Econometric evaluation of implementing a behavioral health integration intervention in primary care settings.

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 - 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.

This study estimated the cost of implementing a program that helped 8 primary care practices transition from a co-located behavioral health services model to greater integration. Our study was part of a larger study across the United States. The authors found that the per-practice program implementation cost ranged between $12,381 and $60,427 and the median cost was $20,726. Leaders of healthcare organizations that participated in this study thought that these costs represented the work of program implementation and that they were reasonable and acceptable.

Developing Digital Therapeutics for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Qualitative Human-Centered Design Study of Providers' Motivations and Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics are growing as a solution to manage pain for patients; yet, they are underused in primary care where over half of the patients with chronic pain seek care. Little is known about how to successfully engage primary care providers in recommending digital therapeutics to their patients. Exploring provider motivations in chronic pain management would potentially help to improve their engagement and inform the development of digital therapeutics. OBJECTIVE: This study examined primary care providers' motivations for chronic pain management, including their strategies and challenges, to inform the future development of chronic pain-related digital therapeutics tailored to primary care settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with health care providers recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Washington and 1 clinic in Colorado between July and October 2021. The sample (N=11) included 7 primary care physicians, 2 behavioral health providers, 1 physician assistant, and 1 nurse. Most providers worked in clinics affiliated with urban academic health systems. Guided by the human-centered design approach and Christensen's Job-to-be-Done framework, we asked providers their goals and priorities in chronic pain management, their experiences with challenges and strategies used to care for patients, and their perceptions of applying digital therapeutics in clinical practice. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We found that primary care providers were motivated but challenged to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, provide team-based care, track and monitor patients' progress, and address social determinants of health in chronic pain management. Specifically, providers desired additional resources to improve patient-centered communication, pain education and counseling, and goal setting with patients. Providers also requested greater accessibility to multidisciplinary care team consultations and nonpharmacological pain treatments. When managing chronic pain at the population level, providers need infrastructure and systems to systematically track and monitor patients' pain and provide wraparound health and social services for underserved patients. Recommendations on digital therapeutic features that might address provider challenges in achieving these motivations were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the findings, to engage primary care providers, digital therapeutics for chronic pain management need to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, increase access to nonpharmacological treatment options, support population health tracking and management, and provide equitable reach. Leveraging digital therapeutics in a feasible, appropriate, and acceptable way to aid primary care providers in chronic pain management may require multimodal features that address provider motivations at an individual care and clinic or system level.

Payment strategies for behavioral health integration in hospital-affiliated and non-hospital-affiliated primary care practices.

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies-fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest can arise when faculty and staff administer programs that distribute research funds, training opportunities, and other resources across academic and community partners. We describe the ethical concerns encountered by a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in administering its community-focused pilot grant program and how its Research Bioethics Consultation service helped to address them.Ethical Concerns: CTSA program faculty and staff identified ethical concerns in several areas, including appropriateness of including Regional Research Collaborations (RRC) faculty as principal or co-investigators on applications, determining how much help RRC faculty and staff should provide to prospective applicants, and creating a fair and effective application review process. DISCUSSION: The CTSA program identified common goals and values for its community-focused pilot grant program, and resolved the conflicts of interest with the new pilot grant policies. This approach could generalize to conflicts of interest that arise in other academic-community partnerships.