Expanding access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders: Findings from the Washington State hub and spoke effort.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a leading cause of preventable death and injury nationwide. Efforts to increase the use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are needed. In 2017, Washington State implemented a Hub and Spoke (HS) model of care with the primary goal of expanding access to MOUD. We examined changes in MOUD utilization among Washington State Medicaid beneficiaries before and after HS implementation. METHODS: We used Medicaid claims data to examine longitudinal changes in MOUD use for beneficiaries with OUD. We conducted a comparative interrupted time series analysis to examine the association between HS policy implementation and rates of MOUD utilization, overall and by type of medication. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2019, a period of increasing OUD prevalence, rates of MOUD utilization among Washington Medicaid beneficiaries increased overall from 39.7 to 50.5. Following HS implementation, rates of MOUD use grew at a significantly greater rate in the HS cohort than in the non-HS cohort (ß=0.54, SE=0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.49, 0.59). Analyses by medication type show that this rate increase was primarily due to buprenorphine use (ß= 0.61, SE= 0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.57, 0.65). CONCLUSION: Improved systems of care are needed to make MOUD accessible to all patients in need. The Washington HS model is one strategy that may facilitate and expand MOUD use, particularly buprenorphine. Over the study period, Washington State saw increased use of buprenorphine, which was an emphasis of their HS model.

Financial Sustainability of Novel Delivery Models in Behavioral Health Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the US, much of the research into new intervention and delivery models for behavioral health care is funded by research institutes and foundations, typically through grants to develop and test the new interventions. The original grant funding is typically time-limited. This implies that eventually communities, clinicians, and others must find resources to replace the grant funding -otherwise the innovation will not be adopted. Diffusion is challenged by the continued dominance in the US of fee-for-service reimbursement, especially for behavioral health care. AIMS: To understand the financial challenges to disseminating innovative behavioral health delivery models posed by fee-for-service reimbursement, and to explore alternative payment models that promise to accelerate adoption by better addressing need for flexibility and sustainability. METHODS: We review US experience with three specific novel delivery models that emerged in recent years. The models are: collaborative care model for depression (CoCM), outpatient based opioid treatment (OBOT), and the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) model. These examples were selected as illustrating some common themes and some different issues affecting diffusion. For each model, we discuss its core components; evidence on its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; how its dissemination was funded; how providers are paid; and what has been the uptake so far. RESULTS: The collaborative care model has existed for longest, but has been slow to disseminate, due in part to a lack of billing codes for key components until recently. The OBOT model faced that problem, and also (until recently) a regulatory requirement requiring physicians to obtain federal waivers in order to prescribe buprenorphine. Similarly, the CCBHC model includes previously nonbillable services, but it appears to be diffusing more successfully than some other innovations, due in part to the approach taken by funders. DISCUSSION: A common challenge for all three models has been their inclusion of services that were not (initially) reimbursable in a fee-for-service system. However, even establishing new procedure codes may not be enough to give providers the flexibility needed to implement these models, unless payers also implement alternative payment models. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: For providers who receive time-limited grant funding to implement these novel delivery models, one key lesson is the need to start early on planning how services will be sustained after the grant ends. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: For research funders (e.g., federal agencies), it is clearly important to speed up the process of obtaining coverage for each novel delivery model, including the development of new billable service codes, and to plan for this as early as possible. Funders also need to collaborate with providers early in the grant period on sustainability planning for the post-grant environment. For payers, a key lesson is the need to fold novel models into stable existing funding streams such as Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage, rather than leaving them at the mercy of revolving time-limited grants, and to provide pathways for contracting for innovations under new payment models. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: For researchers, a key recommendation would be to pay greater attention to the payment environment when designing new delivery models and interventions.

