Search

Aims: We examined the effects of a statewide New York (NY) care management (CM) program for substance use disorder (SUD), Managed Addiction Treatment Services (MATS), on SUD treatment services' utilization and spending among patients with a recent history of high Medicaid spending and among those for whom a predictive algorithm indicates a higher probability of outlier spending in the following year. Methods: We applied difference-in-difference analyses with propensity score matching using NY Medicaid claims data and a state registry of SUD-treatment episodes from 2006 to 2009. A total of 1263 CM enrollees with high SUD treatment spending (>$10K) in the prior year and a matched comparison group were included in the analysis. Crisis care utilization for SUD (detoxification and hospitalizations), outpatient SUD treatment, and Medicaid spending were examined over 12 months among both groups. CM effects among predicted high-future-spending patients (HFS) were also analyzed. Results: CM increased outpatient SUD treatment visits by approximately 10.5 days (95% CI = 0.9, 20.0). CM crisis care and spending outcomes were not statistically different from comparison since both conditions had comparable pre-post declines. Conversely, CM significantly reduced SUD treatment spending by approximately $955 (95% CI = −1518, −391) and reduced days of detox utilization by about 1.0 days (95% CI = −1.9, −0.1) among HFS. Conclusion: Findings suggest that CM can reduce SUD treatment spending and utilization when targeted at patients with a greater likelihood of high future spending, indicating the potential value of predictive models to select CM patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS: We examined the effects of a statewide New York (NY) care management (CM) program for substance use disorder (SUD), Managed Addiction Treatment Services (MATS), on SUD treatment services' utilization and spending among patients with a recent history of high Medicaid spending and among those for whom a predictive algorithm indicates a higher probability of outlier spending in the following year. METHODS: We applied difference-in-difference analyses with propensity score matching using NY Medicaid claims data and a state registry of SUD-treatment episodes from 2006 to 2009. A total of 1263 CM enrollees with high SUD treatment spending (>$10K) in the prior year and a matched comparison group were included in the analysis. Crisis care utilization for SUD (detoxification and hospitalizations), outpatient SUD treatment, and Medicaid spending were examined over 12 months among both groups. CM effects among predicted high-future-spending patients (HFS) were also analyzed. RESULTS: CM increased outpatient SUD treatment visits by approximately 10.5 days (95% CI = 0.9, 20.0). CM crisis care and spending outcomes were not statistically different from comparison since both conditions had comparable pre-post declines. Conversely, CM significantly reduced SUD treatment spending by approximately $955 (95% CI = -1518, -391) and reduced days of detox utilization by about 1.0 days (95% CI = -1.9, -0.1) among HFS. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that CM can reduce SUD treatment spending and utilization when targeted at patients with a greater likelihood of high future spending, indicating the potential value of predictive models to select CM patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare systems are implementing value-based payment (VBP) arrangements in efforts to incentivize cost-effective, high quality of care. These arrangements represent a major shift for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers who may need to make changes to their clinical and business operations to meet new demands for quality under value-based contracts. This qualitative study was conducted in the context of New York State's efforts to implement VBP among SUD treatment providers to understand their experiences, challenges, and needs. Five focus groups were conducted across the State with a total of 68 treatment professionals. Content analysis was conducted and five themes emerged. First, competing demands, limited workforce and technology infrastructure, and perceived lack of information were leading to overwhelmed administrators. Second, confusion and financial fear was being driven by the need for new clinical roles, business practices, and external partnerships. Third, providers were undertaking a number of measures to address workforce needs. Fourth, providers were building new business models and clinical practices. Fifth, providers desired more support and information. As VBP models are being adopted, healthcare systems should identify ways to mitigate challenges and support SUD treatment providers that may have limited resources to address complex workforce, client, and infrastructure needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]