Providing Behavioral Health Care in PACE - A Review of Federal and State Manual Regulations.

OBJECTIVES: Present analysis of the federal and state regulations that guide The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) operations and core clinical features for direction on behavioral health (BH). DESIGN: Review and synthesize the federal (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]) and all publicly available state manuals according to the BH-Serious Illness Care (SIC) model domains. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 155 PACE organizations operating in 32 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: A multipronged search was conducted to identify official state and federal manuals guiding the implementation and functions of PACE organizations. The CMS PACE website was used to identify the federal PACE manual. State-level manuals for 32 states with PACE programs were identified through several sources, including official PACE websites, contacts through official websites, the National PACE Association (NPA), and public and academic search engines. The manuals were searched according to the BH-SIC model domains that pertain to integrating BH care with complex care individuals. RESULTS: According to the CMS Manual, the interdisciplinary team is responsible for holistic care of PACE enrollees, but a BH specialist is not a required member. The CMS Manual includes information on BH clinical functions, BH workforce, and structures for outcome measurement, quality, and accountability. Eight of 32 PACE-participating states offer publicly available state PACE manuals; of which 3 offer information on BH clinical functions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Regarding BH, federal and state manual regulations establish limited guidance for comprehensive care service delivery at PACE organizations. The absence of clear directives weakens BH care delivery due to a limiting the ability to develop quality measures and accountability structures. This hinders incentivization and accountability to truly all-inclusive care. Clearer guidelines and regulatory parameters regarding BH care at federal and state levels may enable more PACE organizations to meet rising BH demands of aging communities.

US State Government Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines: Implications for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: State crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines in the US allocate scarce health care resources among patients. Anecdotal reports suggest that guidelines may disproportionately allocate resources away from patients with cancer, but no comprehensive evaluation has been performed. Objective: To examine the implications of US state CSC guidelines for patients with cancer, including allocation methods, cancer-related categorical exclusions and deprioritizations, and provisions for blood products and palliative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional population-based analysis examined state-endorsed CSC guidelines published before May 20, 2020, that included health care resource allocation recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Guideline publication before or within 120 days after the first documented US case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), inclusion of cancer-related categorical exclusions and/or deprioritizations, provisions for blood products and/or palliative care, and associations between these outcomes and state-based cancer demographics. Results: Thirty-one states had health care resource allocation guidelines that met inclusion criteria, of which 17 had been published or updated since the first US case of COVID-19. States whose available hospital bed capacity was predicted to exceed 100% at 6 months (χ2 = 3.82; P = .05) or that had a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC; χ2 = 6.21; P = .01) were more likely to have publicly available guidelines. The most frequent primary methods of prioritization were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (27 states [87%]) and deprioritizing persons with worse long-term prognoses (22 states [71%]). Seventeen states' (55%) allocation methods included cancer-related deprioritizations, and 8 states (26%) included cancer-related categorical exclusions. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with lower likelihood of cancer-related categorical exclusions (multivariable odds ratio, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.004-0.87]). Guidelines with disability rights statements were associated with specific provisions to allocate blood products (multivariable odds ratio, 7.44 [95% CI, 1.28-43.24). Both the presence of an in-state CCC and having an oncologist and/or palliative care specialist on the state CSC task force were associated with the inclusion of palliative care provisions. Conclusions and Relevance: Among states with CSC guidelines, most deprioritized some patients with cancer during resource allocation, and one-fourth categorically excluded them. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with guideline availability, palliative care provisions, and lower odds of cancer-related exclusions. These data suggest that equitable state-level CSC considerations for patients with cancer benefit from the input of oncology stakeholders.

O caminho da Política Estadual de Práticas Integrativas e Complementares do Rio Grande do Sul: uma narrativa de potencialidades e resistências / The path of the State Policy of Integrative and Complementary Practices of Rio Grande do Sul: a narrative of potentialities and resistances

