Changes in Healthcare Spending Attributable to High Deductible Health Plan Offer Among Enrollees with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The rise in prevalence of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) in the United States may raise concerns for high-need, high-utilization populations such as those with comorbid chronic conditions. In this study, we examine changes in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending attributable to HDHPs for enrollees with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We used de-identified administrative claims data from 2007 to 2017. SUD and CVD were defined using algorithms of ICD 9 and 10 codes and HEDIS guidelines. The main outcome measures of interest were spending measure for all non-SUD/CVD-related services, SUD-specific services, and CVD-specific services, for all services and medications specifically. We assessed both total and OOP spending. We used an intent-to-treat two-part model approach to model spending and computed the marginal effect of HDHP offer as both the dollar change and percent change in spending attributable to HDHP offer. RESULTS: Our sample included 33,684 enrollee-years and was predominantly white and male with a mean age of 53 years. The sample had high demonstrated substantial healthcare utilization with 94% using any non-SUD/CVD services, and 84% and 78% using SUD and CVD services, respectively. HDHP offer was associated with a 17.0% (95% CI = [0.07, 0.27] increase in OOP spending for all non-SUD/CVD services, a 21.1% (95% CI = [0.11, 0.31]) increase in OOP spending for all SUD-specific services, and a 13.1% (95% CI = [0.04, 0.23]) increase in OOP spending for all CVD-specific services. HDHP offer was also associated with a significant increase in OOP spending on non-SUD/CVD-specific medications and SUD-specific medications, but not CVD-specific medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while HDHPs do not change overall levels of annual spending among enrollees with comorbid CVD and SUD, they may increase the financial burden of healthcare services by raising OOP costs, which could negatively impact this high-need and high-utilization population.

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms After the Dobbs Abortion Decision.

Importance: In 2022, the US Supreme Court abolished the federal right to abortion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 13 states, abortions were immediately banned via previously passed legislation, known as trigger laws. Objective: To estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision among people residing in states with trigger laws compared with those without them. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the nationally representative repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (December 2021-January 2023), difference-in-differences models were estimated to examine the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety after Dobbs (either the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision, or its May 2, 2022, leaked draft benchmarked to the baseline period, prior to May 2, 2022) by comparing the 13 trigger states with the 37 nontrigger states. Models were estimated for the full population (N = 718 753), and separately for 153 108 females and 102 581 males aged 18 through 45 years. Exposure: Residing in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision or its leaked draft. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ([PHQ-4]; range, 0-12; scores of more than 5 indicate elevated depression or anxiety symptoms; minimal important difference unknown). Results: The survey response rate was 6.04% overall, and 87% of respondents completed the PHQ-4. The population-weighted mean age was 48 years (SD, 17 years), and 51% were female. In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 scores in the baseline period and after the Dobbs decision were 3.51 (95% CI, 3.44 to 3.59) and 3.81 (95% CI, 3.75 to 3.87), respectively, and in nontrigger states were 3.31 (95% CI, 3.27 to 3.34) and 3.49 (95% CI, 3.45 to 3.53), respectively. There was a significantly greater increase in the mean PHQ-4 score by 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16; P < .001) in trigger states vs nontrigger states. From baseline to after the draft was leaked, the change in PHQ-4 was not significantly different for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21; P = .15). From baseline to after the Dobbs opinion, there was a significantly greater increase in mean PHQ-4 scores for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states among females aged 18 through 45 years (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P = .002). Among males aged 18 through 45 years, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant (0.14; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.36; P = .23). Differences in estimates for males and females aged 18 through 45 were statistically significant (P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the Dobbs decision.

