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.

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.

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.

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.

Management of Newer Antidepressant Medications in U.S. Commercial Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: Private health insurance plays a large role in the U.S. health system, including for many individuals with depression. Private insurers have been actively trying to influence pharmaceutical utilization and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients' access to antidepressant medications. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To report which approaches (e.g., tiered copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) commercial health plans are employing to manage newer antidepressant medications, and how the use of these approaches has changed since 2003. METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of six branded antidepressant medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and if so, on what copayment tier, and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics. RESULTS: Less than 1% of health plan products excluded any of the six antidepressants studied. Medications were more likely to be subjected to restrictions if they were newer, more expensive or were reformulations. 55% of products used placement on a high cost-sharing tier (3 or 4) as their only form of restriction for newer branded antidepressants. This proportion was lower than in 2003, when 71% of products took this approach. In addition, only 2% of products left all the newer branded medications unrestricted, down from 25% in 2003. Multivariate analysis indicated that preferred provider organizations were more likely than other product types to use tier 3 or 4 placement. DISCUSSION: We find that U.S. health plans are using a variety of strategies to manage cost and utilization of newer branded antidepressant medications. Plans appear to be finding that approaches other than exclusion are adequate to meet their cost-management goals for newer branded antidepressants, although they have increased their use of administrative restrictions since 2003. Limitations include lack of information about how administrative restrictions were applied in practice, information on only six medications, and some potential for endogeneity bias in the regression analyses. CONCLUSION: This study has documented substantial use of various restrictions on access to newer branded antidepressants in U.S. commercial health plans. Most of these medications had generic equivalents that offered at least some substitutability, reducing access concerns. At the same time, it is worth noting that high copayments and administrative requirements can nonetheless be burdensome for some patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Health plans' pharmacy management approaches may concern policymakers less than in the early 2000s, due to the lesser distinctiveness of today's branded medications. This may change depending on future drug introductions. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future research should examine the impact of plans' pharmacy management approaches, using patient-level data.

Management of newer medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in commercial health plans.

PURPOSE: In the United States, many individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pay for their medications using private health insurance coverage. As in other drug classes, private insurers are actively seeking to influence use and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients' access to medications. This article examines approaches (eg, copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) that commercial health plans are using to manage newer medications used to treat ADHD and changes in approaches since 2003. METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of 6 branded ADHD medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and, if so, on what copayment tier each medication was placed and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics. FINDINGS: There was considerable variation across these 6 medications in how tightly they were managed by health plans, with newer medications being subject to more stringent management. The proportion of insurance products relying solely on copayment tiering to manage new ADHD medications appears to have decreased since 2003. Less than half of insurance products (43%) managed these 6 medications solely by use of tier 3 or 4 placement, and most of the remainder (48%) used other restrictions (with or without tier 3 or 4 placement). The average insurance product restricted access to at least 3 of the 6 brand-only medications examined, whether through copayment tier placement or other approaches. More ADHD medications were left unrestricted in health maintenance organization products than in preferred provider organization ones, products with internal or hybrid-internal contracts for behavioral health, those not contracting with pharmacy benefits managers, and those with for-profit ownership. IMPLICATIONS: Many plans have supplemented copayment tiering with other approaches, such as prior authorization and step therapy, to influence use and decrease costs. It may be that plans have found copayments to be less effective in redirecting use in this medication class. The effect on clinical outcomes was not examined in this study but should be prioritized using other data sources.

Drinking patterns of older adults with chronic medical conditions.

BACKGROUND: Understanding alcohol consumption patterns of older adults with chronic illness is important given the aging baby boomer generation, the increase in prevalence of chronic conditions and associated medication use, and the potential consequences of excessive drinking in this population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of alcohol consumption patterns, including at-risk drinking, in older adults with at least one of seven common chronic conditions. DESIGN/METHODS: This descriptive study used the nationally representative 2005 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked with Medicare claims. The sample included community-dwelling, fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years and older with one or more of seven chronic conditions (Alzheimer's disease and other senile dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and stroke; n = 7,422). Based on self-reported alcohol consumption, individuals were categorized as nondrinkers, within-guidelines drinkers, or at-risk drinkers (exceeds guidelines). RESULTS: Overall, 30.9 % (CI 28.0-34.1 %) of older adults with at least one of seven chronic conditions reported alcohol consumption in a typical month in the past year, and 6.9 % (CI 6.0-7.8 %) reported at-risk drinking. Older adults with higher chronic disease burdens were less likely to report alcohol consumption and at-risk drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of older adults with selected chronic illnesses report drinking alcohol and almost 7 % drink in excess of National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) guidelines. It is important for physicians and patients to discuss alcohol consumption as a component of chronic illness management. In cases of at-risk drinking, providers have an opportunity to provide brief intervention or to offer referrals if needed.