Cohort effects of women's mid-life binge drinking and alcohol use disorder symptoms in the United States: Impacts of changes in timing of parenthood.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use is increasing among women in mid-life concurrently with societal changes in timing of parenthood and changing cultural norms, which may influence alcohol use. The aim of this study was to determine if age of first parenting was associated with excessive drinking [i.e. past 2-week binge drinking and past 5-year alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms] among women during mid-life in the United States and to determine if there were pronounced cohort effects influencing these relationships. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort, longitudinal study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Data were drawn from the Monitoring the Future survey, an annual ongoing survey of high school students' substance use behaviors in the United States. Participants were women who completed the age 35 survey between 1993 and 2019, corresponding to high school senior years 1976-2002 (n = 9988). Past 2-week binge drinking and past 5-year AUD symptoms were self-reported. Age of first parenting was self-reported. FINDINGS: Binge drinking and AUD symptoms were higher among women in recent than in older cohorts. Women from the 2018-19 cohort had increased odds of binge drinking [odds ratio (OR) = 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-2.12] and AUD symptoms (OR = 1.51, CI = 1.27-1.80) relative to women from the 1993-97 cohort. Throughout cohorts, there was an inverse association between transition to parenthood and excessive drinking outcomes (e.g. range for ORs for binge drinking among those without children compared with those who had had children between the ages of 18 and 24: 1.22-1.55). Simultaneously, there was a population shift towards delaying parenting in recent cohorts (i.e. 54% of women in the 1993-97 cohort had children before age 30 compared with 39% in the two recent cohorts), increasing the size of the group at highest risk for excessive drinking. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, subgroups of women at highest risk of excessive drinking appear to be expanding, probably supported in part by a trend towards delayed parenting.

Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment for Persons With and Without Disabling Conditions.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with opioid use disorder (OUD) are disproportionately high among people with disabilities (PWD) compared with those without disability. A gap remains in understanding the quality of OUD treatment for people with physical, sensory, cognitive, and developmental disabilities, specifically regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), a foundation of treatment. Objective: To examine the use and quality of OUD treatment in adults with diagnosed disabling conditions, compared with adults without these diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used Washington State Medicaid data from 2016 to 2019 (for use) and 2017 to 2018 (for continuity). Data were obtained for outpatient, residential, and inpatient settings with Medicaid claims. Participants included Washington State full-benefit Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years, continuously eligible for 12 months, with OUD during the study years and not enrolled in Medicare. Data analysis was performed from January to September 2022. Exposures: Disability status, including physical (spinal cord injury or mobility impairment), sensory (visual or hearing impairments), developmental (intellectual or developmental disability or autism), and cognitive (traumatic brain injury) disabilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures: (1) use of MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone) during each study year and (2) 6-month continuity of treatment (for those taking MOUD). Results: A total of 84 728 Washington Medicaid enrollees had claims evidence of OUD, representing 159 591 person-years (84 762 person-years [53.1%] for female participants, 116 145 person-years [72.8%] for non-Hispanic White participants, and 100 970 person-years [63.3%] for participants aged 18-39 years); 15.5% of the population (24 743 person-years) had evidence of a physical, sensory, developmental, or cognitive disability. PWD were 40% less likely than those without a disability to receive any MOUD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.61; P < .001). This was true for each disability type, with variations. Individuals with a developmental disability were least likely to use MOUD (AOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55; P < .001). Of those using MOUD, PWD were 13% less likely than people without disability to continue MOUD for 6 months (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of a Medicaid population, treatment differences were found between PWD and people without these disabilities; these differences cannot be explained clinically and highlight inequities in treatment. Policies and interventions to increase MOUD access are critical to reducing morbidity and mortality among PWD. Potential solutions include improved enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, workforce best practice training, and addressing stigma, accessibility, and the need for accommodations to improve OUD treatment for PWD.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings.

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

Residential treatment and medication treatment for opioid use disorder: The role of state Medicaid innovations in advancing the field.