Substance use and treatment characteristics among pregnant and non-pregnant females, 2015-2019.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States (US), pregnant females who use substances face increased morbidity and mortality risks compared to non-pregnant females. This study provides a national snapshot of substance use and treatment characteristics among US reproductive-aged females, including those who are pregnant. METHODS: Our sample included females aged 15-44 years (n=97,830) from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data. We calculated weighted percentages of past-month alcohol or drug use and past-year substance use disorder (SUD), stratified by pregnancy status. We also calculated weighted percentages of past-year treatment setting and payer. Pearson chi-square tests were conducted to determine if percentages were statistically significantly different. RESULTS: Compared to non-pregnant females, pregnant females had lower prevalence of past-month illicit drug use excluding cannabis (1.6% vs. 4.3%, p<0.01), cannabis use (5.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.01), binge drinking (4.5% vs. 29.3%, p<0.01) and past-year SUD (7.1 vs. 8.8%, p<0.01). Less than 13% of females with SUD received treatment regardless of pregnancy status, but treatment use was higher among pregnant females compared to non-pregnant females (12.8% vs. 10.5%). However, there were no statistically significant differences in past-year treatment use, setting, or treatment payer. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of substance use and SUD was lower among pregnant females compared to non-pregnant females in 2015-2019. Low uptake of substance use treatment suggests that barriers exist to treatment-seeking among reproductive-aged women. Further exploration of stigma, payment, and access to treatment, and how they differ by pregnancy status, is needed.

Choice of high-deductible health plans among enrollees with a substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) expose enrollees to increased out-of-pocket costs for their medical care, which can exacerbate the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the factors that influence whether an enrollee with SUD chooses an HDHP are not well understood. In this study, we examine the factors associated with an individual with an SUD's decision to enroll in an HDHP. METHODS: Using de-identified administrative commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified individuals at employers offering at least one HDHP and one non-HDHP plan. We modeled whether an enrollee chose an HDHP using linear regression on plan and enrollee demographic characteristics. Key plan characteristics included whether a plan had a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). Key demographic variables included age, race/ethnicity, census block income range, census block highest educational attainment, and sex. We separately investigate new enrollment decisions (i.e., not previously enrolled in an HDHP) and re-enrollment decisions, as well as decisions among single enrollees and families of differing sizes. The study also adjusted models for additional plan characteristics, employer and year fixed effects, and census division. Robust standard errors were clustered at the employer level. RESULTS: The sample comprised 30,832 plans and 318,334 enrollees. Among enrollees with new enrollment decisions, 24.6 % chose an HDHP; 93.8 % of HDHP enrollees chose to re-enroll in an HDHP. The study found the presence of a plan HRA to be associated with a higher probability of new and re-enrollment in an HDHP. We found that older enrollees with SUD were less likely to newly enroll in an HDHP, while enrollees who were non-White, living in lower-income census blocks, and living in lower educational attainment census blocks were more likely to newly enroll in an HDHP. Higher levels of health care utilization in the prior year were associated with a lower probability of newly enrolling in an HDHP but associated with a higher probability of re-enrolling. CONCLUSION: Given the emerging evidence that HDHPs may discourage SUD treatment, greater HDHP enrollment could exacerbate health disparities.

Perspectives of U.S. harm reduction advocates on persuasive message strategies.

BACKGROUND: The messages used to communicate about harm reduction are critical in garnering public support for adoption of harm reduction interventions. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of harm reduction interventions at reducing overdose deaths and disease transmission, the USA has been slow to adopt harm reduction to scale. Implementation of evidence-based interventions has been hindered by a historical framing of drug use as a moral failure and related stigmatizing attitudes among the public toward people who use drugs. Understanding how professional harm reduction advocates communicate to audiences about the benefits of harm reduction is a critical step to designing persuasive messaging strategies. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposively recruited sample of U.S. professional harm reduction advocates (N = 15) to examine their perspectives on which types of messages are effective in persuading U.S. audiences on the value of harm reduction. Participants were professionals working in harm reduction advocacy at national- or state-level organizations promoting and/or implementing harm reduction. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. RESULTS: Interviewees agreed that messages about the scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of harm reduction approaches are important but insufficient, on their own, to persuade audiences. Interviewees identified two overarching messaging strategies they perceived as persuasive: using messages about harm reduction that align with audience-specific values, for example centering the value of life or individual redemption; and positioning harm reduction as part of the comprehensive solution to current issues audiences are facing related to drug use and overdose in their community. Interviewees discussed tailoring messages strategies to four key audiences: policymakers; law enforcement; religious groups; and the family and friends of people who use, or have used, drugs. For example, advocates discussed framing messages to law enforcement from the perspective of public safety. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees viewed messages as most persuasive when they align with audience values and audience-specific concerns related to drug use and overdose death. Future research should test effectiveness of tailored messaging strategies to audiences using experimental approaches.

