Search

BeneFIT was a demonstration project that worked with a Medicaid/Medicare health plan to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. The goal was to reach age-eligible enrollees who were due for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prompt them to complete a FIT. One health insurance plan collaborated with six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon. Reach was defined as the percent of eligible individuals overdue for CRC screening who were mailed a FIT in 2016. We examined patient-level factors associated with reach, using multivariable log binomial regression and FIT completion rates at 6 months. The health plan identified 3386 age-eligible members overdue for CRC screening. Of these, 2615 (77.2%) were reached (mailed FIT kits) and 771 (22.8%) were not; 478 (14.1%) because they were not considered to be clinic patients and 290 (8.6%) because of mailing issues. Patient-level factors associated with not being reached were: being male, being Medicaid-insured (vs. Medicare), and having no primary care visits (vs. 4+ visits) in the last year. Among all enrollees identified as overdue for CRC screening, FIT completion rates at 6 months were 14.8% overall and 18.5% in the subgroup reached. In a mailed FIT program, a health insurance plan attempted to reach as many enrollees overdue for CRC screening as possible, however 22.8% were not mailed a FIT. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that the hardest to reach enrollees can participate in CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.Methods: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined.Results: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p's < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses.Discussion: Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p ' s < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses. Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. • Patients with substance use disorder were seen more by providers in primary care. • Patients with substance use disorder received more opioid prescriptions. • Chronic condition outcomes did not differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the ability of electronic health record (EHR) data extracted into a data-sharing system to accurately identify contraceptive use.Study Design: We compared rates of contraceptive use from electronic extraction of EHR data via a data-sharing system and manual abstraction of the EHR among 142 female patients ages 15-49 years from a family medicine clinic within a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between electronic extraction and manual abstraction.Results: Manual abstraction identified 62% of women as contraceptive users, whereas electronic extraction identified only 27%. Long acting reversible (LARC) methods had 96% agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.78; confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. EHR data extracted via a data-sharing system was unable to identify barrier or over-the-counter contraceptives.Conclusions: Electronic extraction found substantially lower overall rates of contraceptive method use, but produced more comparable LARC method use rates when compared to manual abstraction among women in this study's primary care clinic.Implications: Quality metrics related to contraceptive use that rely on EHR data in this study's data-sharing system likely under-estimated true contraceptive use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan–based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six‐month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program‐related health plan costs for each program are described. Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt‐in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%‐17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%‐16.2%]) in 2018 (P =.36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions: An opt‐in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing. In this study, a health insurance plan demonstrates its ability to deliver 2 different mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program models, with vendors used to manage some program elements. These mailed FIT programs began to close gaps in colorectal cancer screening rates in the health plan's dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach.Methods: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter.Results: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard.Conclusions: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an increased need to prepare primary care clinicians to effectively gauge the risk of suicidal behavior occurring within primary care patients who may abuse drugs, especially those served in safety-net settings.Objectives: The objectives of this paper were to explore suicide risk in a population of individuals endorsing recent drug use, and to describe patient demographic, medical, psychiatric, social, and substance use characteristics across different levels of suicide risk.Methods: A total of 867 primary care patients with reported drug use in the previous 90 days were studied. Based upon their responses to two Addiction Severity Index questions, four suicide risk categories were constructed: (1) low risk; (2) moderate-low (suicidal ideation in the past 30 days); (3) moderate-high (history of a lifetime suicide attempt); and (4) high risk (history of a lifetime suicide attempt and suicidal ideation in the past 30 days). The association between suicide risk groups and demographic and clinical variables were assessed.Results: A total of 40% of primary care patients endorsing recent drug use reported a lifetime suicide attempt. Compared to individuals in other suicide risk groups, individuals at high suicide risk had higher rates of substance use severity, recently used two or more substances, and were more likely to have a comorbid psychiatric condition.Conclusion: These findings indicate that the percentage of patients with suicide risk may be higher among patients with recent drug use. Primary care clinicians should be aware that they may be encountering patients with suicide risk among those with recent drug use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examines the link between chemical dependency and chronic disease among primary care patients. The study uses randomized clinical trial, retrospective cohort design, and Chi-square statistic to achieve the study objective. The study reveals the effects of medical condition on drug dependency.

