Medicaid Applications Spike during Marketplace Open Enrollment: Lessons from Covered California.

The expansion of Medicaid coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act has insured millions of Americans and reduced costly churn in the program. A large increase in Medicaid applications during Marketplace open enrollment would indicate two potential information gaps: 1) individuals do not know that they are eligible, and/or 2) individuals do not know that they can enroll in Medicaid year-round. We used statewide monthly Medicaid applications data for California over a three-year period (July 2016 to June 2019) to assess whether Marketplace open enrollment influences Medicaid applications. Over one-third of all Medicaid applications (35.0%) were received during months with Marketplace open enrollment, and daily average Medicaid application volume was 32.5% higher in those months than in months outside of open enrollment. These findings generate concerns about whether there is enough consumer education and outreach to potential enrollees to limit coverage gaps and associated barriers in access to care.

Virtual Training Is More Cost-Effective Than In-Person Training for Preparing Staff to Implement Contingency Management.

Behavior therapy implementation relies in part on training to foster counselor skills in preparation for delivery with fidelity. Amidst Covid-19, the professional education arena witnessed a rapid shift from in-person to virtual training, yet these modalities' relative utility and expense is unknown. In the context of a cluster-randomized hybrid type 3 trial of contingency management (CM) implementation in opioid treatment programs (OTPs), a multi-cohort design presented rare opportunity to compare cost-effectiveness of virtual vs. in-person training. An initial counselor cohort (n = 26) from eight OTPs attended in-person training, and a subsequent cohort (n = 31) from ten OTPs attended virtual training. Common training elements were the facilitator, learning objectives, and educational strategies/activities. All clinicians submitted a post-training role-play, independently scored with a validated fidelity instrument for which performances were compared against benchmarks representing initial readiness and advanced proficiency. To examine the utility and expense of in-person and virtual trainings, cohort-specific rates for benchmark attainment were computed, and per-clinician expenses were estimated. Adjusted between-cohort differences were estimated via ordinary least squares, and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Readiness and proficiency benchmarks were attained at rates 12-14% higher among clinicians attending virtual training, for which aggregated costs indicated a $399 per-clinician savings relative to in-person training. Accordingly, the ICER identified virtual training as the dominant strategy, reflecting greater cost-effectiveness across willingness-to-pay values. Study findings document greater utility, lesser expense, and cost-effectiveness of virtual training, which may inform post-pandemic dissemination of CM and other therapies.

The implementation & sustainment facilitation (ISF) strategy: Cost and cost-effectiveness results from a 39-site cluster randomized trial integrating substance use services in community-based HIV service organizations.

Background: As part of the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care Project, the Implementation & Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) strategy was found to be an effective adjunct to the Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) strategy for integrating a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention (MIBI) for substance use disorders. This study presents the cost and cost-effectiveness results. Methods: Thirty-nine HIV service organizations were randomized to receive the ATTC-only condition or the ATTC + ISF condition. Two staff from each organization received the ATTC-training. In ATTC + ISF organizations, the same two staff and additional support staff participated in facilitation sessions to support MIBI implementation. We estimated costs using primary data on the time spent in each strategy and the time spent delivering 409 MIBIs to clients. We estimated staff-level cost-effectiveness for the number of MIBIs delivered, average MIBI quality scores, and total client days abstinent per staff. We used sensitivity analyses to test how changes to key variables affect the results. Results: Adjusted per-staff costs were $2,915 for the ATTC strategy and $5,371 for ATTC + ISF, resulting in an incremental cost of $2,457. ATTC + ISF significantly increased the number of MIBIs delivered (3.73) and the average MIBI quality score (61.45), yielding incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $659 and $40. Client days abstinent increased by 59 days per staff with a quality-adjusted life-year ICER of $40,578 (95% confidence interval $29,795-$61,031). Conclusions: From the perspective of federal policymakers, ISF as an adjunct to the ATTC strategy may be cost-effective for improving the integration of MIBIs within HIV service organizations, especially if scaled up to reach more clients. Travel accounted for nearly half of costs, and virtual implementation may further increase value. We also highlight two considerations for cost-effectiveness analysis with hybrid trials: study protocols kept recruitment low and modeling choices affect how we interpret the effects on client-level outcomes.

Addressing Barriers to Primary Care Screening and Referral to Prevention for Youth Risky Health Behaviors: Evidence Regarding Potential Cost-Savings and Provider Concerns.