High-deductible Health Plans and Nonfatal Opioid Overdose.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid-related overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. Meanwhile, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become more prevalent in the United States over the last 2 decades, raising concern about their potential for discouraging high-need populations, like those with opioid use disorder (OUD), from engaging in care that may mitigate the probability of overdose. This study assesses the impact of an employer offering an HDHP on nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured individuals with OUD in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used deidentified insurance claims data from 2007 to 2017 with 97,788 person-years. We used an intent-to-treat, difference-in-differences regression framework to estimate the change in the probability of a nonfatal opioid overdose among enrollees with OUD whose employers began offering an HDHP insurance option during the study period compared with the change among those whose employer never offered an HDHP. We also used an event-study model to account for dynamic time-varying treatment effects. RESULTS: Across both comparison and treatment groups, 2% of the sample experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose during the study period. Our primary model and robustness checks revealed no impact of HDHP offer on the probability of a nonfatal overdose. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that HDHP offer was not associated with an observed increase in the probability of nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured person-years with OUD. However, given the strong evidence that medications for OUD (MOUD) can reduce the risk of overdose, research should explore which facets of insurance design may impact MOUD use.

Prescribing Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physician Decision Making.

PURPOSE: Over 29 million Americans have alcohol use disorder (AUD). Though there are effective medications for AUD (MAUD) that can be prescribed within primary care, they are underutilized. We aimed to explore how primary care physicians familiar with MAUD make prescribing decisions and to identify reasons for underuse of MAUD within primary care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 primary care physicians recruited from a large online database of medical professionals. Physicians had to have started a patient on MAUD within the last 6 months in an outpatient setting. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was informed by the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS: Physicians endorsed that it is challenging to prescribe MAUD due to several reasons, including: (1) somewhat negative personal beliefs about medication effectiveness and likelihood of patient adherence; (2) competing demands in primary care that make MAUD a lower priority; and, (3) few positive subjective norms around prescribing. To make MAUD prescribing a smaller component of their practice, physicians reported applying various rules of thumb to select patients for MAUD. These included recommending MAUD to the patients who seemed the most motivated to reduce drinking, those with the most severe AUD, and those who were also receiving other treatments for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: There is a challenging implementation context for MAUD due to competing demands within primary care. Future research should explore which strategies for identifying a subset of patients for MAUD are the most appropriate and most likely to improve population health and health equity.

Do High-Deductible Health Plans Incentivize Changing the Timing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment?

A high-deductible health plan (HDHP) may incentivize enrollees to limit health care use at the beginning of a plan year, when they are responsible for 100% of costs, or to increase the use of care at the end of the year, when enrollees may have less cost exposure. We investigated both the impact of the deductible reset that occurs at the beginning of a plan year and the option to enroll in an HDHP on the use of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services over the course of a health plan year. We found decreases in SUD treatment use following the increase in cost exposure related to a deductible reset. There was no variation in this behavior between HDHP offer enrollees and comparison enrollees who were not offered an HDHP. These findings reinforce that cost-sharing poses a barrier to SUD care and continuity of care, which can increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Framing harm reduction as part of an integrated approach to reduce drug overdose: A randomized message testing experiment in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, 2022.