Abstract: Objective: We describe risk factors associated with patients experiencing physical restraint or seclusion in the psychiatric emergency service (PES). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records, nursing logs and quality assurance data for all adult patient encounters in a PES over a 12-month period (June 1, 2011–May 31, 2012). Descriptors included demographic characteristics, diagnoses, laboratory values, and clinician ratings of symptom severity. χ 2 and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: Restraint/seclusion occurred in 14% of 5335 patient encounters. The following characteristics were associated with restraint/seclusion: arrival to the PES in restraints; referral not initiated by the patient; arrival between 1900 and 0059 hours; bipolar mania or mixed episode; and clinician rating of severe disruptiveness, psychosis or insight impairment. Severe suicidality and a depression diagnosis were associated with less risk of restraint or seclusion. Conclusion: Acute symptomatology and characteristics of the encounter were more likely to be associated with restraint/seclusion than patient demographics or diagnoses. These findings support recent guidelines for the treatment of agitation and can help clinicians identify patients at risk of behavioral decompensation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Marijuana is currently approved for medical use in 23 states. Both clinicians and the lay public have questioned whether users of marijuana for medical purposes are different from users of marijuana for recreational purposes. This study examined similarities and differences in important clinical characteristics between users of medical marijuana and users of recreational marijuana.Methods: The sample consisted of 868 adult primary care patients in Washington State, who reported use of medical marijuana (n = 131), recreational marijuana (n = 525), or drugs other than marijuana (n = 212). Retention was over 87% at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month assessments.Results: The majority of medical, psychiatric, substance use, and service utilization characteristic comparisons were not significant. However, medical marijuana users had significantly more medical problems, a significantly larger proportion reported >15 days medical problems in the past month, and significantly smaller proportions reported no pain and no mobility limitations (p < .001). Medical marijuana users also had significantly lower drug problem severity, lower alcohol problem severity, and significantly larger proportions reported using marijuana alone and concomitant opioid use only (p < .001). There was no significant difference between medical and recreational users in the percentage using marijuana with at least two additional substances (48% vs. 58%, respectively, p = .05).Conclusions and Scientific Significance: Although our results suggest that there are few distinct differences between medical and recreational users of marijuana, the differences observed, while mostly very small in effect size (<.2), are consistent with at least some medical users employing marijuana to relieve symptoms and distress associated with medical illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate outcomes of a registered nurse-led care management intervention for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries with high health care costs. Data Sources/Study Setting Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Client Outcomes Database, 2008-2011. Study Design In a randomized controlled trial with intent-to-treat analysis, outcomes were compared for the intervention ( n = 557) and control groups ( n = 563). A quasi-experimental subanalysis compared outcomes for program participants ( n = 251) and propensity score-matched controls ( n = 251). Data Collection/Extraction Methods Administrative data were linked to describe costs and use of health services, criminal activity, homelessness, and death. Principal Findings In the intent-to-treat analysis, the intervention group had higher odds of outpatient mental health service use and higher prescription drug costs than controls in the postperiod. In the subanalysis, participants had fewer unplanned hospital admissions and lower associated costs; higher prescription drug costs; higher odds of long-term care service use; higher drug/alcohol treatment costs; and lower odds of homelessness. Conclusions We found no health care cost savings for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries randomized to intensive care management. Among participants, care management may have the potential to increase access to needed care, slow growth in the number and therefore cost of unplanned hospitalizations, and prevent homelessness. These findings apply to start-up care management programs targeted at high-cost, high-risk Medicaid populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).Objective: To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.Interventions: Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.Results: Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and Relevance: A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IMPORTANCE Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance). OBJECTIVE To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3,6,9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points. INTERVENTIONS Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. RESULTS Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% Cl, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% Cl, -0.00 6 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption o f this intervention for drug use in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]