Characteristics of practitioners in a private managed behavioral health plan.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the practitioners in managed behavioral healthcare organization (MBHO) networks who are treating mental and substance use disorders among privately insured patients in the United States. It is likely that the role of the private sector in treating behavioral health will increase due to the recent implementation of federal parity legislation and the inclusion of behavioral health as a required service in the insurance exchange plans created under healthcare reform. Further, the healthcare reform legislation has highlighted the need to ensure a qualified workforce in order to improve access to quality healthcare, and provides an additional focus on the behavioral health workforce. To expand understanding of treatment of mental and substance use disorders among privately insured patients, this study examines practitioner types, experience, specialized expertise, and demographics of in-network practitioners providing outpatient care in one large national MBHO. METHODS: Descriptive analyses used 2004 practitioner credentialing and other administrative data for one MBHO. The sample included 28,897 practitioners who submitted at least one outpatient claim in 2004. Chi-square and t-tests were used to compare findings across types of practitioners. RESULTS: About half of practitioners were female, 12% were bilingual, and mean age was 53, with significant variation by practitioner type. On average, practitioners report 15.3 years of experience (SD = 9.4), also with significant variation by practitioner type. Many practitioners reported specialized expertise, with about 40% reporting expertise for treating children and about 60% for treating adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results based on self-report indicate that the practitioner network in this large MBHO is experienced and has specialized training, but echo concerns about the aging of this workforce. These data should provide us with a baseline of practitioner characteristics as we enter an era that anticipates great change in the behavioral health workforce.

The relationship of antidepressant prescribing concentration to treatment duration and cost.

BACKGROUND: Widely accepted treatment guidelines and performance measures encourage patients to stay on antidepressant medication beyond the acute phase of treatment in order to achieve full remission and reduce risk of relapse. However, many patients discontinue antidepressant medication treatment prematurely for various reasons, including side-effects or nonresponse to the initial medication prescribed. Customization of medications to differing patient profiles could potentially improve medication treatment duration, but for many diseases physicians tend to concentrate on a limited subset of available medications. Little is known about the effects of concentration in prescribing on medication treatment duration and expenditures. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To determine the extent to which prescribing for treatment of depression is concentrated, using data from a privately insured population. To evaluate the relationship between prescribing concentration and subsequent duration of medication treatment, expenditure on medications, and the number of distinct medications used. STUDY POPULATION: Individuals receiving antidepressant treatment paid for by a large private managed behavioral health organization, in the US. METHODS: The study uses psychotropic pharmacy claims data for 2003-06 for plan members who received a depression diagnosis and had an antidepressant claim. The resulting sample includes 9,017 patients seen by 543 prescribers. For each prescriber, we compute prescribing concentration, using the Herfindahl index and the share for the three most-used medications. Treatment expenditure is computed as the sum of payments by plan and by patients. Regression analysis is used to identify the association of prescribing concentration with medication treatment duration, expenditures and other utilization measures. RESULTS: For these physicians, the mean share of the physician's total antidepressant prescribing accounted for by their three most-used regimens was 72%. The mean value of the Herfindahl index was 0.27. Over the 180-day follow-up period, the average patient had 103 days covered by antidepressant prescriptions, resulting in mean expenditures of $286, or $2.25 per day of medication supplied. Regression analysis indicates that higher concentration in a physician's prescribing was associated with fewer days of antidepressant coverage, lower medication expenditures, and subsequent use of fewer distinct medications. DISCUSSION: Higher concentration in prescribing is associated with shorter observed duration of medication treatment and lower expenditures on medications. The lower expenditures appear to be due to earlier discontinuation and fewer different medications, not to a lower cost per day supplied. Limitations of this study include lack of data on medical visits or on reasons for medication discontinuation, as the study is based on pharmacy claims data, not medical claims or surveys. In addition, it is not known whether the patient's antidepressant use represents a new episode. Finally, lack of randomization implies that the associations identified may not be causal. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Concentration of physicians on certain medications may run counter to the increasing calls for customization of medication selection. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Insurer policies which limit physicians' choice of medications may be lowering expenditures in part by reducing patients' medication treatment duration. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Additional studies are needed to understand what mechanisms may link concentration in prescribing to medication treatment duration and expenditures.