OBJECTIVES: Low public support impedes widespread adoption of harm reduction services in the U.S. There are growing efforts to implement integrated programs offering harm reduction services alongside other services for people who use drugs. We tested how messages depicting integrated programs influence audience attitudes about harm reduction. METHODS: A nine-group randomized experiment (N=3,181) embedded in a national survey of U.S. adults tested how factual and narrative messages describing programs integrating harm reduction, addiction treatment, and/or other services to reduce overdose influenced respondents' attitudes about harm reduction, relative to a comparison message defining harm reduction. The survey was fielded from September 16th to September28th, 2022 using the NORC Amerispeak probability-based online survey panel. The survey response rate was 74%. Measures included perceived effectiveness of standalone and integrated harm reduction programs, willingness to have a harm reduction program in the neighborhood or person using harm reduction services as a neighbor, and support for increasing government spending on harm reduction services. RESULTS: 54.4% of respondents viewing the comparison message defining harm reduction reported that an integrated approach including harm reduction, addiction treatment, and other services is effective at reducing overdose, compared to 63.6%-69.1% of respondents viewing messages describing integrated programs (p<0.05). Messages depicting either standalone harm reduction or integrated programs lowered respondents' willingness to have a harm reduction program in their neighborhood, particularly when the messages depicted a Black person, versus a White person, benefiting from harm reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Messages depicting programs offering integrated services including but not limited to harm reduction may heighten audience endorsement of the effectiveness of such an approach but lower willingness to have a harm reduction program in the neighborhood.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on U.S. Adults With Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain affects an estimated 20% of U.S. adults. Because high-deductible health plans have captured a growing share of the commercial insurance market, it is unknown how high-deductible health plans impact care for chronic pain. METHODS: Using 2007-2017 claims data from a large national commercial insurer, statistical analyses conducted in 2022-2023 estimated changes in enrollee outcomes before and after their firm began offering a high-deductible health plan compared with changes in outcomes in a comparison group of enrollees at firms never offering a high-deductible health plan. The sample included 757,530 commercially insured adults aged 18-64 years with headache, low back pain, arthritis, neuropathic pain, or fibromyalgia. Outcomes, measured at the enrollee year level, included the probability of receiving any chronic pain treatment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; the number of nonpharmacologic pain treatment days; number and days' supply of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; and total annual spending and out-of-pocket spending. RESULTS: High-deductible health plan offer was associated with a 1.2 percentage point reduction (95% CI= -1.8, -0.5) in the probability of any chronic pain treatment and an $11 increase (95% CI=$6, $15) in annual out-of-pocket spending on chronic pain treatments among those with any use, representing a 16% increase in average annual out-of-pocket spending over the pre-high deductible health plan offer annual average. Results were driven by changes in nonpharmacologic treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing the use of nonpharmacologic chronic pain treatments and marginally increasing out-of-pocket costs among those using these services, high-deductible health plans may discourage more holistic, integrated approaches to caring for patients with chronic pain conditions.

Measurement Approaches to Estimating Methadone Continuity in Opioid Use Disorder Care.

BACKGROUND: Long-term treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), including methadone, is lifesaving. There has been little examination of how to measure methadone continuity in claims data. OBJECTIVES: To develop an approach for measuring methadone continuity in claims data, and compare estimates of methadone versus buprenorphine continuity. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort study using de-identified commercial claims from OptumLabs Data Warehouse (January 1, 2017-June 30, 2021). SUBJECTS: Individuals diagnosed with OUD, ≥1 methadone or buprenorphine claim and ≥180 days continuous enrollment (N=29,633). MEASURES: OUD medication continuity: months with any use, days of continuous use, and proportion of days covered. RESULTS: 5.4% (N=1607) of the study cohort had any methadone use. Ninety-seven percent of methadone claims (N=160,537) were from procedure codes specifically used in opioid treatment programs. Place of service and primary diagnosis codes indicated that several methadone procedure codes were not used in outpatient OUD care. Methadone billing patterns indicated that estimating days-supply based solely on dates of service and/or procedure codes would yield inaccurate continuity results and that an approach incorporating the time between service dates was more appropriate. Among those using methadone, mean [s.d.] months with any use, days of continuous use, and proportion of days covered were 4.8 [1.8] months, 79.7 [73.4] days, and 0.64 [0.36]. For buprenorphine, the corresponding continuity estimates were 4.6 [1.9], 80.7 [70.0], and 0.73 [0.35]. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating methadone continuity in claims data requires a different approach than that for medications largely delivered by prescription fills, highlighting the importance of consistency and transparency in measuring methadone continuity across studies.

