. Substance abuse treatment providers are ideal candidates to provide these services, but typically have little or no financial incentive to do so. The purpose of this study was therefore to explore why some substance abuse treatment units have added new prevention and outreach services. Based on an ecological framework of organizational strategy, three categories of predictors were tested: (1) environmental, (2) unit-level, and (3) unit leadership. RESULTS: A lagged cross-sectional logistic model of 450 outpatient substance abuse treatment units revealed that local per capita income, mental health center affiliation, and clinical supervisors' graduate degrees were positively associated with likelihood of adding prevention-related education and outreach services. Managed care contracts and methadone treatment were negatively associated with addition of these services. No hospital-affiliated agencies added prevention and outreach services during the study period. CONCLUSION: Findings supported the study's ecological perspective on organizational strategy, with factors at environmental, unit, and unit leadership levels associated with additions of prevention and outreach services. Among the significant predictors, ties to managed care payers and unit leadership graduate education emerge as potential leverage points for public policy. In the current sample, units with managed care contracts were less likely to add prevention and outreach services. This is not surprising, given managed care's emphasis on cost control. However, the association with this payment source suggests that public managed care programs might affects prevention and outreach differently through revised incentives. Specifically, government payers could explicitly compensate substance abuse treatment units in managed care contracts for prevention and outreach. The effects of supervisor graduate education on likelihood of adding new prevention and outreach programs suggests that leaders' education can affect organizational strategy. Foundation and government officials may encourage prevention and outreach by funding curricular enhancements to graduate degree programs demonstrating the importance of public goods. Overall, these findings suggest that both money and professional education affect substance abuse treatment unit additions of prevention and outreach services, as well as other factors less amenable to policy intervention.

Accessibility of addiction treatment: results from a national survey of outpatient substance abuse treatment organizations.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined organization-level characteristics associated with the accessibility of outpatient addiction treatment. METHODS: Program directors and clinical supervisors from a nationally representative panel of outpatient substance abuse treatment units in the United States were surveyed in 1990, 1995, and 2000. Accessibility was measured from clinical supervisors' reports of whether the treatment organization provided "treatment on demand" (an average wait time of 48 hours or less for treatment entry), and of whether the program turned away any patients. RESULTS: In multivariable logistic models, provision of "treatment on demand" increased two-fold from 1990 to 2000 (OR, 1.95; 95 percent CI, 1.5 to 2.6), while reports of turning patients away decreased nonsignificantly. Private for-profit units were twice as likely to provide "treatment on demand" (OR, 2.2; 95 percent CI, 1.3 to 3.6), but seven times more likely to turn patients away (OR, 7.4; 95 percent CI, 3.2 to 17.5) than public programs. Conversely, units that served more indigent populations were less likely to provide "treatment on demand" or to turn patients away. Methadone maintenance programs were also less likely to offer "treatment on demand" (OR, .65; 95 percent CI, .42 to .99), but more likely to turn patients away (OR, 2.4; 95 percent CI, 1.4 to 4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although the provision of timely addiction treatment appears to have increased throughout the 1990s, accessibility problems persist in programs that care for indigent patients and in methadone maintenance programs.