Resumo Este estudo tem como objetivo investigar as potencialidades, resistências e peculiaridades envolvidas na elaboração e publicação da Política Estadual de Práticas Integrativas e Complementares (Pepic/RS), publicada em 2013 no Rio Grande do Sul, e que visou institucionalizar práticas em saúde baseadas no princípio da integralidade. No intuito de compreender aspectos importantes dos estágios iniciais do ciclo da política, com maior destaque à formulação, foram entrevistadas três gestoras que participaram da comissão de formulação da Pepic/RS. A pesquisa ocorreu no período de junho a novembro de 2018, utilizando a metodologia da história oral temática, e os dados foram analisados com a metodologia da análise temática de conteúdo. Evidenciaram-se duas categorias: "Pepic/RS: elementos da agenda, formulação e tomada de decisão", que investigou o caminho da política até sua publicação e "Pics: potencialidades e resistências à Política", que abordou estímulos e antagonismos à consolidação das Pics como política pública. Verificou-se que, a partir do aproveitamento da janela de oportunidade para as Pics no Rio Grande do Sul, foi desencadeado o movimento para a formulação da política estadual através do protagonismo de atores que reuniram esforços para institucionalizar o acesso às Pics no contexto da saúde pública no Estado.

Abstract The State Policy for Integrative and Complementary Practices of Rio Grande do Sul (PEPIC/RS) was implemented in 2013 to institutionalize health practices based on the principle of integrality. This study aimed to investigate the potentialities, resistances, and peculiarities underlying PEPIC/RS elaboration and publication. Three managers involved in the PEPIC/RS formulation commission were interviewed about the important aspects of the early stages of the policy process. This study was conducted from June to November 2018 using an oral history methodological approach. Collected data were analyzed based on thematic content. Two categories were emphasized: "PEPIC/RS: agenda setting, formulation, and decision-making," which investigated the policy path until its publication and "PICS: policy potentialities and resistance," approaching the incentives and antagonisms around PICS consolidation as a public policy. The protagonism of actors that joined efforts to institutionalize access to the PICS in the context of Rio Grande do Sul public health triggered the formulation of a state policy.

Guidance concerning chiropractic practice in response to COVID-19 in the U.S.: a summary of state regulators' web-based information.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented changes, as many state and local governments enacted stay-at-home orders and non-essential businesses were closed. State chiropractic licensing boards play an important role in protecting the public via regulation of licensure and provision of guidance regarding standards of practice, especially during times of change or uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to summarize the guidance provided in each of the 50 United States, related to chiropractic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A review of the public facing websites of governors and state chiropractic licensing boards was conducted in the United States. Data were collected regarding the official guidance provided by each state's chiropractic licensing board as well as the issuance of stay-at-home orders and designations of essential personnel by state governors. Descriptive statistics were used to report the findings from this project. RESULTS: Each of the 50 state governor's websites and individual state chiropractic licensing board's websites were surveyed. Stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders were issued in 86% of all states. Chiropractors were classified as essential providers in 54% of states, non-essential in one state (2%), and no guidance was provided in the remaining 44% of all states. Fourteen states (28%) recommended restricting visits to only urgent cases and the remaining states (72%) provided no guidance. Twenty-seven states (54%) provided information regarding protecting against infectious disease and the remaining states (46%) provided no guidance. Twenty-two states (44%) provided recommendations regarding chiropractic telehealth and the remaining states (56%) provided no guidance. Seventeen states (34%) altered license renewal requirements and eight states (16%) issued warnings against advertising misleading or false information regarding spinal manipulation and protection from COVID-19. CONCLUSION: State guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic was heterogenous, widely variability in accessibility, and often no guidance was provided by state chiropractic licensing boards. Some state chiropractic licensing boards chose to assemble guidance for licensees into a single location, which we identified as a best practice for future situations where changes in chiropractic practice must be quickly communicated.

A Pediatric Hospital Policy for Medical Marijuana Use.

Most US states have now legalized medical marijuana (MMJ) use, giving new hope to families dealing with chronic illness, despite only limited data showing efficacy. Access to MMJ has presented several challenges for patients and families, providers, and pediatric hospitals, including the discrepancy between state and federal law, potential patient safety issues, and drug interaction concerns. Colorado was one of the first states to legalize MMJ and has remained at the forefront in addressing these challenges. Children's Hospital Colorado has created and evolved its MMJ inpatient use policy and has developed a unique consultative service consisting of a clinical pharmacist and social worker. This service supports patients and families and primary clinical services in situations in which MMJ is actively being used or considered by a pediatric patient. The first 50 patients seen by this consultative service are reported. Eighty percent of patients seen had an oncologic diagnosis. Symptoms to be ameliorated by active or potential MMJ use included nausea and vomiting, appetite stimulation, seizures, and pain. In 64% of patients, MMJ use was determined to be potentially unsafe, most often because of potential drug-drug interactions. In 68% of patients, a recommendation was made to either avoid MMJ use or adjust its administration schedule. As pediatric hospitals address the topic of MMJ use in their patients, development of institutional policy and clinical support services with specific expertise in MMJ is a recommended step to support patient and families and hospital team members.

