Search

Although evidence supports the benefits of continuity of care after detoxification (detox), especially when continuity of care occurs within a short time after discharge from a detox episode, the rate of clients engaging in continued treatment after detox remains low. The goal of the study was to develop and deploy a specially trained workforce, called recovery support navigators (RSNs), to increase the likelihood of clients continuing onto treatment after detox. Continuity of care is defined as receiving any substance use disorder (SUD) treatment service within 14 days of discharge from the index detox. We examined whether clients in the RSN intervention group were more likely to meet the continuity of care after detox criteria than clients in the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group. A quasi-experimental intervention versus comparison group study was conducted. Data were from the Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership (MBHP), a Beacon Health Options Company that manages behavioral health benefits for a subset of Medicaid beneficiaries in the state. Inclusion in the analytic sample (N = 4236) required that the client's index admission to detox was between 3/29/13 and 3/31/15. RSN intervention versus treatment as usual status was assigned based on provider organization where the index detox occurred. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. Overall, the continuity of care rate across all study groups was 42%. The rate by study group was 38% for the TAU and 45% for the RSN group. Clients who were in the RSN group were significantly more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox than those in the TAU (OR = 1.233, p Clients who entered detox at a site that provided specialized training to recovery support navigators, which included motivational interviewing and educational sessions related to treatment issues, and allowing them to bill with a flexible daily case rate instead of the usual fee-for-service billing, were more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detox compared to clients in the treatment-as-usual group.

Background Acute 24-h detoxification services (detox) are necessary but insufficient for many individuals working towards long-term recovery from opiate, alcohol or other drug addiction. Longer engagement in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment can lead to better health outcomes and reductions in overall healthcare costs. Connecting individuals with post-detox SUD treatment and supportive services is a vital next step. Toward this end, the Massachusetts Medicaid program reimburses Community Support Program staff (CSPs) to facilitate these connections. CSP support services are typically paid on a units-of-service basis. As part of a larger study testing health care innovations, one large Medicaid insurer developed a new cadre of workers, called Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs). RSNs performed similar tasks to CSPs but received more extensive training and coaching and were paid an experimental case rate (a flat negotiated reimbursement). This sub-study evaluates the feasibility and impact of case rate payments for RSN services as compared to CSP services paid fee-for-service. Methods We analyzed claims data and RSN service data for a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population who had more than one detox admission in the last year and also engaged in post-discharge CSP or RSN services. Qualitative data from key informant interviews and Learning Collaboratives with CSPs and RSNs supplemented the findings. Results Clients receiving RSN services under the case rate utilized the service significantly longer than clients receiving CSP services under unit-based billing. This resulted in a lower average cost per member per month for RSN clients. However, when calculating total SUD treatment costs per member, RSN client costs were 50% higher than CSP client costs. Provider organizations employing RSNs successfully implemented case rate billing. Benefits included allowing time for outreach efforts and training and coaching, activities not paid under the unit-based system. Yet, RSNs identified staffing and larger systems level challenges to consider when using a case rate payment model. Conclusions Addiction is a chronic disease that requires long-term investments. Case rate billing offers a promising option for payers and providers as it promotes continued engagement with service providers. To fully realize the benefits of case rate billing, however, larger systems level changes are needed.

Background Successful medication management for bipolar disorder requires clinicians to monitor and adjust regimens as needed, to achieve maximum effectiveness and patient adherence. This study aims to measure the prevalence of indications for medication adjustment at visits for bipolar disorder treatment; the frequency with which physicians recommend medication adjustments; and how strongly the indications predict the adjustments. Methods Data included 3,094 visits for 457 patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a comparative effectiveness study that compared treatment with lithium versus quetiapine. A set of indications for adjustment was matched to reports of whether the physician recommended a medication adjustment at that visit, and what type. Associations between indication and adjustment were examined using bivariate tests and hierarchical logistic mixed effects models. Results Medication adjustment was recommended at 63% of the visits where one of the indications was present, and at 53% of all visits. In multivariable analyses, adjustment was more likely to be recommended if there was an indication of non-response or side effects, for patients who started on quetiapine rather than lithium, or for patients who were female, married, employed or more educated. Limitations The study's cross-sectional design implies that observed associations could result from confounding variables. Also, the CHOICE trial placed certain restrictions on physicians’ medication choices, although this is not likely to have resulted in major alterations of prescribing patterns. Conclusions Clinical inertia may help explain the lack of any adjustment recommendation at 37% of the visits where one of the indications was present. Other explanations could also apply, such as watchful waiting.