Background: Mortality due to opioid use continues to increase; effective strategies to improve access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed. While OUD medications exist, they are used infrequently and often not available in residential addiction treatment settings. CMS provides expanded opportunities for Medicaid reimbursement of treatment in residential facilities and requires states that request Medicaid SUD Waivers to provide a full continuum of care including medication treatment. The objective of this study was to assess how states facilitate access to OUD medications in residential settings and whether Medicaid requirements play a role. Methods: Using a legal mapping framework, across the 50 states and DC, we abstracted data from state regulations in 2019 - 2020 and Medicaid Section 1115(a) demonstration applications. We examined the temporal relationship between state regulations regarding medication-assisted treatment for OUD in residential settings and Section 1115(a) demonstrations. Results: We identified variation in regulations regarding medication treatment for OUD in residential settings and possible spillover effects of the CMS requirements for Medicaid SUD Waivers. In 18 states with relevant regulations, regulatory approaches include identifying opioid medication treatment as a right, requiring access to OUD medication treatment, and establishing other requirements. 25 of 30 states with approved Section 1115(a) demonstrations included explicit requirements for OUD medication treatment access. Four states updated OUD medication treatment regulations for residential treatment settings within a year of applying for a Section 1115(a) demonstration. Conclusions: State regulations and Medicaid program requirements are policy levers to facilitate OUD medication treatment access.

Emergency department interventions for opioid use disorder: A synthesis of emerging models.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose deaths are increasing, and improving access to evidence-based treatment is necessary. Emergency department (ED) initiation of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) via medications and referral to treatment is one approach that leverages a critical health care entry point for individuals with OUD. Efforts to engage patients in treatment through the ED are growing, but systematic analysis of program features as implemented and challenges across different models remains limited. Lessons from early adopter programs may benefit clinicians and others looking to offer ED-initiated treatment for OUD. METHODS: We conducted case studies of five ED-based efforts to address OUD across the United States, selected for diversity in structure, approach, and geography. We conducted telephone interviews with 37 individuals (ED physicians, ED nurses, navigators, hospital administrators, community providers, and state policymakers) affiliated with the five programs. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a framework analysis approach, identifying relevant lessons for replication. RESULTS: These five programs (an academic medical center, two large urban hospitals, a rural community hospital, and a community-based program) successfully implemented ED-initiated MOUD. Often a champion with knowledge of OUD treatment and a reliable connection with outpatient treatment began the program. The approach to patient identification varied from universal screening to relying on patient self-identification. Substance use treatment navigators provide crucial services but can be difficult to pay for within current reimbursement frameworks. Barriers to implementation include lack of knowledge about treatment options and effectiveness, stigma, community treatment capacity limits, and health insurance and reimbursement policies. Facilitators of success include taking a patient-centered, low-barrier approach, having a passionate champion, a strong structure with health system support, and a relationship with community partners. Metrics for success vary across programs. Some programs are expanding to include treating the use of other substances such as alcohol and stimulants. CONCLUSION: ED-initiated MOUD is feasible across different settings. Research and real world efforts need to promote programs that include OUD treatment as standard in ED treatment.

Patient portal engagement and diabetes management among new portal users in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to investigate whether consistent use of the Veterans Health Administration's My HealtheVet (MHV) online patient portal is associated with improvement in diabetes-related physiological measures among new portal users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of new portal users with type 2 diabetes that registered for MHV between 2012 and 2016. We used random-effect linear regression models to examine associations between months of portal use in a year (consistency) and annual means of the physiological measures (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], low-density lipoproteins [LDLs], and blood pressure [BP]) in the first 3 years of portal use. RESULTS: For patients with uncontrolled HbA1c, LDL, or BP at baseline, more months of portal use in a year was associated with greater improvement. Compared with 1 month of use, using the portal 12 months in a year was associated with annual declines in HbA1c of -0.41% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.46% to -0.36%) and in LDL of -6.25 (95% CI, -7.15 to -5.36) mg/dL. Twelve months of portal use was associated with minimal improvements in BP: systolic BP of -1.01 (95% CI, -1.33 to -0.68) mm Hg and diastolic BP of -0.67 (95% CI, -0.85 to -0.49) mm Hg. All associations were smaller or not present for patients in control of these measures at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We found consistent use of the patient portal among new portal users to be associated with modest improvements in mean HbA1c and LDL for patients at increased risk at baseline. For patients with type 2 diabetes, self-management supported by online patient portals may help control HbA1c, LDL, and BP.

Emergency department-based efforts to offer medication treatment for opioid use disorder: What can we learn from current approaches?

