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.

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.

Changes in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Use of Mental Health Services under the Affordable Care Act: Evidence from California.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to expand mental health service use in the US, by expanding access to health insurance. However, the gap in mental health utilization by race and ethnicity is pronounced: members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups remain less likely to use mental health services than non-Hispanic White individuals even after the ACA. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study assessed the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on mental health services use in one large state (California), and whether that effect differed among racial and ethnic groups. Also, it tested for change in racial and ethnic disparities after the implementation of the ACA, using four measures of mental health care. METHODS: Using pooled California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data from 2011-2018, logistic regression and Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were estimated. Disparities were defined using the Institute of Medicine (IOM) definition. Primary outcomes were any mental health care in primary settings; in specialty settings, any prescription medication for mental health problems, and number of annual visits to mental health services. RESULTS: Findings suggested that the change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities in prescription medication use under the ACA was statistically significant, narrowing the gap by 7.23 percentage points (p<.05). However, the disparity in other measures was not significantly reduced. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that the magnitude of the increase in primary and specialty mental health services among racial and ethnic minorities was not large enough to significantly reduce racial and ethnic disparities. One possible explanation is that non-financial factors played a role, such as language barriers, attitudinal barriers from home culture norms, and systemic barriers due to mental health professional shortages and a limited number of mental health care providers of color. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Integrated approaches that coordinate specialty and primary care mental health services may be needed to promote mental healthcare access for members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Federal and state policies aiming to improve mental health services use have historically given more weight to financial determinants, but this has not been enough to significantly reduce racial/ethnic disparities. Thus, policies should pay more attention to non-financial determinants. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Assessing underlying mechanisms of non-financial factors that moderate the effectiveness of the ACA is a worthwhile goal for future research. Future studies should examine the extent to which non-financial factors intervene in the relationship between the implementation of the ACA and mental health services use.

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).

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.

Medicaid Expansion and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Health Care: Applying the National Academy of Medicine Definition of Health Care Disparities.

Since 2014, 32 states implemented Medicaid expansion by removing the categorical criteria for childless adults and by expanding income eligibility to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) for all non-elderly adults. Previous studies found that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion improved rates of being insured, unmet needs for care due to cost, number of physician visits, and health status among low-income adults. However, a few recent studies focused on the expansion's effect on racial/ethnic disparities and used the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) disparity approach with a limited set of access measures. This quasi-experimental study examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on racial/ethnic disparities in access to health care for U.S. citizens aged 19 to 64 with income below 138% of the federal poverty line. The difference-in-differences model compared changes over time in 2 measures of insurance coverage and 8 measures of access to health care, using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2010 to 2016. Analyses used the NAM definition of disparities. Medicaid expansion was associated with significant decreases in uninsured rates and increases in Medicaid coverage among all racial/ethnic groups. There were differences across racial/ethnic groups regarding which specific access measures improved. For delayed care and unmet need for care, decreases in racial/ethnic disparities were observed. After the ACA Medicaid expansion, most access outcomes improved for disadvantaged groups, but also for others, with the result that disparities were not significantly reduced.

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.

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.

