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.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings.

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

Impact of recovery support navigators on continuity of care after detoxification.

Although evidence points to the benefits of continuity of care after detoxification (detox), especially when continuity of care occurs within a short time after discharge from a detox episode, the rate at which clients engage in continued treatment after detox remains low. The goal of the study was to develop and deploy a specially trained workforce, called recovery support navigators (RSNs), to increase the likelihood of clients continuing onto treatment after detox. Continuity of care is defined as receiving any substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service within 14 days of discharge from the index detox. We examined whether clients in the RSN Intervention group were more likely to meet the continuity of care after detox criteria than clients in the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group. A quasi-experimental intervention versus comparison group study was conducted. Data were from the Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership (MBHP), a Beacon Health Options company that manages behavioral health benefits for a subset of Medicaid beneficiaries in the state. Inclusion in the analytic sample (N = 4,236) required that the client's index admission to detox was between 3/29/13 and 3/31/15. RSN Intervention versus TAU status was assigned based on provider organization where the index detox occurred. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. Overall, the continuity of care rate across all study groups was 42%. The rate by study group was 38% for the TAU and 45% for the RSN group. Clients who were in the RSN group were significantly more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox than those in the TAU (OR = 1.233, p < .05, 95% CI = 1.044, 1.455). Clients who entered detox at a site that provided specialized training to RSN, which included motivational interviewing and educational sessions related to treatment issues, and allowing them to bill with a flexible daily case rate instead of the usual fee-for-service billing, were more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox compared to clients in the TAU group.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of Agency Receipt of Incentives and Reminders on Engagement and Continuity of Care for Clients With Co-Occurring Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether having co-occurring substance use and mental disorders influenced treatment engagement or continuity of care and whether offering financial incentives, client-specific electronic reminders, or a combination to treatment agencies improved treatment engagement and continuity of care among clients with co-occurring disorders. METHODS: The study used a randomized cluster design to assign agencies (N=196) providing publicly funded substance use disorder treatment in Washington State to a research arm: incentives only, reminders only, incentives and reminders, and a control condition. Data were analyzed for 76,044 outpatient, 32,797 residential, and 39,006 detoxification admissions from Washington's treatment data system. Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted, with clients nested within agencies, to examine the effect of the interventions on treatment engagement and continuity of care. RESULTS: Compared with clients with a substance use disorder only, clients with co-occurring disorders were less likely to engage in outpatient treatment or have continuity of care after discharge from residential treatment, but they were more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detoxification. The interventions did not influence treatment engagement or continuity of care, except the reminders had a positive impact on continuity of care after residential treatment among clients with co-occurring disorders. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the interventions did not result in improved treatment engagement or continuity of care. The limited number of significant results supporting the influence of incentives and alerts on treatment engagement and continuity of care add to the mixed findings reported by previous research. Multiple interventions may be needed for performance improvement.

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.

Agency-level financial incentives and electronic reminders to improve continuity of care after discharge from residential treatment and detoxification.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of continuity of care after detoxification and residential treatment, many clients do not receive further treatment services after discharged. This study examined whether offering financial incentives and providing client-specific electronic reminders to treatment agencies lead to improved continuity of care after detoxification or residential treatment. METHODS: Residential (N = 33) and detoxification agencies (N = 12) receiving public funding in Washington State were randomized into receiving one, both, or none (control group) of the interventions. Agencies assigned to incentives arms could earn financial rewards based on their continuity of care rates relative to a benchmark or based on improvement. Agencies assigned to electronic reminders arms received weekly information on recently discharged clients who had not yet received follow-up treatment. Difference-in-difference regressions controlling for client and agency characteristics tested the effectiveness of these interventions on continuity of care. RESULTS: During the intervention period, 24,347 clients received detoxification services and 20,685 received residential treatment. Overall, neither financial incentives nor electronic reminders had an effect on the likelihood of continuity of care. The interventions did have an effect among residential treatment agencies which had higher continuity of care rates at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of agency-level financial incentives and electronic reminders did not result in improvements in continuity of care, except among higher performing agencies. Alternative strategies at the facility and systems levels should be explored to identify ways to increase continuity of care rates in specialty settings, especially for low performing agencies.

