RESUMO
Background: Increased availability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is essential to alleviating the negative public health and societal effects of behavioral health problems. A major challenge to implementing and sustaining EBPs broadly is the limited and fragmented nature of available funding. Method: We conducted a scoping review that assessed the current state of evidence on EBP financing strategies for behavioral health based on recent literature (i.e., post-Affordable Care Act). We defined financing strategies as techniques that secure and direct financial resources to support EBP implementation. This article introduces a conceptualization of financing strategies and then presents a compilation of identified strategies, following established reporting guidelines for the implementation strategies. We also describe the reported level of use for each financing strategy in the research literature. Results: Of 23 financing strategies, 13 were reported as being used within behavioral health services, 4 had potential for use, 5 had conceptual use only, and 1 was potentially contraindicated. Examples of strategies reported being used include increased fee-for-service reimbursement, grants, cost sharing, and pay-for-success contracts. No strategies had been evaluated in ways that allowed for strong conclusions about their impact on EBP implementation outcomes. Conclusion: The existing literature on EBP financing strategies in behavioral health raises far more questions than answers. Therefore, we propose a research agenda that will help better understand these financing strategies. We also discuss the implications of our findings for behavioral health professionals, system leaders, and policymakers who want to develop robust, sustainable financing for EBP implementation in behavioral health systems. Plain language abstract: Organizations that treat behavioral health problems (mental health and substance use) often seek to adopt and use evidence-based practices (EBPs). A challenge to adopting EBPs broadly is the limited funding available, often from various sources that are poorly coordinated with one another. To help organizations plan effectively to adopt EBPs, we conducted a review of recent evidence (i.e., since the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act) on strategies for financing EBP adoption in behavioral health systems. We present definitions of 23 identified strategies and describe each strategy's reported (in the research literature) level of use to fund EBP adoption in behavioral health services. Of the 23 financing strategies, 13 strategies had evidence of use, 4 had potential for use, 5 had conceptual use only, and 1 was potentially contraindicated. Examples of strategies with evidence of use include increased fee-for-service reimbursement, grants, cost sharing, and pay-for-success contracts. This comprehensive list of EBP financing strategies may help guide decision-making by behavioral health professionals, system leaders, and policymakers. The article also presents a research agenda for building on the current research literature by (1) advancing methods to evaluate financing strategies' effects, (2) partnering with stakeholders and decision-makers to examine promising financing strategies, (3) focusing on strategies and service systems with the greatest needs, (4) improving methods to guide the selection of financing strategies, and (5) paying greater attention to sustainable long-term financing of EBPs.
RESUMO
Several states have made considerable investments into large-scale implementation of evidence-based treatments (EBTs), yet little is known about key success indicators for these implementation efforts such as cost and sustainability. To that end, the present study examined the economic impact of statewide implementation of multisystemic therapy (MST; Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, & Cuningham, 2009), a family- and community-based behavioral EBT for serious juvenile offenders in New Mexico. Participants were 1,869 youth who received MST across 23 teams during the study period. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis using metrics from state data sources that compared the cost of MST to its benefits (i.e., avoided expenses from pre- to posttreatment) in two domains: (a) behavioral health services (i.e., Medicaid claims) and (b) juvenile crime (i.e., taxpayer expenses, tangible and intangible expenses to crime victims). MST costs were based on Medicaid claims, which were reimbursed at an enhanced billing rate that was intended to cover expenses for both clinical and implementation (e.g., training, quality assurance) activities. Results suggest that implementation of MST in New Mexico over the 7-year study period may have produced net benefits, through 2 years posttreatment, of more than $4,643 per youth in avoided behavioral health claims and $15,019 per youth through reductions in juvenile crime. Stated differently, every dollar that New Mexico spent on MST appeared to have returned $3.34 for a total benefit of $64.2 million over the course of the study. We discuss implications of these findings for policymakers, administrators, and researchers who are interested in increasing the sustainability of complex EBTs in community settings.
