Association of Arizona's Implementation of a Behavioral Health Crisis Response System With Suicide Hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: In July 2022, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline went live. The Lifeline is part of larger federal and state efforts to build comprehensive behavioral health crisis response systems that include mobile crisis units and crisis diversion and stabilization centers. Comprehensive response systems are anticipated to reduce hospitalizations for suicide and other behavioral health crises; however, research testing this assumption has been limited. The authors used Arizona-a state known for its comprehensive crisis system-to determine the association between state implementation of a comprehensive behavioral health crisis response system and suicide-related hospitalizations. METHODS: A comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) design was used to compare changes in suicide-related hospitalizations after the 2015 implementation of Arizona's crisis response system (N=215,063). Data were from the 2010-2019 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID). Nevada (N=84,091 hospitalizations) was used as a comparison state because it is a western state that had not yet implemented a comprehensive crisis system and had available HCUP SID data. The CITS model included controls for time-varying differences in state demographic composition. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2014 to 2019, annual suicide-related hospitalizations in Arizona increased from 122.0 to 324.2 to 584.5, respectively, per 100,000 people, and in Nevada, hospitalizations increased from 94.7 to 263.2 to 595.5, respectively, per 100,000 people. Arizona's crisis response system was associated with a significant relative decrease in the quarterly trend of 2.57 suicide-related hospitalizations per 100,000 people (p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to understand how the implementation of a comprehensive crisis response system may affect suicide-related hospitalizations.

The cost of opioid use disorder-related conditions in Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Medicare coverage excludes some levels of substance use disorder (SUD) care, such as intensive outpatient and residential treatment. Expanding access to SUD treatment could increase Medicare spending. However, these costs could be offset if SUD treatment resulted in cost savings from reducing SUD-related medical events and SUD-related medical comorbidities. METHODS: This study estimated cost savings from expanding access to SUD treatment for persons with opioid use disorders (OUD) using three methods. First, we compared total Medicare fee-for-service spending on individuals with OUD and no treatment with OUD medications (MOUD) to Medicare spending on individuals without OUD after matching on age/sex/Medicare-Medicaid eligibility status. Second, we compared Medicare spending on individuals with OUD who received MOUD to spending individuals with OUD who did not receive MOUD. Third, we determined OUD-attributable Medicare spending for comorbid physical and mental conditions with a strong association with OUD. RESULTS: Beneficiaries with OUD but no MOUD totaled $15.8 billion more than beneficiaries without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD but no MOUD totaled $12.1 billion more than individuals with OUD and MOUD. Lastly, Medicare spending on OUD-attributable comorbidities was $4.7 billion if all medical and mental health comorbidities were included and $3.0 billion with only medical comorbidities. The totals could be 1.7 times higher if Medicare Advantage enrollees were included. CONCLUSION: Expanding Medicare coverage of appropriate levels of care could improve access to effective treatment and reduce the costs associated with untreated OUD. This will likely result in substantial Medicare cost savings.

Trends in Orthopedic Surgeon Practice Consolidation From 2008 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, physician practices have merged into larger group practices (ie, horizontal consolidation) and have been acquired by hospitals and health systems (ie, vertical consolidation), leaving fewer practices independent. The implications of these changes can be profound, affecting the prices for and spending on physician services, access to care, patients' choice of providers, and quality of care. METHODS: We used IQVIA data on orthopedic surgeon practice sites that included information on health system or hospital ownership, group medical practice participation, and average patient volume. We calculated the number and size of group medical practices as measures of horizontal consolidation and the percentage of practice sites owned by a health system or hospital as a measure of vertical consolidation. We also calculated the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index to measure market concentration. RESULTS: We found significant horizontal and vertical consolidation nationally and across all regions of the United States. This consolidation has led to much more concentrated markets, as measured by Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, for orthopedic surgeon services. These trends are consistent with studies looking at consolidation of other types of providers. CONCLUSION: Orthopedic surgeon practices, like other provider types, have consolidated at a rapid rate over the past decade. A variety of factors may have contributed, including the move away from fee-for-service to alternative payment arrangements, changes in Medicare payment policies, private equity activity, and evolving physician preferences. Due to the potential impacts of this consolidation, more research is needed to examine some of these contributing factors.

