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.

Developing Digital Therapeutics for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Qualitative Human-Centered Design Study of Providers' Motivations and Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics are growing as a solution to manage pain for patients; yet, they are underused in primary care where over half of the patients with chronic pain seek care. Little is known about how to successfully engage primary care providers in recommending digital therapeutics to their patients. Exploring provider motivations in chronic pain management would potentially help to improve their engagement and inform the development of digital therapeutics. OBJECTIVE: This study examined primary care providers' motivations for chronic pain management, including their strategies and challenges, to inform the future development of chronic pain-related digital therapeutics tailored to primary care settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with health care providers recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Washington and 1 clinic in Colorado between July and October 2021. The sample (N=11) included 7 primary care physicians, 2 behavioral health providers, 1 physician assistant, and 1 nurse. Most providers worked in clinics affiliated with urban academic health systems. Guided by the human-centered design approach and Christensen's Job-to-be-Done framework, we asked providers their goals and priorities in chronic pain management, their experiences with challenges and strategies used to care for patients, and their perceptions of applying digital therapeutics in clinical practice. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We found that primary care providers were motivated but challenged to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, provide team-based care, track and monitor patients' progress, and address social determinants of health in chronic pain management. Specifically, providers desired additional resources to improve patient-centered communication, pain education and counseling, and goal setting with patients. Providers also requested greater accessibility to multidisciplinary care team consultations and nonpharmacological pain treatments. When managing chronic pain at the population level, providers need infrastructure and systems to systematically track and monitor patients' pain and provide wraparound health and social services for underserved patients. Recommendations on digital therapeutic features that might address provider challenges in achieving these motivations were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the findings, to engage primary care providers, digital therapeutics for chronic pain management need to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, increase access to nonpharmacological treatment options, support population health tracking and management, and provide equitable reach. Leveraging digital therapeutics in a feasible, appropriate, and acceptable way to aid primary care providers in chronic pain management may require multimodal features that address provider motivations at an individual care and clinic or system level.

Payment strategies for behavioral health integration in hospital-affiliated and non-hospital-affiliated primary care practices.

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies-fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest can arise when faculty and staff administer programs that distribute research funds, training opportunities, and other resources across academic and community partners. We describe the ethical concerns encountered by a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in administering its community-focused pilot grant program and how its Research Bioethics Consultation service helped to address them.Ethical Concerns: CTSA program faculty and staff identified ethical concerns in several areas, including appropriateness of including Regional Research Collaborations (RRC) faculty as principal or co-investigators on applications, determining how much help RRC faculty and staff should provide to prospective applicants, and creating a fair and effective application review process. DISCUSSION: The CTSA program identified common goals and values for its community-focused pilot grant program, and resolved the conflicts of interest with the new pilot grant policies. This approach could generalize to conflicts of interest that arise in other academic-community partnerships.