Substance abuse treatment client experience in an employed population: results of a client survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding client perspectives on treatment is increasingly recognized as key to improving care. Yet information on the perceptions and experiences of workers with private insurance coverage who receive help for substance use conditions is relatively sparse, particularly in managed behavioral health care organization (MBHO) populations. Furthermore, the role of several factors including prior service use has not been fully explored. METHODS: Employees covered by a large MBHO who had received substance abuse services in the past year were surveyed (146 respondents completed the telephone survey and self-reported service use). RESULTS: The most common reasons for entering treatment were problems with health; home, family or friends; or work. Prior treatment users reported more reasons for entering treatment and more substance use-related work impairment. The majority of all respondents felt treatment helped a lot or some. One quarter reported getting less treatment than they felt they needed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Study findings point to the need to tailor treatment for prior service users and to recognize the role of work in treatment entry and outcomes. Perceived access issues may be present even among insured clients already in treatment.

Emergency department utilization patterns for Medicare beneficiaries with serious mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined emergency department use among Medicare beneficiaries with serious mental disorders. METHODS: Drawn from the 2004 national 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, the sample in this study (N=129,805) included fee-for-service enrollees with primary diagnoses of schizophrenia, major depression, other major affective disorders, or other psychoses. Emergency department use was compared by psychiatric diagnostic category and presence of a claim related to substance use disorder. RESULTS: Having any emergency department visit was common for beneficiaries aged >or=65 years (58.3%) and beneficiaries <65 years who were Medicare eligible because of a disability (48.5%). Emergency department visits with a primary psychiatric diagnosis occurred for 14.8% of disabled beneficiaries and 6.7% of aged beneficiaries. Use varied by diagnosis and was higher for those with any substance-related claims (p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department use was common in the sample. Within each eligibility category, use varied by psychiatric diagnostic category and presence of a substance-related claim.

Patterns of service use in two types of managed behavioral health care plans.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined service use patterns by level of care in two managed care plans offered by a national managed behavioral health care organization (MBHO): an employee assistance program (EAP) combined with a standard behavioral health plan (integrated plan) and a standard behavioral health plan. METHODS: The cross-sectional analysis used 2004 administrative data from the MBHO. Utilization of 11 specific service categories was compared. The weighted sample reflected exact matching on sociodemographic characteristics (unweighted N=710,014; weighted N=286,750). RESULTS: A larger proportion of enrollees in the integrated plan than in the standard plan used outpatient mental health and substance abuse office visits (including EAP visits) (p<.01) and substance abuse intensive outpatient or day treatment (p<.05), and the proportion using residential substance abuse rehabilitation was lower (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The integrated and standard products had distinct utilization patterns in this large MBHO. In particular, greater use of certain outpatient services was observed in the integrated plan.

The effect of employee assistance plan benefits on the use of outpatient behavioral health care.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of all US workers have access to an employee assistance plan (EAP). At the same time, most large US employers also purchase health benefits for their employees, and these benefits packages typically include behavioral health services. There is some potential overlap in services covered by the EAP and the health plan, and some employers choose to purchase the two jointly as an 'integrated product'. It is not clear whether EAP services substitute for outpatient behavioral health care services covered by the health plan. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate how the number of EAP visits covered affects the use of regular outpatient behavioral health care (number of visits, and total spending), in an integrated product setting. METHODS: Analysis of claims, eligibility and benefits data for 26,464 users of behavioral health care for the year 2005. For both EAP and regular behavioral health care, the individuals were enrolled with Managed Health Network (MHN), a large national specialty insurance plan. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate the determinants of the number of regular outpatient visits, and spending for regular outpatient care. To address skewness in the dependent variables, the estimation used generalized linear models with a log link. A limited instrumental variable analysis was used to test for endogeneity of the number of EAP visits covered. RESULTS: Nearly half the enrollees in this sample were in employer plans that allowed 4-5 EAP visits per treatment episode, and 31% were allowed 3 EAP visits per year. Having an EAP visit allowance of 4-5 sessions per episode predicts fewer regular outpatient visits, compared with having an allowance of 3 sessions per year. More generous EAP allowances also reduce payments for outpatient care, with one exception. DISCUSSION: Greater availability of EAP benefits appears to reduce utilization of regular outpatient care, supporting the idea that the two types of care are to some extent perceived as substitutes. One limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature, since the relationships observed could reflect the effect of other unmeasured variables. Also, the data are from a single managed behavioral health organization, limiting generalizability somewhat, although many employers are represented in the data. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: The results should discourage employers from either eliminating EAP benefits as duplicative, or replacing behavioral health benefits with an expanded EAP. Patients appear to perceive that EAP services offer something distinct from regular outpatient care. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future studies should see whether these results are reproduced, ideally by looking at employer plans with a wider range of EAP visit allowances.