Addiction Treatment and Telehealth: Review of Efficacy and Provider Insights During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Addiction treatment via telehealth expanded to unprecedented levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to clarify whether the research evidence on the efficacy of telehealth-delivered substance use disorder treatment and the experience of providers using telehealth during the pandemic support continued use of telehealth after the pandemic and, if so, under what circumstances. METHODS: Data sources included a literature review on the efficacy of telehealth for substance use disorder treatment, responses to a 2020 online survey from 100 California addiction treatment providers, and interviews with 30 California treatment providers and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Eight published studies were identified that compared addiction treatment via telehealth with in-person treatment. Seven found telehealth treatment as effective but not more effective than in-person treatment in terms of retention, therapeutic alliance, and substance use. One Canadian study found that telehealth facilitated methadone prescribing and improved retention. In the survey results reported here, California addiction treatment providers said that more than 50% of their patients were being treated via telehealth for intensive outpatient treatment, individual counseling, group counseling, and intake assessment. They were most confident that individual counseling via telehealth was as effective as in-person individual counseling and less sure about the relative effectiveness of telehealth-delivered medication management, group counseling, and intake assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may help engage patients in addiction treatment by improving access and convenience. Additional research is needed to confirm that benefit and to determine how best to tailor telehealth to each patient's circumstances and with what mix of in-person and telehealth services.

Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Findings from a Survey of Specialty Providers in California.

BACKGROUND: As the coronavirus pandemic public health emergency begins to ebb in the United States, policymakers and providers need to evaluate how the addiction treatment system functioned during the public health emergency and draw lessons for future emergencies. One important question is whether the pandemic curtailed the use of addiction treatment and the extent to which telehealth was able to mitigate access barriers. METHODS: To begin to answer this question, we conducted a survey of specialty addiction treatment providers in California from June 2020 through July 2020. The survey focused specifically on provider organizations that served Medicaid beneficiaries. RESULTS: Of the 133 respondents, 50% reported a decrease in patients since the stay-at-home order in March 2020, with the largest decline among new patients, and 58% said more patients were relapsing. Eighty-one percent of providers said that telemedicine use had increased since the stay-at-home order. Most said that telemedicine had moderately (48%) or completely (30%) addressed access barriers. CONCLUSION: More efforts are needed to ensure that patients, and in particular new patients, receive addiction treatment during public health emergencies.

How Patient Centered Are Addiction Treatment Intake Processes?

OBJECTIVES: The substance use disorder (SUD) treatment field has conducted significant research on creating intake tools and processes that best match patients to the most appropriate treatment setting, but less research has been conducted on how those tools impact the patient experience. The study took advantage of a natural experiment in California to evaluate whether the implementation of American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) assessment criteria and a computer-facilitated intake assessment based on the ASAM criteria affects patient experiences and patient-centeredness during intake relative to patients receiving intake assessments not based on ASAM criteria. METHODS: We analyzed surveys completed by 851 patients covered by Medi-Cal who were receiving specialty SUD treatment at 33 providers across 10 California counties about their experiences and perceptions of the intake assessment process. To account for differences in patient mix, we used inverse-probability weighting and computed differences in the weighted means for patients across non-ASAM, ASAM, and computerized-ASAM patients. RESULTS: We have found that patients who underwent intake based on ASAM assessment criteria or computerized ASAM assessment experienced a more patient-centered intake. We also found that patients who received ASAM-based assessments were more satisfied with their choice of treatment setting. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence is encouraging for the SUD treatment field, especially considering that many Medicaid programs are adopting ASAM or similar patient placement criteria and multidimensional assessments. Future research should consider whether increases in the patient-centeredness of assessments are associated with increased retention in SUD treatment and other positive treatment outcomes.