The impact of state Medicaid coverage of abortion on people accessing care in three states.

CONTEXT: Medicaid is a major funder of reproductive health services, including family planning and pregnancy-related care, especially for people with limited income and people of color. Federal Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion however 16 states allow state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion. In recent years, Illinois and Maine implemented, and West Virginia discontinued, state Medicaid coverage of abortion. METHODOLOGY: With retrospective procedure- and patient-level data obtained from clinics in these three states, we used an interrupted time series design, multivariable regression models, and descriptive statistics to assess changes in procedure volume and patients' share of total procedure price (patient price). RESULTS: In Maine and Illinois, implementing state Medicaid coverage of abortion contributed to an immediate overall increase in abortion access (as seen by a rise in monthly procedure volume at the time of the policy's implementation), a decrease in patient price (by 36% in Maine and 44% in Illinois) after policy implementation as compared to pre-implementation, and overall improved access among people of color. Conversely, when West Virginia discontinued coverage, access to care decreased, patient price increased by 130%, and the share of abortion procedures among people of color decreased. CONCLUSIONS: In the fragmented abortion access landscape of the post-Roe era, our study provides new evidence that financial assistance offered through state Medicaid policies that cover abortion may be most helpful to those facing traditional structural inequities to access, while discontinuation of Medicaid coverage of abortion further burdens those already economically marginalized.

Continuous Quality Improvement in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Center Network: A Process Evaluation.

In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews (n = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.

How do the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Centers Decide What Evidence-Based Practices to Disseminate and Determine How to Do So? A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Network.

It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a "Determinants of Technology Transfer" survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.

Organizational Network Analysis of SAMHSA's Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network.

Technology transfer centers (TTCs) facilitate the movement of evidence-based practices in behavioral healthcare from theory to practice. One of the largest such networks is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) TTC Network. This brief report shares findings from an organizational network analysis (ONA) of the network conducted as part of an external evaluation. For non-supervisory TTCs (n = 36) across three focus areas (addiction, prevention, and mental health), the authors computed network density, harmonic closeness, and non-null dyadic reciprocity for five types of interactions (e.g., "collaborated in workgroups"), then, for each interaction type, used Welch's T-test to compare mean harmonic closeness of standalone TTC grantees versus multiple-TTC grantees. ONA identified potentially isolated regional TTCs as well as mismatches between some centers' desired scope and their network centrality and enabled investigation of broader questions around behavioral health support systems. The approach appears useful for evaluating TTCs and similar support networks.

The who, the what, and the how: A description of strategies and lessons learned to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder in rural America.

Access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural areas within the United States remains a challenge. Providers must complete 8-24 h of training to obtain the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) 2000 waiver to have the legal authority to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD. Over the last 4 years, we executed five dissemination and implementation grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to study and address barriers to providing Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (MOUD), including psychosocial supports, in rural primary care practices in different states. We found that obtaining the DATA 2000 waiver is just one component of meaningful treatment using MOUD, and that the waiver provides a one-time benchmark that often does not address other significant barriers that providers face daily. In this commentary, we summarize our initiatives and the common lessons learned across our grants and offer recommendations on how primary care providers can be better supported to expand access to MOUD in rural America.

ACC/AHA Special Report: Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Strategies: A Summary of Systematic Reviews by the NHLBI Implementation Science Work Group: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an Implementation Science Work Group to assess evidence-based strategies for effectively implementing clinical practice guidelines. This was part of a larger effort to update existing clinical practice guidelines on cholesterol, blood pressure, and overweight/obesity. OBJECTIVES: Review evidence from the published implementation science literature and identify effective or promising strategies to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted on 4 critical questions, each focusing on the adoption and effectiveness of 4 intervention strategies: (1) reminders, (2) educational outreach visits, (3) audit and feedback, and (4) provider incentives. A scoping review of the Rx for Change database of systematic reviews was used to identify promising guideline implementation interventions aimed at providers. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori for each question, and the published literature was initially searched up to 2012, and then updated with a supplemental search to 2015. Two independent reviewers screened the returned citations to identify relevant reviews and rated the quality of each included review. RESULTS: Audit and feedback and educational outreach visits were generally effective in improving both process of care (15 of 21 reviews and 12 of 13 reviews, respectively) and clinical outcomes (7 of 12 reviews and 3 of 5 reviews, respectively). Provider incentives showed mixed effectiveness for improving both process of care (3 of 4 reviews) and clinical outcomes (3 reviews equally distributed between generally effective, mixed, and generally ineffective). Reminders showed mixed effectiveness for improving process of care outcomes (27 reviews with 11 mixed and 3 generally ineffective results) and were generally ineffective for clinical outcomes (18 reviews with 6 mixed and 9 generally ineffective results). Educational outreach visits (2 of 2 reviews), reminders (3 of 4 reviews), and provider incentives (1 of 1 review) were generally effective for cost reduction. Educational outreach visits (1 of 1 review) and provider incentives (1 of 1 review) were also generally effective for cost-effectiveness outcomes. Barriers to clinician adoption or adherence to guidelines included time constraints (8 reviews/overviews); limited staffing resources (2 overviews); timing (5 reviews/overviews); clinician skepticism (5 reviews/overviews); clinician knowledge of guidelines (4 reviews/overviews); and higher age of the clinician (1 overview). Facilitating factors included guideline characteristics such as format, resources, and end-user involvement (6 reviews/overviews); involving stakeholders (5 reviews/overviews); leadership support (5 reviews/overviews); scope of implementation (5 reviews/overviews); organizational culture such as multidisciplinary teams and low-baseline adherence (9 reviews/overviews); and electronic guidelines systems (3 reviews). CONCLUSION: The strategies of audit and feedback and educational outreach visits were generally effective in improving both process of care and clinical outcomes. Reminders and provider incentives showed mixed effectiveness, or were generally ineffective. No general conclusion could be reached about cost effectiveness, because of limitations in the evidence. Important gaps exist in the evidence on effectiveness of implementation interventions, especially regarding clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and contextual issues affecting successful implementation.