Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). METHODS: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. RESULTS: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. LAY SUMMARY: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach. METHODS: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter. RESULTS: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Challenges in Reaching Medicaid and Medicare Enrollees in a Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Program.

BeneFIT was a demonstration project that worked with a Medicaid/Medicare health plan to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. The goal was to reach age-eligible enrollees who were due for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prompt them to complete a FIT. One health insurance plan collaborated with six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon. Reach was defined as the percent of eligible individuals overdue for CRC screening who were mailed a FIT in 2016. We examined patient-level factors associated with reach, using multivariable log binomial regression and FIT completion rates at 6 months. The health plan identified 3386 age-eligible members overdue for CRC screening. Of these, 2615 (77.2%) were reached (mailed FIT kits) and 771 (22.8%) were not; 478 (14.1%) because they were not considered to be clinic patients and 290 (8.6%) because of mailing issues. Patient-level factors associated with not being reached were: being male, being Medicaid-insured (vs. Medicare), and having no primary care visits (vs. 4+ visits) in the last year. Among all enrollees identified as overdue for CRC screening, FIT completion rates at 6 months were 14.8% overall and 18.5% in the subgroup reached. In a mailed FIT program, a health insurance plan attempted to reach as many enrollees overdue for CRC screening as possible, however 22.8% were not mailed a FIT. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that the hardest to reach enrollees can participate in CRC screening.

Suicide risk and associated demographic and clinical correlates among primary care patients with recent drug use.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased need to prepare primary care clinicians to effectively gauge the risk of suicidal behavior occurring within primary care patients who may abuse drugs, especially those served in safety-net settings. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper were to explore suicide risk in a population of individuals endorsing recent drug use, and to describe patient demographic, medical, psychiatric, social, and substance use characteristics across different levels of suicide risk. METHODS: A total of 867 primary care patients with reported drug use in the previous 90 days were studied. Based upon their responses to two Addiction Severity Index questions, four suicide risk categories were constructed: (1) low risk; (2) moderate-low (suicidal ideation in the past 30 days); (3) moderate-high (history of a lifetime suicide attempt); and (4) high risk (history of a lifetime suicide attempt and suicidal ideation in the past 30 days). The association between suicide risk groups and demographic and clinical variables were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 40% of primary care patients endorsing recent drug use reported a lifetime suicide attempt. Compared to individuals in other suicide risk groups, individuals at high suicide risk had higher rates of substance use severity, recently used two or more substances, and were more likely to have a comorbid psychiatric condition. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that the percentage of patients with suicide risk may be higher among patients with recent drug use. Primary care clinicians should be aware that they may be encountering patients with suicide risk among those with recent drug use.

Barriers and Facilitators to Coordinating Care With High-Risk, High-Cost Disabled Medicaid Beneficiaries: Perspectives of Frontline Staff and Participating Clients.

This evaluation was designed to examine the perspectives of 15 frontline staff who implemented a managed care program and 154 high-risk, high-cost disabled Medicaid clients who were participants in the program. Results indicated that positive relationships between staff and clients played a key role in facilitating program implementation. Challenges included finding ways to provide a wide breadth of services including food, shelter, and transportation; handling difficulties following from staff turnover; and creating transitions of care for clients to community health clinics. Staff identified training in motivational interviewing and having both nurse care managers and social workers collaboratively deliver the intervention as among the most powerful components of the program. Staff and clients expressed high levels of satisfaction with the program, and clients believed they were experiencing positive impacts of the program. Lessons learned from this study may inform the design of services as the Affordable Care Act continues to unfold.

Are medical marijuana users different from recreational users? The view from primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Marijuana is currently approved for medical use in 23 states. Both clinicians and the lay public have questioned whether users of marijuana for medical purposes are different from users of marijuana for recreational purposes. This study examined similarities and differences in important clinical characteristics between users of medical marijuana and users of recreational marijuana. METHODS: The sample consisted of 868 adult primary care patients in Washington State, who reported use of medical marijuana (n = 131), recreational marijuana (n = 525), or drugs other than marijuana (n = 212). Retention was over 87% at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month assessments. RESULTS: The majority of medical, psychiatric, substance use, and service utilization characteristic comparisons were not significant. However, medical marijuana users had significantly more medical problems, a significantly larger proportion reported >15 days medical problems in the past month, and significantly smaller proportions reported no pain and no mobility limitations (p < .001). Medical marijuana users also had significantly lower drug problem severity, lower alcohol problem severity, and significantly larger proportions reported using marijuana alone and concomitant opioid use only (p < .001). There was no significant difference between medical and recreational users in the percentage using marijuana with at least two additional substances (48% vs. 58%, respectively, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Although our results suggest that there are few distinct differences between medical and recreational users of marijuana, the differences observed, while mostly very small in effect size (<.2), are consistent with at least some medical users employing marijuana to relieve symptoms and distress associated with medical illness.