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.

The Role of Health Plans in Supporting Behavioral Health Integration.

Health plan policies can influence delivery of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. This study provides national estimates for the prevalence of practices used by health plans that may support behavioral health integration. Results indicate that health plans employ financing and other policies likely to support integration. They also directly provide services that facilitate integration. Behavioral health contracting arrangements are associated with use of these policies. Delivery of integrated care requires systemic changes by both providers and payers thus health plans are key players in achieving this goal.

How Do Private Health Plans Manage Specialty Behavioral Health Treatment Entry and Continuing Care?

OBJECTIVE: This study examined private health plans' arrangements for accessing and continuing specialty behavioral health treatment in 2010 as federal health reforms were being implemented. These management practices have historically been stricter in behavioral health care than in general medical care; however, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2010 required parity in management policies. METHODS: The data source was a nationally representative survey of private health plans' behavioral health treatment management approaches in 2010. Health plan executives were asked about activities for their plan's three products with highest enrollment (weighted N=8,427, 88% response rate). RESULTS: Prior authorization for outpatient behavioral health care was rarely required (4.7% of products), but 75% of products required authorization for ongoing care and over 90% required prior authorization for other levels of care. The most common medical necessity criteria were self-developed and American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria. Nearly all products had formal standards to limit waiting time for routine and urgent treatment, but almost 30% lacked such standards for detoxification services. A range of wait time-monitoring approaches was used. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans used a variety of methods to influence behavioral health treatment entry and continuing care. Few relied on prior authorization for outpatient care, but the use of other approaches to influence, manage, or facilitate access was common. Results provide a baseline for understanding the current management environment for specialty behavioral health care. Tracking health plans' approaches over time will be important to ensure that access to behavioral health care is not prohibitively restrictive.

Massachusetts Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations' Perspectives on the Affordable Care Act: Changes in Payment, Services, and System Design.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded insurance benefits and coverage for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and encouraged delivery and payment reforms. Massachusetts passed a similar reform in 2006. This study aims to assess Massachusetts SUD treatment organizations' responses to the ACA. Organizational interviews addressing challenges of and responses to the ACA were conducted in person June-December 2014 with 31 leaders at 12 treatment organizations across Massachusetts. Many organizations were affiliated with medical or social services and offered a range of SUD services. Sampling was based on services offered (detoxification only, detoxification and outpatient, outpatient only). Framework analysis was used. Challenges identified were considered similar to ongoing challenges, not unique to the ACA. Organizations experienced insurance expansions in 2006 and faced new challenges, including insurance coverage, payment arrangements, expansion of services, and system design. System design efforts included care coordination/integration, workforce development, and health information technology. Differences in responses related to connections with medical and social service organizations. Many organizations engaged in efforts to respond to changing policies by expanding capacity and services. Offering a range of SUD treatment (e.g., detoxification and outpatient) and affiliating with a medical organization could enable organizations to respond to new insurance, delivery, and payment reforms.

Commercial Health Plan Coverage of Selected Treatments for Opioid Use Disorders from 2003 to 2014.

Opioid use disorders (OUDs) are receiving significant attention in the U.S. as a public health crisis. Access to treatment for OUDs is essential and was expected to improve following implementation of the federal parity law and the Affordable Care Act. This study examines changes in coverage and management of treatments for OUDs (opioid treatment programs (OTPs) as a covered service benefit, buprenorphine as a pharmacy benefit) before, during, and after parity and ACA implementation. Data are from three rounds of a nationally representative survey conducted with commercial health plans regarding behavioral health services in benefit years 2003, 2010, and 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of health plans' commercial products in the continental United States (2003 weighted N = 7,469, 83% response rate; 2010 N = 8,431, 89% response rate; and 2014 N = 6,974, 80% response rate). Results showed treatment for OUDs was covered by nearly all health plan products in each year of the survey, but the types and patterns varied by year. Prior authorization requirements for OTPs have decreased over time. Despite the promise of expanded access to OUD treatment suggested by parity and the ACA, improved health plan coverage for treatment of OUDs, while essential, is not sufficient to address the opioid crisis.