Aggressive Care near the End of Life for Cancer Patients in Medicare Accountable Care Organizations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare aggressiveness of end-of-life (EoL) care for older cancer patients attributed to Medicare Shared Savings Programs with that for similar fee for service (FFS) beneficiaries not in an accountable care organization (ACO) and examine whether observed differences in EoL care utilization vary across markets that differ in ACO penetration. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study comparing ACO-attributed beneficiaries with propensity score-matched beneficiaries not attributed to an ACO. SETTING: A total of 21 hospital referral regions (HRRs) in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare FFS beneficiaries with a cancer diagnosis who were 66 years or older and died in 2013-2014. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures were claims-based quality measures of aggressive EoL care: (1) one or more intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in the last month of life, (2) two or more hospitalizations in the last month of life, (3) two or more emergency department visits in the last month of life, (4) chemotherapy 2 weeks or less before death, and (5) no hospice enrollment or hospice enrollment within 3 days of death. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics of beneficiaries and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Compared with beneficiaries not in an ACO, ACO-attributed beneficiaries had a higher rate of ICU admission during the last month of life (37.7% vs 34.0%; adjusted difference = +2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-4.6) but fewer repeated hospitalizations (14.5% vs 15.2%; adjusted difference = -1.7 percentage points; CI = -3.1 to -.3). Other measures did not differ for the two groups. Although the ICU admission rates tended to decrease as ACO-penetration rates increased (P < .01), ACO patients had higher rates of ICU admission than non-ACO patients in both medium and high ACO-penetration HRRs. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients attributed to ACOs had fewer repeated hospitalizations but more ICU admissions in the last month of life than non-ACO patients; they had similar rates of other measures of aggressive care at the EoL. This suggests opportunities for ACOs to improve EoL care for cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:961-968, 2019.

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.

Effect of periodic health exam on provider management of preventive services.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between receipt of annual physicals and the receipt of provider recommendation for preventive services, during a period when Medicare did not cover annual physicals (before 2011). METHODS: Electronic medical records of patients aged 65 years and older from a US health care system were extracted for the 2001 to 2007 period. A fixed-effects logistic model was used to assess the relationship between receipt of periodic health examination (PHE) and receipt of provider recommendation for mammogram screening for 6466 female Medicare beneficiaries. Logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between receipt of PHE and receipt of provider recommendation for colonoscopy screening and pneumococcal vaccination for 10 318 Medicare beneficiaries. Nine primary care providers from the network were also interviewed, selected by random sampling stratified by care model. RESULTS: Electronic medical record analyses suggest that patients with a PHE were more likely to obtain provider recommendations for mammogram screening (OR = 2.17, P < 0.0001), colonoscopy screening (OR = 1.54, P < 0.0001), and pneumococcal vaccination (OR = 1.10, P < 0.0001). Providers suggested that prevention care quality improves with the PHE because certain screening measures (eg, skin cancer screening, breast exam) would be neglected without it, and healthy patients could miss recommended preventive services entirely. Without the PHE, some providers reported having tried to incorporate discussions of preventive services by scheduling more frequent follow-up chronic care visits than they would have otherwise, and some routinely charged Medicare for a more complex follow-up visit than they would have charged without the preventive service discussions. CONCLUSION: Periodic health examination is important in connecting patients to recommended preventive services. Provider interviews suggested that, indirectly, Medicare ended up paying for the PHE via greater frequency of follow-up visits or higher visit charges from providers integrating the services with other visits.

Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Program-level financial incentives are used by some payers as a tool to improve quality of substance use treatment. However, evidence of effectiveness is mixed and performance contracts may have unintended consequences such as creating barriers for more challenging clients who are less likely to meet benchmarks. This study investigates the impact of a performance contract on waiting time for substance use treatment and client selection. Admission and discharge data from publicly funded Maine outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) substance use treatment programs (N = 38,932 clients) were used. In a quasi-experimental pre-post design, pre-period (FY 2005-2007) admission data from incentivized (IC) and non-incentivized (non-IC) programs were compared to post-period (FY 2008-2012) using propensity score matching and multivariate difference-in-difference regression. Dependent variables were waiting time (incentivized) and client selection (severity: history of mental disorders and substance use severity, not incentivized). Despite financial incentives designed to reduce waiting time for substance use treatment among state-funded outpatient programs, average waiting time for treatment increased in the post period for both IC and non-IC groups, as did client severity. There were no significant differences in waiting time between IC and non-IC groups over time. Increases in client severity over time, with no group differences, indicate that programs did not restrict access for more challenging clients. Adequate funding and other approaches to improve quality may be beneficial.

Federal Parity and Access to Behavioral Health Care in Private Health Plans.