Brief intervention for problem drug use in safety-net primary care settings: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. RESULTS: Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ß = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ß = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Disparities in Long-Term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted how primary care patients with chronic pain received care. Our study sought to understand how long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain changed over the course of the pandemic overall and for different demographic subgroups. METHODS: We used data from electronic health records of 64 primary care clinics across Washington state and Idaho to identify patients who had a chronic pain diagnosis and were receiving long-term opioid therapy. We defined 10-month periods in 2019 to 2021 as prepandemic, early pandemic and late pandemic and used generalized estimating equations analysis to compare across these time periods and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: We found a proportional decrease in LtOT for chronic pain in the early months of the pandemic (OR = 0.94, P = .007) followed by an increase late pandemic (OR = 1.08, P = .002). Comparing late pandemic to prepandemic, identifying as Asian or Black, having fewer comorbidities, or living in an urban area were associated with higher likelihood of being prescribed LtOT. DISCUSSION: The use of LtOT for chronic pain in primary care has increased from before to after the COVID-19 pandemic with racial/ethnic and geographic disparities. Future research is needed to understand these disparities in LtOT and their effect on patient outcomes.

Integrated Behavioral Health in Primary Care Residency and Nonresidency Practices.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Integrated behavioral health (BH) is becoming a preferred model of care for primary care because it improves patient outcomes and satisfaction. Little is known about whether residency practices are consistently modeling this preferred care model relative to real-world nonresidency practices. The study compared levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and satisfaction with care between residency practices and nonresidency practices with colocated BH providers. METHODS: Baseline data were collected in 2018-2019 from 44 practices and their adult patients with chronic conditions participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial to improve BH integration. The sample included 18 (40.9%) residency and 26 (59.1%) nonresidency practices, with 1,817 (45.3%) patients from residency practices and 2,190 (54.7%) patients from nonresidency practices. Outcomes including BH integration levels (the Practice Integration Profile), patient health outcomes (the PROMIS-29), and patient satisfaction with care (the Consultation and Relational Empathy scale) were compared between residency and nonresidency practices using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: No differences were found between BH integration levels, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care between residency and nonresidency practices. In a sample of primary care practices with colocated BH providers, residencies had BH integration and patient outcomes similar to real-world practices. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices with residency programs reported comparable levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction compared to practices without residency programs. Both types of practices require interventions and resources to help them overcome challenges associated with dissemination of high levels of BH integration.

Costs of Two Health Insurance Plan Programs to Mail Fecal Immunochemical Tests to Medicare and Medicaid Plan Members.

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans.

Interdisciplinary craniofacial teams compared with individual providers: is orofacial cleft care more comprehensive and do parents perceive better outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to examine whether children with orofacial clefts received more comprehensive care and whether their parents perceived better outcomes if the care was delivered by interdisciplinary teams compared with individual providers. DESIGN: Data about services received and outcomes were collected from mothers of children with orofacial clefts. PARTICIPANTS: Mothers of children born between 1998 and 2003 with orofacial clefts from Arkansas, Iowa, and New York who participated in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study were eligible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Services and treatments received and maternal perception of cleft care, health status, aesthetics, and speech were evaluated by team care status. RESULTS: Of 253 children, 24% were not receiving team care. Of those with cleft lip and palate, 86% were enrolled in team care. Compared with children with team care, those without had fewer surgeries and were less likely to have seen a dentist, received a hearing test, or had a genetic consultation. Mothers of children lacking team care were twice as likely to give lower ratings for overall cleft care; maternal perceptions of global health, facial appearance, and speech did not differ by team care status. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended care tended to be received more often among those with team care. A larger, longitudinal study might answer questions about whether team care provides the best care and the role that type and severity of the condition and racial/ethnic differences play in the services received and outcomes experienced.