High deductible health plans and spending among families with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The United States faces an ongoing drug crisis, worsened by the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Family enrollment in high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and the resulting increased cost exposure could exacerbate the undertreatment of SUD. This study characterized the distribution of health care spending within families where a member has a SUD and estimated the association between HDHPs and family health care spending. METHODS: Using commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified a treatment group of enrollees whose employers began offering an HDHP and comparison group whose employers never offered an HDHP. We used a difference-in-differences analysis that compared health care spending in families at firms that did vs. did not offer an HDHP before and after the HDHP offer. All models were adjusted for employer and year fixed effects, as well as family demographics, size, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: Our sample was comprised of 317,353 family-years. Family members with a SUD, on average, contributed an outsized proportion of total family health care expenditures (56.9% in a family of three). Offering a family HDHP was associated with a 6.1% reduction (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7-2.6%) in the probability of families having any SUD-related expenditures. The HDHP offer was associated with a $1546 reduction in family total expenditures and a $1185 reduction for the individual with SUD (95% CI: -2272 to -821 and -1845 to -525, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of family enrollment in HDHPs may further the existing issue of undertreatment of SUDs.

The impact of HDHPs on service use and spending for substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Although high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) reduce health care spending, higher deductibles may lead to forgone care. Our goal was to determine the effects of HDHPs on the use of and spending on substance use disorder (SUD) services. STUDY DESIGN: We used difference-in-differences models to compare service use and spending for treating SUD among enrollees who were newly offered an HDHP relative to enrollees offered only traditional plan options throughout the study period. METHODS: We used deidentified commercial claims data from OptumLabs (2007-2017) to identify a sample of 28,717,236 person-years (2.2% with a diagnosed SUD). The main independent measure was an indicator for being offered an HDHP. The main dependent measures were the probability of (and spending associated with) using SUD services and specific treatment types. RESULTS: Enrollees were 6.6% (P < .001) less likely to use SUD services after being offered an HDHP relative to the comparison group. Reductions were concentrated in inpatient, intermediate, and ambulatory care, as well as medication use. Being offered an HDHP was associated with a decrease of 21% (P < .001) on health plan spending and an increase of 14% (P < .01) on out-of-pocket spending. CONCLUSIONS: Offering an HDHP was associated with a reduction in SUD service use and a shift in spending from the plan to the enrollee. In the context of the US drug epidemic, these study findings highlight a concern that the movement toward HDHPs may be exacerbating undertreatment of SUD.

Scaling Interventions to Manage Chronic Disease: Innovative Methods at the Intersection of Health Policy Research and Implementation Science.