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic remains a public health crisis and most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive effective treatment. The emergency department (ED) can be a critical entry point for treatment. EDs are developing and implementing ED-based efforts to address OUD to improve access to OUD treatment. This study's objective is to identify features of ED-based OUD treatment programs that relate to program implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability. METHODS: We obtained data through literature review and semistructured interviews with ED physicians and leaders. The study analyzed these data to develop a framework of key components of ED-based efforts and highlight barriers and facilitators to implementation and program effectiveness. RESULTS: We identify five key features of ED-based opioid treatment programs that vary across programs and may influence effectiveness and impact: patient identification methods; treatment approaches; program structure; relationship with community partners; and financing and sustainability. Successful implementation of ED-based OUD treatment includes having a champion, a reliable referral network, and systematic tracking and reporting of data for monitoring and feedback. CONCLUSION: Going forward, attention to these features may help to improve effectiveness. As researchers conduct studies of ED-based care models, they should assess the impact of variation in key features to improve program effectiveness.

Effectiveness of value-based purchasing for substance use treatment engagement and retention.

INTRODUCTION: Many people drop out of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment within the first few sessions, which suggests the need for innovative strategies to address this. We examined the effectiveness of incentive-based contracting for Maine's publicly funded outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) SUD treatment, to determine its potential for improving treatment engagement and retention. METHODS: Maine's incentive-based contract with federally block grant-funded OP and IOP treatment agencies created a natural experiment, in which we could compare treatment engagement and retention with a group of state-licensed treatment agencies that were not part of the incentive-based contract. We used administrative data for OP (N = 18,375) and IOP (N = 5986) SUD treatment admissions from FY2005-FY2011 to capture trends prior to and after the FY2008 contract implementation date. We performed multivariable difference-in-difference logistic regression models following propensity score matching of clients. RESULTS: Two-thirds (66%) of OP admissions engaged in treatment, defined as 4+ treatment sessions, and 85% of IOP admissions satisfied the similar criteria of 4+ treatment days. About 40-45% of OP admissions reached the threshold for retention, defined as 90 days in treatment. IOP treatment completion was attained by 50-58% of admissions. For OP, the incentive and nonincentive groups had no significant differences in percentages with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.28, DID = 5.9%, p = .19), and 90-day retention was significant in the opposite direction of what we hypothesized (AOR = 0.80, DID = -4.6%, p = .0003). For IOP, the incentive group had a significant, but still small, increase in percentage with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.52, DID = 5.5%, p = .003), but the corresponding increase in treatment completion was not similarly significant (AOR = 1.12, DID = 2.7%, p = .53). In all models, individual-level variables were strong predictors of outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found little to no impact of the incentive-based contract on the treatment engagement, retention, and completion measures, adding to the body of evidence that shows few or null results for value-based purchasing in SUD treatment programs. The limited success of such efforts is likely to reflect the bandwidth that providers and programs have to focus on new endeavors, the importance of the incentive funding to their bottom line, and forces beyond their immediate control.

The Promise of Patient Portals for Individuals Living With Chronic Illness: Qualitative Study Identifying Pathways of Patient Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Patients play a critical role in managing their health, especially in the context of chronic conditions like diabetes. Electronic patient portals have been identified as a potential means to improve patient engagement; that is, patients' involvement in their care. However, little is known about the pathways through which portals may help patients engage in their care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to understand how an electronic patient portal facilitates patient engagement among individuals with diabetes. METHODS: This qualitative study employed semistructured telephone interviews of 40 patients living with diabetes since at least 2011, who had experienced uncontrolled diabetes, and had used secure messaging through a portal at least 4 times over 18 months. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using primarily an inductive approach to identify how patients living with diabetes use an online health portal to support diabetes self-management. RESULTS: Overall, patients who used the portal reported feeling engaged in their health care. We identified four pathways by which the portal facilitates patient engagement and some challenges. The portal provides a platform that patients use to (1) better understand their health by asking questions about new symptoms, notes, or labs, (2) prepare for medical appointments by reviewing labs and notes, (3) coordinate care between VA (Veterans Affairs) and non-VA health care teams, and (4) reach out to providers to request help between visits. Several patients reported that the portal helped improve the patient-provider relationship; however, aspects of the portal design may hinder engagement for others. Patients reported challenges with both secure messaging and access to medical records that had negative impacts on their engagement. Benefits for patient engagement were described by many types of portal users with varying degrees of diabetes control. CONCLUSIONS: Patient portals support engagement by facilitating patient access to their health information and by facilitating patient-provider communication. Portals can help a wide range of users engage with their care.