Low Rates of Colonoscopy Follow-up After a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Medicaid Health Plan Delivered Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is necessary for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be effective. We report colonoscopy follow-up rates after a positive FIT overall and by population characteristics in the BeneFIT demonstration pilot, a Medicaid health insurance plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program. METHODS: In 2016, 2 health insurance plans in Oregon and in Washington state mailed FIT kits to Medicaid patients who, based on claims data, were overdue for CRC screening. We report follow-up colonoscopy completion rates after positive FIT, and differences in completion rates by age, sex, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and number of primary care visits in the prior year. This research was human subjects approved with a waiver of consent for data collection. RESULTS: The FIT positivity rates in Health Plan Oregon and Health Plan Washington were 7.9% (39/488) and 14.6% (125/857), respectively. Colonoscopy completion rates within 12 months of the positive test were 35.9% (14/41) in Health Plan Oregon and 32.8% (41/125) in Health Plan Washington. Colonoscopy completion rates were higher among individuals who preferred a language other than English (Non-English speakers 70.0%, English speakers 31.3%, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In a health plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program, follow-up colonoscopy rates after a positive test were low. Additional interventions are needed to assure colonoscopy after a positive FIT test and to reap the benefits of screening.

Service utilization and chronic condition outcomes among primary care patients with substance use disorders and co-occurring chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. RESULTS: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p's < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions.

Use of electronic health record data from diverse primary care practices to identify and characterize patients' prescribed common medications.

We use prescription of statin medications and prescription of warfarin to explore the capacity of electronic health record data to (1) describe cohorts of patients prescribed these medications and (2) identify cohorts of patients with evidence of adverse events related to prescription of these medications. This study was conducted in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN)., a network of primary care practices across Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho DataQUEST, an electronic data-sharing infrastructure. We used electronic health record data to describe cohorts of patients prescribed statin or warfarin medications and reported the proportions of patients with adverse events. Among the 35,445 active patients, 1745 received at least one statin prescription and 301 received at least one warfarin prescription. Only 3 percent of statin patients had evidence of myopathy; 51 patients (17% of those prescribed warfarin) had a bleeding complication. Primary-care electronic health record data can effectively be used to identify patients prescribed specific medications and patients potentially experiencing medication adverse events.

Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice-based research network.

BACKGROUND: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices. METHODS: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016). RESULTS: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists. CONCLUSIONS: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

Use of an electronic health record data sharing system for identifying current contraceptive use within the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of electronic health record (EHR) data extracted into a data-sharing system to accurately identify contraceptive use. STUDY DESIGN: We compared rates of contraceptive use from electronic extraction of EHR data via a data-sharing system and manual abstraction of the EHR among 142 female patients ages 15-49 years from a family medicine clinic within a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. RESULTS: Manual abstraction identified 62% of women as contraceptive users, whereas electronic extraction identified only 27%. Long acting reversible (LARC) methods had 96% agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.78; confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. EHR data extracted via a data-sharing system was unable to identify barrier or over-the-counter contraceptives. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic extraction found substantially lower overall rates of contraceptive method use, but produced more comparable LARC method use rates when compared to manual abstraction among women in this study's primary care clinic. IMPLICATIONS: Quality metrics related to contraceptive use that rely on EHR data in this study's data-sharing system likely under-estimated true contraceptive use.

Integrating Primary Care Into Community Mental Health Centers: Impact on Utilization and Costs of Health Care.

