Experiences of three states implementing the Medicaid health home model to address opioid use disorder-Case studies in Maryland, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

PURPOSE: The United States is facing an unprecedented opioid epidemic. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included several provisions designed to increase care coordination in state Medicaid programs and improve outcomes for those with chronic conditions, including substance use disorders. Three states-Maryland, Rhode Island, and Vermont - adopted the ACA's optional Medicaid health home model for individuals with opioid use disorder. The model coordinates opioid use disorder treatment that features opioid agonist therapy provided at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and Office-based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) with medical and behavioral health care and other services, including those addressing social determinants of health. This study examines state approaches to opioid health homes (OHH) and uses a retrospective analysis to identify facilitators and barriers to the program's implementation from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted 28 semi-structured discussions with 70 discussants across the three states, including representatives from state agencies, OHH providers (OTPs and OBOTs), Medicaid health plans, and provider associations. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. In addition, we reviewed state health home applications, policies, regulatory guidance, reporting, and other available OHH materials. We adapted the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) model as a guiding framework to examine the collected data, helping us to identify key factors affecting each stage of the OHH implementation. RESULTS: Overall, discussants reported that the OHH model was implemented successfully and was responsible for substantial improvements in patient care. Contextual factors at both the state level (e.g., legislation, funding, state leadership, program design) and provider level (OHH provider characteristics, leadership, adaptability) affected each stage of implementation of the OHH model. States took a variety of approaches in designing and implementing the model, with facilitators related to gathering stakeholder input, receiving guidance and technical assistance, and tailoring program design to build on the state's existing care coordination initiatives and provider infrastructure. The OHH model constituted a substantial change for almost all OHH providers in the study, who reported that facilitators to implementation included having goals and workplace culture that were compatible with the OHH model, and having technical support from the state or non-governmental organizations. Some of the main barriers to implementation reported by OHH providers include shortages of primary care providers, dentists, and other providers willing to accept referrals of patients with opioid use disorder; limited community resources to address social determinants of health; challenges related to state-specific program design, such as staffing requirements and reimbursement methodology; care coordination limitations due to confidentiality restrictions and technological barriers; and internal capacity of providers to adopt the new model of care. CONCLUSIONS: The OHH model appears to have the potential to effectively address the complex needs of individuals with opioid use disorder by providing whole-person care that integrates medical care, behavioral health, and social services and supports. The experiences of Maryland, Rhode Island, and Vermont can guide development and implementation of similar OHH initiatives in other states.

How Well Is CHIP Addressing Oral Health Care Needs and Access for Children?

OBJECTIVE: We examine how access to and use of oral and dental care under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) compared to private coverage and being uninsured in 10 states. METHODS: We report on findings drawn from a 2012 survey of CHIP enrollees in 10 states. We examined a range of parent-reported dental care access and use measures among CHIP enrollees. Comparisons of the experiences of established CHIP enrollees to the experiences of newly enrolling children who had been uninsured or privately insured were used to estimate the impacts of CHIP on children's oral health and dental care. RESULTS: Most children enrolled in CHIP had a usual source of dental care and had received a dental checkup or cleaning in the past year, and most over age 6 had had sealants placed on their molars. In addition, parents of most CHIP enrollees were aware that CHIP covered dental benefits, and most reported not having trouble finding a dentist to see their child. Even so, 12% of CHIP enrollees had unmet dental care needs. Compared to being uninsured, CHIP enrollees did better across nearly all oral health measures. Compared to being privately insured, CHIP enrollees were more likely to have dental benefits, to have a usual source of dental care, and to have had a dental checkup/cleaning, but they were more likely to have trouble finding a dentist and less likely to say that their child's teeth were in excellent/very good condition. CONCLUSIONS: Enrolling eligible uninsured children in CHIP led to improvements in their access to preventive dental care, as well as reductions in their unmet dental care needs, yet the CHIP program has more work to do to address the oral health problems of children.