Substance use and treatment characteristics among pregnant and non-pregnant females, 2015-2019.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States (US), pregnant females who use substances face increased morbidity and mortality risks compared to non-pregnant females. This study provides a national snapshot of substance use and treatment characteristics among US reproductive-aged females, including those who are pregnant. METHODS: Our sample included females aged 15-44 years (n=97,830) from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data. We calculated weighted percentages of past-month alcohol or drug use and past-year substance use disorder (SUD), stratified by pregnancy status. We also calculated weighted percentages of past-year treatment setting and payer. Pearson chi-square tests were conducted to determine if percentages were statistically significantly different. RESULTS: Compared to non-pregnant females, pregnant females had lower prevalence of past-month illicit drug use excluding cannabis (1.6% vs. 4.3%, p<0.01), cannabis use (5.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.01), binge drinking (4.5% vs. 29.3%, p<0.01) and past-year SUD (7.1 vs. 8.8%, p<0.01). Less than 13% of females with SUD received treatment regardless of pregnancy status, but treatment use was higher among pregnant females compared to non-pregnant females (12.8% vs. 10.5%). However, there were no statistically significant differences in past-year treatment use, setting, or treatment payer. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of substance use and SUD was lower among pregnant females compared to non-pregnant females in 2015-2019. Low uptake of substance use treatment suggests that barriers exist to treatment-seeking among reproductive-aged women. Further exploration of stigma, payment, and access to treatment, and how they differ by pregnancy status, is needed.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on U.S. Adults With Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain affects an estimated 20% of U.S. adults. Because high-deductible health plans have captured a growing share of the commercial insurance market, it is unknown how high-deductible health plans impact care for chronic pain. METHODS: Using 2007-2017 claims data from a large national commercial insurer, statistical analyses conducted in 2022-2023 estimated changes in enrollee outcomes before and after their firm began offering a high-deductible health plan compared with changes in outcomes in a comparison group of enrollees at firms never offering a high-deductible health plan. The sample included 757,530 commercially insured adults aged 18-64 years with headache, low back pain, arthritis, neuropathic pain, or fibromyalgia. Outcomes, measured at the enrollee year level, included the probability of receiving any chronic pain treatment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; the number of nonpharmacologic pain treatment days; number and days' supply of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; and total annual spending and out-of-pocket spending. RESULTS: High-deductible health plan offer was associated with a 1.2 percentage point reduction (95% CI= -1.8, -0.5) in the probability of any chronic pain treatment and an $11 increase (95% CI=$6, $15) in annual out-of-pocket spending on chronic pain treatments among those with any use, representing a 16% increase in average annual out-of-pocket spending over the pre-high deductible health plan offer annual average. Results were driven by changes in nonpharmacologic treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing the use of nonpharmacologic chronic pain treatments and marginally increasing out-of-pocket costs among those using these services, high-deductible health plans may discourage more holistic, integrated approaches to caring for patients with chronic pain conditions.

The effects of the Maryland Medicaid Health Home Waiver on Emergency Department and inpatient utilization among individuals with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: The Maryland Medicaid health home program, established through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid health home waiver, integrates primary care services into specialty mental health programs for adults with serious mental illness (SMI). We evaluated the effect of this program on all-cause, physical, and behavioral health emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization. METHOD: Using marginal structural modeling to control for time-invariant and time-varying confounding, we analyzed Medicaid administrative claims data for 12,232 enrollees with SMI from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016; 3319 individuals were enrolled in a BHH and 8913 were never enrolled. RESULTS: Health home enrollment was associated with reduced probability of all-cause (PP: 0.23 BHH enrollment vs. 0.26 non-enrollment, p < 0.01) and physical health ED visits (PP: 0.21 BHH enrollment vs. 0.24 non-enrollment, p < 0.01) and no effect on inpatient admissions per person-three-month period. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the Maryland Medicaid health home waiver's focus on supporting physical health care coordination by specialty mental health programs may be preventing ED visits among adults with SMI, although effect sizes are small.

An innovative model to coordinate healthcare and social services for people with serious mental illness: A mixed-methods case study of Maryland's Medicaid health home program.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a case study examining implementation of Maryland's Medicaid health home program, a unique model for integration of behavioral, somatic, and social services for people with serious mental illness (SMI) in the psychiatric rehabilitation program setting. METHOD: We conducted interviews and surveys with health home leaders (N=72) and front-line staff (N=627) representing 46 of the 48 total health home programs active during the November 2015-December 2016 study period. We measured the structural and service characteristics of the 46 health home programs and leaders' and staff members' perceptions of program implementation. RESULTS: Health home program structure varied across sites: for example, 15% of programs had co-located primary care providers and 76% had onsite supported employment providers. Most leaders and staff viewed the health home program as having strong organizational fit with psychiatric rehabilitation programs' organizational structures and missions, but noted implementation challenges around health IT, population health management, and coordination with external providers. CONCLUSION: Maryland's psychiatric rehabilitation-based health home is a promising model for integration of behavioral, somatic, and social services for people with SMI but may be strengthened by additional policy and implementation supports, including incentives for external providers to engage in care coordination with health home providers.