OBJECTIVE: This evaluation was designed to assess the impact of providing integrated primary and mental health care on utilization and costs for outpatient medical, inpatient hospital, and emergency department treatment among persons with serious mental illness. METHODS: Two safety-net, community mental health centers that received a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration (PBHCI) grant were the focus of this study. Clinic 1 had a ten-year history of providing integrated services whereas clinic 2 began integrated services with the PBHCI grant. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses were used to compare individuals enrolled in the PBHCI programs (N=373, clinic 1; N=389, clinic 2) with propensity score-matched comparison groups of equal size at each site by using data obtained from medical records. RESULTS: Relative to the comparison groups, a higher proportion of PBHCI clients used outpatient medical services at both sites following program enrollment (p<.003, clinic 1; p<.001, clinic 2). At clinic 1, PBHCI was also associated with a reduction in the proportion of clients with an inpatient hospital admission (p=.04) and a trend for a reduction in inpatient hospital costs per member per month of $217.68 (p=.06). Hospital-related cost savings were not observed for PBHCI clients at clinic 2 nor were there significant differences between emergency department use or costs for PBHCI and comparison groups at either clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Investments in PBHCI can improve access to outpatient medical care for persons with severe mental illness and may also curb hospitalizations and associated costs in more established programs.

Utility of Point-of-care Urine Drug Tests in the Treatment of Primary Care Patients With Drug Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if urine drug tests (UDTs) can detect under-reporting of drug use (ie, negative self-report, but positive UDT) and identify patient characteristics associated with underreporting when treating substance use disorders in primary care. METHODS: Self-reported use (last 30 d) and UDTs were gathered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from 829 primary care patients participating in a drug use intervention study. Rates of under-reporting were calculated for all drugs, cannabis, stimulants, opioids, and sedatives. Logistic regressions were used to identify characteristics associated with under-reporting. RESULTS: Among the participants, 40% (n = 331) denied drug use in the prior 30 days despite a corresponding positive UDT during at least 1 assessment. Levels of under-reporting during 1 or more assessments were 3% (n = 22) for cannabis, 20% (n = 167) for stimulants, 27% (n = 226) for opioids, and 13% (n = 106) for sedatives. Older (odds ratio [OR] 1.04), female (OR 1.66), or disabled (OR 1.42) individuals were more likely to under-report any drug use. Under-reporting of stimulant use was also more likely in individuals with lower levels of educational attainment, previous arrests, and family and social problems. Under-reporting of opioid use was more likely in those with other drug problems, but less likely in those with better physical health, more severe alcohol and psychiatric comorbidities, and African-Americans. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of cannabis, UDTs are important assessment tools when treating drug use disorders in primary care. UDTs might be particularly helpful when treating patients who are older, female, disabled, have legal and social problems, and have more severe drug problems.

Chronic Disease and Chemical Dependency Treatment in Primary Care Patients With Problem Drug Use.

This article examines whether chronic disease is associated with chemical dependency treatment in primary care patients with problem drug use. Chronic disease was common in 781 disadvantaged individuals who had problem drug use and were seen in primary care clinics affiliated with a public safety-net hospital. Individuals had, on average, 5.4 chronic medical conditions, and overall 57% had low severity chronic disease. In the year following enrollment, 14% had chemical dependency treatment. Severity of chronic disease was not associated with chemical dependency treatment (p = .26). In summary, chronic disease neither hindered chemical dependency treatment, nor did it facilitate such treatment.

Correlates of Opioid Use in Adults With Self-Reported Drug Use Recruited From Public Safety-Net Primary Care Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare demographic, clinical, and survival characteristics of drug-using safety-net primary care patients who used or did not use opioids, and to examine treatment implications of our findings. METHODS: The sample consisted of 868 adults who reported illicit drug use in the 90 days before study enrollment, 396 (45.6%) of whom were opioid users. RESULTS: Multiple measures indicated that, as a group, opioid users were less physically and psychiatrically healthy than drug users who did not endorse using opioids, and were heavy users of medical services (eg, emergency departments, inpatient hospitals, and outpatient medical) at considerable public expense. After adjusting for age, they were 2.61 (confidence interval, 1.48-4.61) times more likely to die in the 1 to 5 years after study enrollment and more likely to die from accidental poisoning than nonopioid users. Subgroup analyses suggested patients using any nonprescribed opioids had more serious drug problems including more intravenous drug use and greater HIV risk than patients using opioids only as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Use of opioids adds a dimension of severity over and above illicit drug use as it presents in the primary care setting. Opioid users may benefit from psychiatric and addiction care integrated into their primary care setting, naloxone overdose prevention kits, and prevention efforts such as clean needle exchanges. Addiction or primary care providers are in a key position to facilitate change among such patients, especially the third or more opioid users having a goal of abstinence from drugs.