Association of State Policies Allowing Medical Cannabis for Opioid Use Disorder With Dispensary Marketing for This Indication.

Importance: Misinformation about cannabis and opioid use disorder (OUD) may increase morbidity and mortality if it leads individuals with OUD to forego evidence-based treatment. It has not been systematically evaluated whether officially designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis is associated with cannabis dispensaries suggesting cannabis as a treatment for OUD. Objective: To examine whether state-level policies designating OUD a qualifying condition for medical cannabis are associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study of 208 medical dispensary brands was conducted in 2019 using the brands' online content. The study included dispensaries operating in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where OUD is a qualifying condition for medical cannabis, and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia, where this policy does not exist. Exposures: Presence of OUD on the list of qualifying conditions for a state's medical cannabis program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary indicators of whether online content from the brand said cannabis can treat OUD, can replace US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, can be an adjunctive therapy to Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, or can be used as a substitute for opioids to treat other conditions (eg, chronic pain). Results: After excluding duplicates, listings for nonexistent dispensaries, and those without online content, 167 brands across 7 states were included in the analysis (44 [26.3%] in states where OUD was a qualifying condition and 123 [73.7%] in adjacent states). A dispensary listed in a directory for West Virginia was not operational; therefore, comparison states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Ohio. In policy-exposed states, 39% (95% CI, 23%-55%) more dispensaries claimed cannabis could treat OUD compared with unexposed states (P < .001). For replacing medications for OUD and being an adjunctive therapy, the differences were 14% (95% CI, 2%-26%; P = .002) and 28% (95% CI, 14%-42%; P < .001), respectively. The suggestion that cannabis could substitute for opioids (eg, to treat chronic pain) was made by 25% (95% CI, 9%-41%) more brands in policy-exposed states than adjacent states (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, state-level policies designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis were associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. In the current policy environment, in which medical claims by cannabis dispensaries are largely unregulated, these advertisements could harm patients. Future research linking these policies to patient outcomes is warranted.

State-level marijuana policies and marijuana use and marijuana use disorder among a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States, 2015-2017: Sexual identity and gender matter.

BACKGROUND: Research demonstrates an association between state-level medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and increased marijuana use (MU) and MU disorder (MUD) among adults, but has yet to explore this association among lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals, including gender differences. METHODS: We pooled the 2015-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for adults (n = 126,463) and used gender-stratified adjusted multivariable logistic regression to model the odds of past-year MU, past-year medical MU, daily/near-daily MU, and MUD; we also tested the interaction between MML state residence and sexual identity. RESULTS: Bisexual women had higher past-year MU (40% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.9[2.4-3.4]), daily/near-daily MU (9.8% versus 1.5%; aOR = 4.6[3.3-6.2]), and medical MU ((5.5% versus 1.2%) aOR = 5.5[3.8-8.1]) than heterosexual women. Gay/lesbian women also had higher past-year MU (26.1% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.8[2.2-3.7]), daily/near-daily MU (5.6% versus 1.5%; aOR = 2.9[1.8-4.6]), and medical MU (4.7% versus 1.2%; aOR = 3.0(1.4-6.6]) than heterosexual women. Bisexual women in MML states had higher past-year MU ((44.4% vs. 34.1%); aOR = 1.8[1.5-2.1]) and medical use (7.1% vs. 3.3% (aOR = 2.5[1.5-3.9]) than bisexual women in non-MML states. The odds of any past-year medical MU for bisexual versus heterosexual women was different in MML versus non-MML states (Exponentiated ß = 0.53, p = 0.01). Gay men in MML states had higher past year MU (31.2% versus 25.7%; aOR = 1.6[1.1-2.5] and medical MU (6.4% vs 1.7%; aOR = 5.0[4.2-6.1]) than gay men in non-MML states. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that MMLs may differentially impact MU for sexual minority individuals-particularly bisexual women. Findings demonstrate the need for states enacting MMLs to consider potential differential impacts on LGB populations.

Crossing the Line: Care of a Pediatric Patient with Intractable Seizures and Severe Neuropathic Pain in Absence of Access to Medical Marijuana.