Despite growing evidence and support for co-locating behavioral services in primary care to prevent risky health behaviors, implementation of these services has been limited due to a lack of reimbursement for services and negative perceptions among providers. We investigated potential to overcome these barriers based on new developments in healthcare funding and screening and referral to prevention (SRP) in primary care based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which could guide future SRP implementation strategies. To investigate the economic need for healthcare-based SRP, we quantified hospital charges to healthcare payors for services arising from adolescent risky behaviors (e.g., substance use, risky sex). Annual North Carolina (NC) hospital charges for these services exceeded $327 M (2019 dollars), suggesting high potential for cost savings if SRP can curb hospital services associated with risky behaviors. To investigate provider barriers and facilitators, we surveyed 151 NC pediatricians and 230 NC family therapists about their attitudes regarding a recently developed well-child visit SRP with family-based prevention. Both sets of professionals reported widespread need for and interest in the SRP but cited barriers of lack of reimbursement, training, and referrals to/from each other. Physicians, but not family therapists, reported concerns with poor patient or parent compliance. Many barriers could be resolved by co-locating family therapists in pediatric clinics to conduct well-child SRP. Our results support further research to develop business models for payor-funded SRP and CFIR-guided research to develop implementation strategies for primary care SRP to prevent adolescent risky health behaviors.

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).

Adherence to buprenorphine treatment guidelines among individuals with an opioid use disorder who have private insurance.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) with medications is expanding, the extent to which practitioners are prescribing medications following best practices has received little attention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which privately insured patients being treated for OUD with buprenorphine were treated in a manner consistent with practice guidelines. DESIGN: Longitudinal analyses of a large commercial claims dataset from 2012 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data for 38,517 patients with an OUD diagnosis continuously enrolled for 3 months prior to and 6 months after an initial buprenorphine or buprenorphine-naloxone prescription fill. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated whether practitioners tested patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, and liver function; how often they received urine drug screens; the frequency of outpatient visits; and the extent to which they filled prescriptions for buprenorphine for at least 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Practitioners tested approximately 4.7% of patients for hepatitis B, 6.5% for hepatitis C, and 29.3% for HIV; they tested 8.0% for liver functioning; and gave 33.3% urine drug tests. Approximately 76% of patients had at least one outpatient visit for their OUD. Among those with at least one visit, the mean number of visits was 7.38. After the initial prescription, 47.5% stayed on buprenorphine for at least 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of privately insured patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD did not receive care consistent with guidelines.

Did Arkansas' Medicaid Patient-Centered Medical Home Program Have Spillover Effects on Commercially Insured Enrollees?

Patient-centered medical homes are increasingly being implemented by state Medicaid programs to incentivize high-quality, coordinated care and ultimately lower health care spending. This study examined whether the Arkansas Medicaid Patient-Centered Medical Home Program's practice-wide transformation activities had spillover effects on commercial beneficiaries. We used difference-in-differences to compare utilization and expenditures of commercially insured enrollees as their practices received Medicaid patient-centered medical home certification on a rolling basis between 2014 and 2016. We found a 5.7% increase in outpatient visits and 13% higher expenditures among early adopting practices. Even without associated reductions in costly emergency department visits or inpatient hospital admissions, decisionmakers should not lose sight of the potential value of increased engagement in and coordination of professional services for a population with high unmet health needs. Our results also emphasize that states can leverage Medicaid to spur system-wide transformation, and the investments generate spillover effects beyond those covered directly by Medicaid.

Increasing Access to Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: Assessing State Policies and the Evidence Behind Them.

OBJECTIVE: Combatting the opioid epidemic requires systemic policy changes that address the underutilization of medication-assisted treatment, a therapy that is effective in treating opioid use disorder. In this study, we present approaches used in five states to increase medication-assisted treatment financing and access. METHOD: We conducted case studies in five U.S. states, interviewing key informants and reviewing the published literature and unpublished documents. RESULTS: In these states, Medicaid expansion was the most significant lever available to expand financing and access to medication-assisted treatment. Other key levers include Medicaid Section 1115 SUD demonstrations, State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis and State Opioid Response grants, state contracting mechanisms, and other state regulations. CONCLUSIONS: States in this study reported substantial progress in increasing access to medication-assisted treatment, but empirical evidence of their effects is still emerging.

Alcohol use and the wage returns to education and work experience.

Despite a widely held belief that alcohol use should negatively impact wages, much of the literature on the topic suggests a positive relationship between nonproblematic alcohol use and wages. Studies on the effect of alcohol use on educational attainment have also failed to find a consistent, negative effect of alcohol use on years of education. Thus, the connections between alcohol use, human capital, and wages remain a topic of debate in the literature. In this study, we use the 1997 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to estimate a theoretical model of wage determination that links alcohol use to wages via human capital. We find that nonbinge drinking is associated with lower wage returns to education whereas binge drinking is associated with increased wage returns to both education and work experience. We interpret these counterintuitive results as evidence that alcohol use affects wages through both the allocative and productive efficiency of human capital formation and that these effects operate in offsetting directions. We suggest that alcohol control policies should be more nuanced to target alcohol consumption in the contexts within which it causes harm.

The influence of state-level policy environments on the activation of the Medicaid SBIRT reimbursement codes.

