Alcohol Consumption During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: Results From a Nationally Representative Longitudinal Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol consumption and risky drinking behavior increased in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, but it is not known if and for whom those changes were sustained over the longer term. This study analyzes longitudinal data on drinking patterns during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS: A nationally representative longitudinal survey was used to assess alcohol consumption patterns among respondents 21 years and older who reported drinking between February and November 2020 (N = 557) overall and by subgroups. RESULTS: Compared with February, drinks per month in April and November 2020 significantly ( P ≤ 0.01) increased by 36% and 38%, respectively. The proportion exceeding drinking guidelines significantly increased by 27% and 39%, and increases for binge drinking were 26% and 30% (both P = 0.01). February to November increases in proportion exceeding drinking guidelines were significantly larger for women (54% increase) than for men (32%), and for Black (508%) than for White respondents (16%). Drinks per month significantly increased more for respondents with children in the household (64%) than for those without children (20%). There also was a significantly larger increase in drinks per month for those who reported drinking to cope (57% increase) and those who reported drinking for enhancement (40%) than for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported alcohol consumption and risky drinking patterns increased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Monitoring alcohol consumption changes, with a focus on marginalized groups, is warranted to plan behavioral health services and inform prevention for future pandemics.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Is implementation of ASAM-based addiction treatment assessments associated with improved 30-day retention and substance use?

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria were developed to provide a systematic, evidence-based, and transparent approach to addiction treatment assessment and level-of-care recommendations. In 2017, California began a Medicaid demonstration that required that providers in participating counties to adopt ASAM-based intake assessments and level-of-care criteria. We hypothesized that ASAM implementation would increase the proportion of patients retained in addiction treatment and successfully completing their treatment plan. METHODS: We implemented a comparative interrupted time series analysis with 407,792 treatment episodes by Medicaid beneficiaries in specialty addiction treatment settings from 2015 to mid-2019. We compared the change in retention rates and successful completion rates in counties that adopted ASAM-based assessments relative to counties that did not adopt ASAM-based assessments and used only clinical judgment for level-of-care decisions. Treatment retention was defined as staying in addiction treatment for at least 30 days. Successful completion of the treatment plan was determined by the patient's clinician. RESULTS: After one year, ASAM implementation was associated with a 9% increase in 30-day retention among treatment episodes that started in a residential setting, but no change in retention among episodes starting in outpatient settings. We found no statistically significant association between ASAM adoption and successful treatment completion. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ASAM-based assessment may lead to improved retention for individuals who begin treatment in residential treatment, which may be encouraging to the many state Medicaid programs that are adopting ASAM-based criteria. More research is needed to clarify the mechanism by which ASAM leads to improved outcomes and to clarify how to maximize the potential benefits of ASAM, such as through patient-centered implementation.

SF-6D utility scores for alcohol use disorder status and alcohol consumption risk levels in the US population.

AIMS: To estimate US population health utilities for subgroups defined by alcohol use disorder (AUD) status and consumption level. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community settings in the United States (i.e. excluding institutional settings). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 36,042 adults (age 18+) in non-institutional settings in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: We used 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III to calculate mean Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) utility scores across World Health Organization alcohol consumption risk levels-very high risk, high risk, medium risk, low risk and an additional abstinent level-for three groups: (1) the general population (n = 36,042), (2) individuals with life-time AUD (n = 9925) and (3) individuals with current AUD (n = 5083), and assessed minimally important differences (MIDs) between consumption levels. Each group is a subset of the previous group. FINDINGS: The general population's mean SF-6D utility was higher than that of individuals with life-time or current AUD across all consumption risk levels (0.79 versus 0.76 for both AUD groups). For all groups, SF-6D utilities increased as consumption risk level decreased to non-abstinent levels, and reducing consumption from very high risk to any lower level was associated with a statistically significant and meaningful improvement in utility. For individuals with life-time or current AUD, becoming abstinent from high-, medium- and low-risk levels was associated with significantly and meaningfully worse utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Higher alcohol consumption risk levels appear to be associated with lower health index scores for the general population and individuals with a history of alcohol use disorder, meaning that higher alcohol consumption is associated with worse health-related quality of life.

Computer- vs. nurse practitioner-delivered brief intervention for adolescent marijuana, alcohol, and sex risk behaviors in school-based health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study examined approaches to delivering brief interventions (BI) for risky substance use and sexual behaviors in school-based health centers (SBHCs). METHODS: 300 Adolescents (ages 14-18; 54 % female) with risky marijuana and/or alcohol use identified via CRAFFT screening (scores >1) were recruited from two SBHCs and randomized to computer-delivered BI (CBI) or nurse practitioner-delivered BI (NBI). Both BIs included motivational and didactic content targeting marijuana, alcohol, and risky sexual behaviors. Assessments at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up included past 30-day frequency of marijuana use, alcohol use, binge drinking, unprotected sex, and sex while intoxicated; marijuana and alcohol problems; and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A focused cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. An historical 'assessment-only' cohort (N=50) formed a supplementary quasi-experimental comparison group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between NBI and CBI on any outcomes considered (e.g., days of marijuana use; p=.26). From a cost-effectiveness perspective, CBI was 'dominant' for HRQoL and marijuana use. Participants' satisfaction with BI was significantly higher for NBI than CBI. Compared to the assessment-only cohort, participants who received a BI had lower frequency of marijuana (3-months: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = .74 [.57, .97], p=.03), alcohol (3-months: IRR = .43 [.29, .64], p<.001; 6-months: IRR = .58 [.34, .98], p = .04), alcohol-specific problems (3-months: IRR = .63 [.45, .89], p=.008; 6-months: IRR = .63 [.41, .97], p = .04), and sex while intoxicated (6-months: IRR = .42 [.21, .83], p = .013). CONCLUSIONS: CBI and NBI did not yield different risk behavior outcomes in this randomized trial. Supplementary quasi-experimental comparisons suggested potential superiority over assessment-only. Both NBI and CBI could be useful in SBHCs.

Behavioral Health Coverage In The Individual Market Increased After ACA Parity Requirements.

As of January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act designated mental health and substance use services as an essential health benefit in Marketplace plans and extended parity protections to the individual and small-group markets. We analyzed documents for seventy-eight individual and small-group plans in 2014 (after parity provisions took effect) and sixty comparison plans in 2013 (the year before parity provisions took effect) to understand the degree to which coverage for mental health and substance use care improved relative to medical/surgical benefits. The results suggest that plan issuers did what the provisions required them to do. Although in 2013 a lower proportion of plans covered mental health or substance use care, compared to medical/surgical care, in 2014 the proportions were the same. If essential health benefit requirements were to be removed and mental health and substance use coverage becomes similar to that in 2013, as many as 20 percent of the plans in our sample would not cover these conditions. To determine whether increases in behavioral health coverage will result in improved access to behavioral health services requires complementary data on the size of provider networks and use of services.