Background: A reality of the current political and legal environment is that while marijuana and cannabis-based products remain not approved for human consumption at the federal level in the United States, several states have authorized use for constituents. While state lines represent meaningful cultural and geographical identity markers, the reality is that patients and families readily cross state lines to access medical interventions and care. Methods: We present the case of a six-year-old child with intractable seizures and severe neuropathic pain managed on medical marijuana (MM) in her home state of Colorado; where medicinal use of marijuana is authorized at the state level; traveling across state lines to access surgical care in Nebraska where MM is prohibited. Conclusion: The case report shares the communication and creativity invested in adequate symptom management for this child weaned off of MM perioperatively. The case recognizes the unique complexities of shared symptom management goals within state-specific care models.

The Surprising Reach of FDA Regulation of Cannabis, Even After Descheduling.

As more states legalize cannabis, the push to "deschedule" it from the Controlled Substances Act is gaining momentum. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first conventional drug containing a cannabinoid derived from cannabis­cannabidiol (CBD) for two rare seizure disorders. This would all seem to bode well for proponents of full federal legalization of medical cannabis. But some traditional providers are wary of drug companies pulling medical cannabis into the regular small molecule drug development system. The FDA's focus on precise analytical characterization and on individual active and inactive ingredients may be fundamentally inconsistent with the "entourage effects" theory of medical cannabis. Traditional providers may believe that descheduling cannabis would free them to promote and distribute their products free of federal intervention, both locally and nationally. Other producers appear to assume that descheduling would facilitate a robust market in cannabis-based edibles and dietary supplements. In fact, neither of these things is true. If cannabis were descheduled, the FDA's complex and comprehensive regulatory framework governing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements would preclude much of this anticipated commerce. For example, any medical claims about cannabis would require the seller to complete the rigorous new drug approval process, the cost of which will be prohibitive for most current traditional providers. Likely also unexpected to some, there is no pathway forward for conventional foods containing cannabis constituents, with the (probably exclusive) exception of certain hemp seed ingredients, if those foods cross state lines. And it will certainly come as a shock to many that federal law already prohibits the sale of dietary supplements containing CBD--including those already on the market as well as those made from "hemp," which has recently been descheduled under the 2018 Farm Bill. This Article describes in detail the surprising reach of the FDA and then outlines three modest, but legal, pathways forward for cannabis-based products in a world where cannabis has been descheduled.

An Academic and Practice Partnership to Assess the Behavioral Health Needs of Nebraska.

Schools of Public Health have a commitment to engage in practice-based research and be involved in collaborative partnerships. In 2016 the faculty, staff, and students from the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Behavioral Health collaborated to develop and administer a comprehensive assessment of the mental health and substance use disorder services provided by the Division of Behavioral Health. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process used to develop the trusting and mutually beneficial partnership and the data tools that were created and used to assess and determine the behavioral health needs. It is unrealistic to think that practitioners could undertake a project of this magnitude on their own. It is essential to have identified processes and systems in place for others to follow.

Association of Medical and Adult-Use Marijuana Laws With Opioid Prescribing for Medicaid Enrollees.

Importance: Overprescribing of opioids is considered a major driving force behind the opioid epidemic in the United States. Marijuana is one of the potential nonopioid alternatives that can relieve pain at a relatively lower risk of addiction and virtually no risk of overdose. Marijuana liberalization, including medical and adult-use marijuana laws, has made marijuana available to more Americans. Objective: To examine the association of state implementation of medical and adult-use marijuana laws with opioid prescribing rates and spending among Medicaid enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design comparing opioid prescribing trends between states that started to implement medical and adult-use marijuana laws between 2011 and 2016 and the remaining states. This population-based study across the United States included all Medicaid fee-for-service and managed care enrollees, a high-risk population for chronic pain, opioid use disorder, and opioid overdose. Exposures: State implementation of medical and adult-use marijuana laws from 2011 to 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid prescribing rate, measured as the number of opioid prescriptions covered by Medicaid on a quarterly, per-1000-Medicaid-enrollee basis. Results: State implementation of medical marijuana laws was associated with a 5.88% lower rate of opioid prescribing (95% CI, -11.55% to approximately -0.21%). Moreover, the implementation of adult-use marijuana laws, which all occurred in states with existing medical marijuana laws, was associated with a 6.38% lower rate of opioid prescribing (95% CI, -12.20% to approximately -0.56%). Conclusions and Relevance: The potential of marijuana liberalization to reduce the use and consequences of prescription opioids among Medicaid enrollees deserves consideration during the policy discussions about marijuana reform and the opioid epidemic.