AIMS: To examine how institutional constraints, comprising federal actions and states' substance abuse policy environments, influence states' decisions to activate Medicaid reimbursement codes for screening and brief intervention for risky substance use in the United States. METHODS: A discrete-time duration model was used to estimate the effect of institutional constraints on the likelihood of activating the Medicaid reimbursement codes. Primary constraints included federal Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grant funding, substance abuse priority, economic climate, political climate and interstate diffusion. Study data came from publicly available secondary data sources. RESULTS: Federal SBIRT grant funding did not affect significantly the likelihood of activation (P = 0.628). A $1 increase in per-capita block grant funding was associated with a 10-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of activation (P = 0.003) and a $1 increase in per-capita state substance use disorder expenditures was associated with a 2-percentage point increase in the likelihood of activation (P = 0.004). States with enacted parity laws (P = 0.016) and a Democratic-controlled state government were also more likely to activate the codes. CONCLUSION: In the United States, the determinants of state activation of Medicaid Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) reimbursement codes are complex, and include more than financial considerations. Federal block grant funding is a strong disincentive to activating the SBIRT reimbursement codes, while more direct federal SBIRT grant funding has no detectable effects.

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).

The Impact of a Mandated Trauma Center Alcohol Intervention on Readmission and Cost per Readmission in Arizona.

BACKGROUND: Persons appearing in trauma centers have a higher prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use than the general population. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is designed to moderate drinking levels and avoid costly future readmissions, but few studies have examined the impact of SBI on hospital readmissions and health care costs in a trauma population. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study uses comparative interrupted time-series and the Arizona State Inpatient Database to estimate the effect of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma SBI mandate on the probability of readmission and cost per readmission in Arizona trauma centers. We compare individuals with and without an alcohol diagnosis code before and after the mandate was implemented. RESULTS: The mandate resulted in a 2.2 percentage point reduction (44%) in the probability of readmission. Total health care and readmission costs were not affected by the mandate. CONCLUSIONS: The estimates are consistent with a differential effect of SBI: SBI reduces readmissions among those who present with a less serious alcohol-related problem. Persons with more serious alcohol problems are less likely to respond to SBI. These higher risk individuals likely have a higher cost, which may explain the lack of change in readmission costs. Our study is a macrolevel intent-to-treat analysis of SBI's impact that corroborates the potential of SBI implied by efficacy studies in trauma centers and other settings. This study provides a framework for future research involving more states and health systems and evaluating other SBI policies.

Costs of screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, the authors estimate implementation costs for illicit drug screening and brief intervention (SBI) and identify a key source of variation in cost estimates noted in the alcohol SBI literature. This is the first study of the cost of SBI for drug use only. METHOD: Using primary data collected from a clinical trial of illicit drug SBI (n = 528) and a hybrid costing approach, we estimated a per-service implementation cost for screening and two models of brief intervention. A taxonomy of activities was first compiled, and then resources and prices were attached to estimate the per-activity cost. Two components of the implementation cost, direct service delivery and service support costs, were estimated separately. RESULTS: Per-person cost estimates were $15.61 for screening, $38.94 for a brief negotiated interview, and $252.26 for an adaptation of motivational interviewing. (Amounts are in 2011 U.S. dollars.) Service support costs per patient are 5 to 7.5 times greater than direct service delivery costs per patient. Ongoing clinical supervision costs are the largest component of service support costs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation cost estimates for illicit drug brief intervention vary greatly depending on the brief intervention method, and service support is the largest component of SBI costs. Screening and brief intervention cost estimates for drug use are similar to those published for alcohol SBI. Direct service delivery cost estimates are similar to costs at the low end of the distribution identified in the alcohol literature. The magnitude of service support costs may explain the larger cost estimates at the high end of the alcohol SBI cost distribution.

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.

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.

Costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes the literature on the implementation costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) in medical settings. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched using SBI- and cost-related terms. Methodological approaches and cost estimates were abstracted from each study and categorized based on the cost methodology. Costs were updated to 2009 U.S. dollars. To determine a summary cost measure, we excluded outliers and computed the median of the remaining cost estimates. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with cost estimates were identified for further study. Costs ranged from $0.51 to $601.50 per screen and from $3.41 to $243.01 per brief intervention (BI). Cost estimates were lower when an activity-based cost methodology was used, in primary care settings, and when the provider was not a doctor. The median summary cost of a screen is approximately $4, and the median summary cost of a BI is approximately $48. CONCLUSIONS: Screening cost estimates had more variation than BI cost estimates. Provider type and service delivery time drive the cost variation. Interpretation of cost differences was limited by insufficient reporting of the cost methodology. Cost estimates presented here are similar in size to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and Current Procedural Terminology reimbursement amounts, suggesting that insurance-based service reimbursement may be sufficient to sustain alcohol SBI in practice.

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.

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.