The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders.

INTRODUCTION: The federal Opioid State Targeted Response (Opioid STR) grants provided funding to each state to ramp up the range of responses to reverse the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S. Washington State used these funds to develop and implement an integrated care model to expand access to medication treatment and reduce unmet need for people with opioid use disorders (OUD), regardless of how they enter the treatment system. This paper examines the design, early implementation and results of the Washington State Hub and Spoke Model. METHODS: Descriptive data were gathered from key informants, document review, and aggregate data reported by hubs and spokes to Washington State's Opioid STR team. RESULTS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model reflects a flexible approach that incorporates primary care and substance use treatment programs, as well as outreach, referral and social service organizations, and a nurse care manager. Hubs could be any type of program that had the required expertise and capacity to lead their network in medication treatment for OUD, including all three FDA-approved medications. Six hub-spoke networks were funded, with 8 unique agencies on average, and multiple sites. About 150 prescribers are in these networks (25 on average). In the first 18 months, nearly 5000 people were inducted onto OUD medication treatment: 73% on buprenorphine, 19% on methadone, and 9% on naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model built on prior approaches to improve the delivery system for OUD medication treatment and support services, by increasing integration of care, ensuring "no wrong door," engaging with community agencies, and supporting providers who are offering medication treatment. It used essential elements from existing integrated care OUD treatment models, but allowed for organic restructuring to meet the population needs within a community. To date, there have been challenges and successes, but with this approach, Washington State has provided medication treatment for OUD to nearly 5000 people. Sustainability efforts are underway. In the face of the ongoing opioid crisis, it remains essential to develop, implement and evaluate novel models, such as Washington's Hub and Spoke approach, to improve treatment access and increase capacity.

Is it feasible to pay specialty substance use disorder treatment programs based on patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Some US payers are starting to vary payment to providers depending on patient outcomes, but this approach is rarely used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. PURPOSE: We examine the feasibility of applying a pay-for-outcomes approach to SUD treatment. METHODS: We reviewed several relevant literatures: (1) economic theory papers that describe the conditions under which pay-for-outcomes is feasible in principle; (2) description of the key outcomes expected from SUD treatment, and the measures of these outcomes that are available in administrative data systems; and (3) reports on actual experiences of paying SUD treatment providers based on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The economics literature notes that when patient outcomes are strongly influenced by factors beyond provider control and when risk adjustment performs poorly, pay-for-outcomes will increase provider financial risk. This is relevant to SUD treatment. The literature on SUD outcome measurement shows disagreement on whether to include broader outcomes beyond abstinence from substance use. Good measures are available for some of these broader constructs, but the need for risk adjustment still brings many challenges. Results from two past payment experiments in SUD treatment reinforce some of the concerns raised in the more conceptual literature. CONCLUSION: There are special challenges in applying pay-for-outcomes to SUD treatment, not all of which could be overcome by developing better measures. For SUD treatment it may be necessary to define outcomes more broadly than for general medical care, and to continue conditioning a sizeable portion of payment on process measures.

Patient Safety In Inpatient Psychiatry: A Remaining Frontier For Health Policy.

Behavioral health care has been slow to take up robust efforts to improve patient safety. This lag is especially apparent in inpatient psychiatry, where there is risk for physical and psychological harm. Recent investigative journalism has provoked public concern about instances of alleged abuse, negligence, understaffing, sexual assault, inappropriate medication use, patient self-harm, poor sanitation, and inappropriate restraint and seclusion. However, empirical evidence describing the scope of unsafe experiences is limited. While evidence-based inpatient psychiatry requires care to be trauma-informed, market failures and a lack of payment alignment with patient-centered care leave patients vulnerable to harm. Existing regulatory mechanisms attempt to provide accountability; however, these mechanisms are imperfect. Furthermore, research is sparse. Few health services researchers study inpatient psychiatry, the issue has not been a priority among research funders, and data on inpatient psychiatry is excluded from national surveys of quality. Several policy levers could begin to address these deficiencies. These include aligning incentives with patient-centered care, building trauma-informed care into accreditation and monitoring, conducting trend analyses of critical incidents, and improving research capacity.

Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Program-level financial incentives are used by some payers as a tool to improve quality of substance use treatment. However, evidence of effectiveness is mixed and performance contracts may have unintended consequences such as creating barriers for more challenging clients who are less likely to meet benchmarks. This study investigates the impact of a performance contract on waiting time for substance use treatment and client selection. Admission and discharge data from publicly funded Maine outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) substance use treatment programs (N = 38,932 clients) were used. In a quasi-experimental pre-post design, pre-period (FY 2005-2007) admission data from incentivized (IC) and non-incentivized (non-IC) programs were compared to post-period (FY 2008-2012) using propensity score matching and multivariate difference-in-difference regression. Dependent variables were waiting time (incentivized) and client selection (severity: history of mental disorders and substance use severity, not incentivized). Despite financial incentives designed to reduce waiting time for substance use treatment among state-funded outpatient programs, average waiting time for treatment increased in the post period for both IC and non-IC groups, as did client severity. There were no significant differences in waiting time between IC and non-IC groups over time. Increases in client severity over time, with no group differences, indicate that programs did not restrict access for more challenging clients. Adequate funding and other approaches to improve quality may be beneficial.

Prevalence and predictors of physician recommendations for medication adjustment in bipolar disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Successful medication management for bipolar disorder requires clinicians to monitor and adjust regimens as needed, to achieve maximum effectiveness and patient adherence. This study aims to measure the prevalence of indications for medication adjustment at visits for bipolar disorder treatment; the frequency with which physicians recommend medication adjustments; and how strongly the indications predict the adjustments. METHODS: Data included 3,094 visits for 457 patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a comparative effectiveness study that compared treatment with lithium versus quetiapine. A set of indications for adjustment was matched to reports of whether the physician recommended a medication adjustment at that visit, and what type. Associations between indication and adjustment were examined using bivariate tests and hierarchical logistic mixed effects models. RESULTS: Medication adjustment was recommended at 63% of the visits where one of the indications was present, and at 53% of all visits. In multivariable analyses, adjustment was more likely to be recommended if there was an indication of non-response or side effects, for patients who started on quetiapine rather than lithium, or for patients who were female, married, employed or more educated. LIMITATIONS: The study's cross-sectional design implies that observed associations could result from confounding variables. Also, the CHOICE trial placed certain restrictions on physicians' medication choices, although this is not likely to have resulted in major alterations of prescribing patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical inertia may help explain the lack of any adjustment recommendation at 37% of the visits where one of the indications was present. Other explanations could also apply, such as watchful waiting.

Federal Parity and Access to Behavioral Health Care in Private Health Plans.

OBJECTIVE: The 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) sought to improve access to behavioral health care by regulating health plans' coverage and management of services. Health plans have some discretion in how to achieve compliance with MHPAEA, leaving questions about its likely effects on health plan policies. In this study, the authors' objective was to determine how private health plans' coverage and management of behavioral health treatment changed after the federal parity law's full implementation. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of commercial health plans was conducted in 60 market areas across the continental United States, achieving response rates of 89% in 2010 (weighted N=8,431) and 80% in 2014 (weighted N=6,974). Senior executives at responding plans were interviewed regarding behavioral health services in each year and (in 2014) regarding changes. Student's t tests were used to examine changes in services covered, cost-sharing, and prior authorization requirements for both behavioral health and general medical care. RESULTS: In 2014, 68% of insurance products reported having expanded behavioral health coverage since 2010. Exclusion of eating disorder coverage was eliminated between 2010 (23%) and 2014 (0%). However, more products reported excluding autism treatment in 2014 (24%) than 2010 (8%). Most plans reported no change to prior-authorization requirements between 2010 and 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of federal parity legislation appears to have been accompanied by continuing improvement in behavioral health coverage. The authors did not find evidence of widespread noncompliance or of unintended effects, such as dropping coverage of behavioral health care altogether.