How health plans promote health IT to improve behavioral health care.

OBJECTIVES: Given the large numbers of providers and enrollees with which they interact, health plans can encourage the use of health information technology (IT) to advance behavioral health care. The manner and extent to which commercial health plans promote health IT to improve behavioral health care is unknown. This study aims to address that gap. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans regarding administrative and clinical dimensions of behavioral health services in 2010. Data are weighted to be representative of commercial managed care products in the United States (n = 8427; 88% response rate). Approaches within the domains of provider support, access to care, and assessment and treatment were investigated as examples of how health plans can promote health IT to improve behavioral health care delivery. RESULTS: Health plans were using health IT approaches in each domain. About a quarter of products offered financial support for electronic health records, but technical assistance was rare. Primary care providers could bill for e-mail contact with patients for behavioral health in about a quarter of products. Few products offered member-provider e-mail, and none offered online appointment scheduling. However, online referral systems and online provider directories were common, and nearly all offered an online self-assessment tool; most offered online counseling and online personalized responses to questions or problems. CONCLUSIONS: In 2010, commercial health plans encouraged the use of health IT strategies for behavioral health care. Health plans have an important role to play for increasing health IT as a tool for behavioral health care.

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.

Behavioral Health Services in the Changing Landscape of Private Health Plans.

OBJECTIVE: Health plans play a key role in facilitating improvements in population health and may engage in activities that have an impact on access, cost, and quality of behavioral health care. Although behavioral health care is becoming more integrated with general medical care, its delivery system has unique aspects. The study examined how health plans deliver and manage behavioral health care in the context of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). This is a critical time to examine how health plans manage behavioral health care. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of private health plans (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate) was conducted in 2010 during the first year of MHPAEA, when plans were subject to the law but before final regulations, and just before the ACA went into effect. The survey addressed behavioral health coverage, cost-sharing, contracting arrangements, medical home innovations, support for technology, and financial incentives to improve behavioral health care. RESULTS: Coverage for inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services was stable between 2003 and 2010. In 2010, health plans were more likely than in 2003 to manage behavioral health care through internal arrangements and to contract for other services. Medical home initiatives were common and almost always included behavioral health, but financial incentives did not. Some plans facilitated providers' use of technology to improve care delivery, but this was not the norm. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans are key to mainstreaming and supporting delivery of high-quality behavioral health services. Since 2003, plans have made changes to support delivery of behavioral health services in the context of a rapidly changing environment.

Health Plans' Early Response to Federal Parity Legislation for Mental Health and Addiction Services.

OBJECTIVE: In 2008, the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) passed, prohibiting U.S. health plans from subjecting mental health and substance use disorder (behavioral health) coverage to more restrictive limitations than those applied to general medical care. This require d some health plans to make changes in coverage and management of services. The aim of this study was to examine private health plans' early responses to MHPAEA (after its 2010 implementation), in terms of both intended and unintended effects. METHODS: Data were from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans regarding the 2010 benefit year and the preparity 2009 benefit year (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate). RESULTS: Annual limits specific to behavioral health care were virtually eliminated between 2009 and 2010. Prevalence of behavioral health coverage was unchanged, and copayments for both behavioral and general medical services increased slightly. Prior authorization requirements for specialty medical and behavioral health outpatient services continued to decline, and the proportion of products reporting strict continuing review requirements increased slightly. Contrary to expectations, plans did not make significant changes in contracting arrangements for behavioral health services, and 80% reported an increase in size of their behavioral health provider network. CONCLUSIONS: The law had the intended effect of eliminating quantitative limitations that applied only to behavioral health care without unintended consequences such as eliminating behavioral health coverage. Plan decisions may also reflect other factors, including anticipation of the 2010 regulations and a continuation of trends away from requiring prior authorization.