OBJECTIVE: The 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) sought to improve access to behavioral health care by regulating health plans' coverage and management of services. Health plans have some discretion in how to achieve compliance with MHPAEA, leaving questions about its likely effects on health plan policies. In this study, the authors' objective was to determine how private health plans' coverage and management of behavioral health treatment changed after the federal parity law's full implementation. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of commercial health plans was conducted in 60 market areas across the continental United States, achieving response rates of 89% in 2010 (weighted N=8,431) and 80% in 2014 (weighted N=6,974). Senior executives at responding plans were interviewed regarding behavioral health services in each year and (in 2014) regarding changes. Student's t tests were used to examine changes in services covered, cost-sharing, and prior authorization requirements for both behavioral health and general medical care. RESULTS: In 2014, 68% of insurance products reported having expanded behavioral health coverage since 2010. Exclusion of eating disorder coverage was eliminated between 2010 (23%) and 2014 (0%). However, more products reported excluding autism treatment in 2014 (24%) than 2010 (8%). Most plans reported no change to prior-authorization requirements between 2010 and 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of federal parity legislation appears to have been accompanied by continuing improvement in behavioral health coverage. The authors did not find evidence of widespread noncompliance or of unintended effects, such as dropping coverage of behavioral health care altogether.

Behavioral Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act: What Can We Learn From Marketplace Products?

OBJECTIVE: The 2008 federal parity law and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to expand access to behavioral health services. There was concern that health plans might discourage enrollment by individuals with behavioral health conditions who tend to be higher cost. This study compared behavioral health benefits available in the group insurance market (nonmarketplace) to those sold through the ACA marketplaces to check for evidence of less generous behavioral health coverage in marketplace plans. METHODS: Data were from a 2014 nationally representative survey of commercial health plans regarding behavioral health services (80% response rate). The sample included the most common silver marketplace product and, as a comparison, the most common nonmarketplace product of the same type (for example, health maintenance organization or preferred provider organization) from each health plan (N=106 marketplace and nonmarketplace pairs, or 212 products). RESULTS: Marketplace and nonmarketplace products were similar in terms of coverage, prior authorization, and continuing review requirements. Marketplace products were more likely to employ narrow and tiered behavioral health provider networks. Narrow and tiered networks were more common in state than in federal marketplaces. CONCLUSIONS: Provider network design is a tool that health plans may use to control cost and possibly discourage enrollment by high-cost users, including those with behavioral health conditions. The ACA was successful in ensuring robust behavioral health coverage in marketplace plans. As the marketplaces evolve or are replaced, these data provide an important baseline to which future systems can be compared.

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

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

Implementation of Client Incentives within a Recovery Navigation Program.

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

Access to Addiction Pharmacotherapy in Private Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of medications are available to treat addictions. To understand access to addiction medications, it is essential to consider the role of private health plans. To contain medication expenditures, most U.S. health plans use cost-sharing and administrative controls, which may impact physicians' prescribing and patients' use of addiction medications. This study identified health plan approaches to manage access to and utilization of addiction medications (oral and injectable naltrexone, acamprosate, and buprenorphine). METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative survey of private health plans in 2010 (n=385 plans, 935 products; response rate 89%), compared to the same survey in 2003. The study assessed formulary inclusion, prior authorization, step therapy, overall restrictiveness, and if and how health plans encourage pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Formulary exclusions were rare in 2010, with acamprosate excluded most often, by only 9% of products. Injectable naltrexone was covered by 96% of products. Prior authorization was common for injectable naltrexone (85%) and rare for acamprosate (3%). Step therapy policies were used only for injectable naltrexone (41%) and acamprosate (20%). Several medications were often on the most expensive tier. Changes since 2003 include fewer exclusions, yet increased use of other management approaches. Most health plans encourage use of addiction pharmacotherapy, and use a variety of methods to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Management of addiction medications has increased over time but it is not ubiquitous. However, health plans now also include all medications on formularies and encourage providers to use them, indicating that they value addiction pharmacotherapy as an evidence-based practice.