Accessing specialty behavioral health treatment in private health plans.

Connecting people to mental health and substance abuse services is critical, given the extent of unmet need. The way health plans structure access to care can play a role. This study examined treatment entry procedures for specialty behavioral health care in private health plans and their relationship with behavioral health contracting arrangements, focusing primarily on initial entry into outpatient treatment. The data source was a nationally representative health plan survey on behavioral health services in 2003 (N = 368 plans with 767 managed care products; 83% response rate). Most health plan products initially authorized six or more outpatient visits if authorization was required, did not routinely conduct telephonic clinical assessment, had standards for timely access, and monitored wait time. Products with carve-outs differed on several treatment entry dimensions. Findings suggest that health plans focus on timely access and typically do not heavily manage initial entry into outpatient treatment.

Benefit limits for behavioral health care in private health plans.

Data from a nationally representative sample of private health plans reveal that special lifetime limits on behavioral health care are rare (used by 16% of products). However, most plans have special annual limits on behavioral health utilization; for example, 90% limit outpatient mental health and 93% limit outpatient substance abuse treatment. As a result, enrollees in the average plan face substantial out-of-pocket costs for long-lasting treatment: a median of $2,710 for 50 mental health visits, or $2,400 for 50 substance abuse visits. Plans' access to new managed care tools has not led them to stop using benefit limits for cost containment purposes.

Management of behavioral health provider networks in private health plans.

We explored the techniques used by private health plans or by their contracted managed behavioral healthcare organizations (MBHOs) to maintain networks of behavioral health providers. In particular, we focused on differences by health plans' product types (health maintenance organization, point-of-service plan, or preferred provider organization) and contracting arrangements (MBHO contracts, comprehensive contracts, or no contracts). More than 94% of products selected providers using credentialing standards, particular specialists, or geographic coverage. To retain providers viewed as high quality, 54% offer reduced administrative burden and 44% higher fees. Only 16% reported steerage to a core group of highest-quality providers and few reported an annual bonus or guaranteed volume of referrals. Some standard activities are common, but some health plans are adopting other approaches to retain higher-quality providers.

Unhealthy drinking patterns and receipt of preventive medical services by older adults.

BACKGROUND: Preventive service use among older adults is suboptimal. Unhealthy drinking may constitute a risk factor for failure to receive these services. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between unhealthy drinking and receipt of recommended preventive services among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, applying the framework of current alcohol consumption guidelines. DESIGN/METHODS: The data source is the nationally representative 2003 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. The sample included community-dwelling, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older (N = 10,523). Based on self-reported drinking, respondents were categorized as nondrinkers, within-guidelines drinkers, exceeding monthly but not daily limits, or heavy episodic drinkers. Using survey and claims data, influenza vaccination, pneumonia vaccination, glaucoma screening, and mammogram receipt were determined. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 70.3% received flu vaccination and 49% received glaucoma screening during the year, 66.8% received pneumonia vaccination, and 56.2% of women received a mammogram over 2 years. In logistic regression, heavy episodic drinking was associated with lower likelihood of service receipt compared to drinking within guidelines: flu vaccination (OR 0.75, CI 0.59-0.96), glaucoma screening (OR 0.74, CI 0.58-0.95), and pneumonia vaccination (OR 0.75, CI 0.59-0.96). Nondrinkers when compared with those reporting drinking within guidelines were less likely to receive a mammogram (OR 0.83, CI 0.69-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Heavy episodic drinking is associated with lower likelihood of receiving several preventive services. Practitioners should be encouraged to screen all elders regarding alcohol intake and in addition to appropriate intervention, consider elders reporting heavy episodic drinking at higher risk for non-receipt of preventive services.