Behavioral Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act: What Can We Learn From Marketplace Products?

OBJECTIVE: The 2008 federal parity law and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to expand access to behavioral health services. There was concern that health plans might discourage enrollment by individuals with behavioral health conditions who tend to be higher cost. This study compared behavioral health benefits available in the group insurance market (nonmarketplace) to those sold through the ACA marketplaces to check for evidence of less generous behavioral health coverage in marketplace plans. METHODS: Data were from a 2014 nationally representative survey of commercial health plans regarding behavioral health services (80% response rate). The sample included the most common silver marketplace product and, as a comparison, the most common nonmarketplace product of the same type (for example, health maintenance organization or preferred provider organization) from each health plan (N=106 marketplace and nonmarketplace pairs, or 212 products). RESULTS: Marketplace and nonmarketplace products were similar in terms of coverage, prior authorization, and continuing review requirements. Marketplace products were more likely to employ narrow and tiered behavioral health provider networks. Narrow and tiered networks were more common in state than in federal marketplaces. CONCLUSIONS: Provider network design is a tool that health plans may use to control cost and possibly discourage enrollment by high-cost users, including those with behavioral health conditions. The ACA was successful in ensuring robust behavioral health coverage in marketplace plans. As the marketplaces evolve or are replaced, these data provide an important baseline to which future systems can be compared.

Design and impact of bundled payment for detox and follow-up care.

INTRODUCTION: Recent payment reforms promote movement from fee-for-service to alternative payment models that shift financial risk from payers to providers, incentivizing providers to manage patients' utilization. Bundled payment, an episode-based fixed payment that includes the prices of a group of services that would typically treat an episode of care, is expanding in the United States. Bundled payment has been recommended as a way to pay for comprehensive SUD treatment and has the potential to improve treatment engagement after detox, which could reduce detox readmissions, improve health outcomes, and reduce medical care costs. However, if moving to bundled payment creates large losses for some providers, it may not be sustainable. The objective of this study was to design the first bundled payment for detox and follow-up care and to estimate its impact on provider revenues. METHODS: Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries' behavioral health, medical, and pharmacy claims from July 2010-April 2013 were used to build and test a detox bundled payment for continuously enrolled adults (N=5521). A risk adjustment model was developed using general linear modeling to predict beneficiaries' episode costs. The projected payments to each provider from the risk adjustment analysis were compared to the observed baseline costs to determine the potential impact of a detox bundled payment reform on organizational revenues. This was modeled in two ways: first assuming no change in behavior and then assuming a supply-side cost sharing behavioral response of a 10% reduction in detox readmissions and an increase of one individual counseling and one group counseling session. RESULTS: The mean total 90-day detox episode cost was $3743. Nearly 70% of the total mean cost consists of the index detox, psychiatric inpatient care, and short-term residential care. Risk mitigation, including risk adjustment, substantially reduced the variation of the mean episode cost. There are opportunities for organizations to gain revenue under this bundled payment design, but many providers will lose money under a bundled payment designed using historic payment and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a bundled payment for detox and follow-up care is feasible, but low case volume and the adequacy of the payment are concerns. Thus, a detox episode-based payment will likely be more challenging for smaller, independent SUD treatment providers. These providers are experiencing many changes as financing shifts away from block grant funding toward Medicaid funding. A detox bundled payment in practice would need to consider different risk mitigation strategies, provider pooling, and costs based on episodes of care meeting quality standards, but could incentivize care coordination, which is important to reducing detox readmissions and engaging patients in care.

The Role of Health Plans in Supporting Behavioral Health Integration.

Health plan policies can influence delivery of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. This study provides national estimates for the prevalence of practices used by health plans that may support behavioral health integration. Results indicate that health plans employ financing and other policies likely to support integration. They also directly provide services that facilitate integration. Behavioral health contracting arrangements are associated with use of these policies. Delivery of integrated care requires systemic changes by both providers and payers thus health plans are key players in achieving this goal.