Association Between US State Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Prescribing in the Medicare Part D Population.

Importance: Opioid-related mortality increased by 15.6% from 2014 to 2015 and increased almost 320% between 2000 and 2015. Recent research finds that the use of all pain medications (opioid and nonopioid collectively) decreases in Medicare Part D and Medicaid populations when states approve medical cannabis laws (MCLs). The association between MCLs and opioid prescriptions is not well understood. Objective: To examine the association between prescribing patterns for opioids in Medicare Part D and the implementation of state MCLs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal analysis of the daily doses of opioids filled in Medicare Part D for all opioids as a group and for categories of opioids by state and state-level MCLs from 2010 through 2015. Separate models were estimated first for whether the state had implemented any MCL and second for whether a state had implemented either a dispensary-based or a home cultivation only-based MCL. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the total number of daily opioid doses prescribed (in millions) in each US state for all opioids. The secondary analysis examined the association between MCLs separately by opioid class. Results: From 2010 to 2015 there were 23.08 million daily doses of any opioid dispensed per year in the average state under Medicare Part D. Multiple regression analysis results found that patients filled fewer daily doses of any opioid in states with an MCL. The associations between MCLs and any opioid prescribing were statistically significant when we took the type of MCL into account: states with active dispensaries saw 3.742 million fewer daily doses filled (95% CI, -6.289 to -1.194); states with home cultivation only MCLs saw 1.792 million fewer filled daily doses (95% CI, -3.532 to -0.052). Results varied by type of opioid, with statistically significant estimated negative associations observed for hydrocodone and morphine. Hydrocodone use decreased by 2.320 million daily doses (or 17.4%) filled with dispensary-based MCLs (95% CI, -3.782 to -0.859; P = .002) and decreased by 1.256 million daily doses (or 9.4%) filled with home-cultivation-only-based MCLs (95% CI, -2.319 to -0.193; P = .02). Morphine use decreased by 0.361 million daily doses (or 20.7%) filled with dispensary-based MCLs (95% CI, -0.718 to -0.005; P = .047). Conclusions and Relevance: Medical cannabis laws are associated with significant reductions in opioid prescribing in the Medicare Part D population. This finding was particularly strong in states that permit dispensaries, and for reductions in hydrocodone and morphine prescriptions.

Examination of sustainability indicators for fall prevention strategies in three states.

With 1-in-4 older adults suffering a fall each year, fall prevention efforts have emerged as a public health priority. Multi-level, evidence-based fall prevention programs have been promoted by the CDC and other government agencies. To ensure participants and communities receive programs' intended benefits, organizations must repeatedly deliver the programs over time and plan for program sustainability as part of 'scaling up' the initiative. The State Falls Prevention Project (SFPP) began in 2011 when the CDC provided 5 years of funding to State Departments of Health in Colorado, New York, and Oregon to simultaneously implement four fall prevention strategies: 1) Tai Chi: Moving for Better Balance; 2) Stepping On; 3) Otago Exercise Program; and 4) STEADI (STopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries) toolkit. Surveys were performed to examine systems change and perceptions about sustainability across states. The purposes of this study were to: 1) examine how funding influenced the capacity for program implementation and sustainability within the SFPP; and 2) assess reported Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) scores to learn about how best to sustain fall preventing efforts after funding ends. Data showed that more organizations offered evidence-based fall prevention programs in participants' service areas with funding, and the importance of programming implementation, evaluation, and reporting efforts were likely to diminish once funding concluded. Participants' reported PSAT scores about perceived sustainability capacity did not directly align with previously reported perceptions about PSAT domain importance or modifiability. Findings suggest the importance of grantees to identify potential barriers and enablers influencing program sustainability during the planning phase of the programs.

Contemporary Routes of Cannabis Consumption: A Primer for Clinicians.

Although cannabis use is federally prohibited, medical cannabis is legal in some form in 30 states and the District of Columbia, and recreational use is legal in 8 states and the District of Columbia. The increasing legal acceptance of cannabis has led to a burgeoning industry that is producing an expanding variety of cannabis products. Physicians and other health care professionals should be aware of modern forms of cannabis consumption, as well as variations in tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations, to improve assessment of cannabis use and approach to treatment. This review aims to familiarize clinicians with modern forms of cannabis consumption and enable comparisons between disparate cannabis products.