Policy implementation is a key component of scaling effective chronic disease prevention and management interventions. Policy can support scale-up by mandating or incentivizing intervention adoption, but enacting a policy is only the first step. Fully implementing a policy designed to facilitate implementation of health interventions often requires a range of accompanying implementation structures, like health IT systems, and implementation strategies, like training. Decision makers need to know what policies can support intervention adoption and how to implement those policies, but to date research on policy implementation is limited and innovative methodological approaches are needed. In December 2021, the Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness and the Johns Hopkins Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy convened a forum of research experts to discuss approaches for studying policy implementation. In this report, we summarize the ideas that came out of the forum. First, we describe a motivating example focused on an Affordable Care Act Medicaid health home waiver policy used by some US states to support scale-up of an evidence-based integrated care model shown in clinical trials to improve cardiovascular care for people with serious mental illness. Second, we define key policy implementation components including structures, strategies, and outcomes. Third, we provide an overview of descriptive, predictive and associational, and causal approaches that can be used to study policy implementation. We conclude with discussion of priorities for methodological innovations in policy implementation research, with three key areas identified by forum experts: effect modification methods for making causal inferences about how policies' effects on outcomes vary based on implementation structures/strategies; causal mediation approaches for studying policy implementation mechanisms; and characterizing uncertainty in systems science models. We conclude with discussion of overarching methods considerations for studying policy implementation, including measurement of policy implementation, strategies for studying the role of context in policy implementation, and the importance of considering when establishing causality is the goal of policy implementation research.

Effect of Exposure to Visual Campaigns and Narrative Vignettes on Addiction Stigma Among Health Care Professionals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stigma toward people with opioid use disorder (OUD) is pervasive in clinical settings, impeding delivery of high-quality care. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of different stigma-reduction messages or messengers among health care professionals. Objective: To evaluate the effect of OUD-related messages delivered by different messengers on stigma and attitudes toward people with OUD among health care professionals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial examined the effects of OUD-related messages delivered by a visual campaign alone or in combination with a written narrative vignette from the perspective of 1 of 3 messengers. Health care professionals in the US were recruited from 2 national online survey panels (Ipsos KnowledgePanel and SurveyHealthcareGlobus). A total of 1842 participants completed a web-based survey measuring stigma toward people with OUD from November 13 to 30, 2020. Interventions: Eight groups were exposed to 1 of 2 message frames. One frame (Words Matter) emphasized the harm of stigmatizing language, and the other (Medication Treatment Works) focused on the effectiveness of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of OUD. Message frames were communicated through either a visual campaign alone or a visual campaign in combination with a written narrative vignette from the perspective of a simulated patient with OUD, a clinician, or a health care system administrator. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dimensions of stigma toward people with OUD were measured on 5-point Likert scales that included items about desire for social distance from people with OUD, perception of individual blame for OUD, perspective of OUD as a medical condition, and support for increased governmental spending on OUD treatment. The level of warmth felt toward people with OUD was measured by a feeling thermometer (range, 0-100 points). Results: Among 1842 participants, the mean (SD) age was 47 (13) years; 1324 participants (71.9%) were female, 145 (7.9%) were Hispanic, 140 (7.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, 1344 (73.0%) were non-Hispanic White, and 213 (11.6%) were of other non-Hispanic race (ie, individuals who did not self-report race as Black or White and did not self-report ethnicity as Hispanic). Compared with nonexposure, exposure to the combination of visual campaign and narrative vignette communicating the importance of nonstigmatizing language from the perspective of a patient with OUD was associated with a lower probability (difference, -16.8 percentage points, 95% CI, -26.1 to -7.4; P < .001) of unwillingness to have a person with OUD marry into the family (a measure of social distance preference) and a 7.2-point (95% CI, 3.2-11.1; P < .001) higher warmth rating. Participants exposed to the combined visual campaign and patient vignette about the value of medication treatment for OUD also had significantly lower levels of stigma compared with those in the nonexposed control group (eg, unwillingness to have a person with OUD as a neighbor: difference, -15.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -24.6 to -6.0; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, messages about nonstigmatizing language and effective medication for OUD reduced stigma among health care professionals. Stigma-reduction efforts targeting health care professionals may improve health care system capacity to serve people with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05127707.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on Continuous Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Long-term, continuous treatment with medication like buprenorphine is the gold standard for opioid use disorder (OUD). As high deductible health plans (HDHPs) become more prevalent in the commercial insurance market, they may pose financial barriers to people with OUD. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of HDHPs on continuity of buprenorphine treatment, concurrent visits for counseling/psychotherapy and OUD-related evaluation and management, and out-of-pocket spending. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis comparing trends in outcomes among enrollees whose employers offer an HDHP (treatment group) to enrollees whose employers never offer an HDHP (comparison group). PARTICIPANTS: Enrollees with OUD from a national sample of commercial health insurance plans during 2007-2017 who initiate buprenorphine treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment; probabilities of continuous buprenorphine treatment ≥30, ≥90, ≥180, and ≥365 days; probability of concurrent (i.e., within the same month) behavioral therapy (i.e., counseling or psychotherapy); probability of concurrent OUD-related evaluation and management visits; proportions of buprenorphine treatment episodes with counseling/psychotherapy and evaluation and management visits; and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on buprenorphine, behavioral therapy, and evaluation and management visits. KEY RESULTS: HDHPs were associated with an average increase of $98 (95% CI: $48, $150) on OOP spending on buprenorphine per treatment episode but no change in the number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment or concurrent use of related services. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs do not reduce continuity of buprenorphine treatment among commercially insured enrollees with OUD but may increase financial burden for this population.

Effects of High-Deductible Health Plans on Enrollees With Mental Health Conditions With and Without Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common in the U.S. health insurance market and are intended to reduce the use of low-value services, but evidence suggests that HDHP enrollees also reduce the use of high-value services. This study examined the effects of HDHPs on enrollees with mental health conditions, a population with high levels of unmet treatment need, often because of financial barriers. Enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder have greater treatment needs and unique barriers to care, perhaps changing their response to an HDHP. METHODS: Commercial health insurance claims data in a difference-in-differences design was used to evaluate the effect of an employer's offer of an HDHP on 6,627,128 enrollee-years among enrollees with mental health conditions, stratified by having a co-occurring substance use disorder or not. RESULTS: Among enrollees without a co-occurring substance use disorder, an HDHP offer was associated with a 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.4%-7.2%) reduction in overall spending on mental health care, despite an 11.3% (95% CI=1.0%-21.6%) increase in spending on mental health-related emergency department visits. Among enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder, no significant changes attributable to an HDHP offer were found in most categories of spending on combined mental health and substance use disorder care, apart from a 4.5% (95% CI=1.9%-7.2%) reduction in spending on psychotropic medications. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs may reduce use of necessary care among enrollees with mental health conditions, which could exacerbate undertreatment in this population and result in adverse health outcomes.

Predictors of cancer screening among Black and White Maryland Medicaid enrollees with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death for people with serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People with SMI receive cancer screenings at lower rates than the general population. AIMS: We sought to identify factors associated with cancer screening in a publicly insured population with SMI and stratified by race, a factor itself linked with differential rates of cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Maryland Medicaid administrative claims data (2010-2018) to examine screening rates for cervical cancer (N = 40,622), breast cancer (N = 9818), colorectal cancer (N = 19,306), and prostate cancer (N = 4887) among eligible Black and white enrollees with SMI. We examined individual-level socio-demographic and clinical factors, including co-occurring substance use disorder, medical comorbidities, psychiatric diagnosis, obstetric-gynecologic and primary care utilization, as well as county-level characteristics, including metropolitan status, mean household income, and primary care workforce capacity. Generalized estimating equations with a logit link were used to examine the characteristics associated with cancer screening. RESULTS: Compared with white enrollees, Black enrollees were more likely to receive screening for cervical cancer (AOR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.15-1.22), breast cancer (AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.19-1.36), and colorectal cancer (AOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), while similar rates were observed for prostate cancer screening (AOR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.96-1.18). Primary care utilization and longer Medicaid enrollment were positively associated with cancer screening while co-occurring substance use disorder was negatively associated with cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Improving cancer screening rates among populations with SMI should focus on facilitating continuous insurance coverage and access to primary care.