Background: Unhealthy drug use is a concern in many settings, including military and veteran populations. In 2013, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center in Bedford, Massachusetts, started requiring routine screening for unhealthy drug use in outpatient primary care and mental health settings, using a validated single question. Methods: This study used descriptive and multivariable analyses of VHA electronic records for patients eligible for the screening program ( N = 16,118). The study assessed first-year rates and predictors of screening and of positive screens, both for drug use and for unhealthy alcohol use, for which screening was already required. Results: During the first year, 70% of patients were screened for unhealthy drug use and 84% were screened for unhealthy alcohol use. In multivariable analyses, screening for drug use was more likely for patients who had 8 or more days with VHA visits or were aged 40 or over. Patients with a prior drug use disorder diagnosis were much less likely to be screened. Three percent of patients screened for unhealthy drug use had a positive screen, and 14% of those screened for unhealthy alcohol use had a positive screen. Strong predictors of a positive drug use screen included a prior-year diagnosis of drug use disorder, any mental health clinic visits, younger age, or being unmarried. Conclusions: The drug screening initiative was relatively successful in its first-year implementation, having screened 70% of eligible subjects. However, it failed to screen many of those most likely to screen positive, thereby missing many opportunities to address unhealthy drug use. Future refinements should include better training clinicians in how to ask sensitive questions and how to address positive screens.

Health plan policies can influence delivery of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. This study provides national estimates for the prevalence of practices used by health plans that may support behavioral health integration. Results indicate that health plans employ financing and other policies likely to support integration. They also directly provide services that facilitate integration. Behavioral health contracting arrangements are associated with use of these policies. Delivery of integrated care requires systemic changes by both providers and payers thus health plans are key players in achieving this goal.

Health plans play a key role in facilitating improvements in population health and may engage in activities that have an impact on access, cost, and quality of behavioral health care. Although behavioral health care is becoming more integrated with general medical care, its delivery system has unique aspects. The study examined how health plans deliver and manage behavioral health care in the context of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). This is a critical time to examine how health plans manage behavioral health care.A nationally representative survey of private health plans (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate) was conducted in 2010 during the first year of MHPAEA, when plans were subject to the law but before final regulations, and just before the ACA went into effect. The survey addressed behavioral health coverage, cost-sharing, contracting arrangements, medical home innovations, support for technology, and financial incentives to improve behavioral health care.Coverage for inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services was stable between 2003 and 2010. In 2010, health plans were more likely than in 2003 to manage behavioral health care through internal arrangements and to contract for other services. Medical home initiatives were common and almost always included behavioral health, but financial incentives did not. Some plans facilitated providers' use of technology to improve care delivery, but this was not the norm.Health plans are key to mainstreaming and supporting delivery of high-quality behavioral health services. Since 2003, plans have made changes to support delivery of behavioral health services in the context of a rapidly changing environment.

In 2008, the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) passed, prohibiting U.S. health plans from subjecting mental health and substance use disorder (behavioral health) coverage to more restrictive limitations than those applied to general medical care. This require d some health plans to make changes in coverage and management of services. The aim of this study was to examine private health plans' early responses to MHPAEA (after its 2010 implementation), in terms of both intended and unintended effects.Data were from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans regarding the 2010 benefit year and the preparity 2009 benefit year (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate).Annual limits specific to behavioral health care were virtually eliminated between 2009 and 2010. Prevalence of behavioral health coverage was unchanged, and copayments for both behavioral and general medical services increased slightly. Prior authorization requirements for specialty medical and behavioral health outpatient services continued to decline, and the proportion of products reporting strict continuing review requirements increased slightly. Contrary to expectations, plans did not make significant changes in contracting arrangements for behavioral health services, and 80% reported an increase in size of their behavioral health provider network.The law had the intended effect of eliminating quantitative limitations that applied only to behavioral health care without unintended consequences such as eliminating behavioral health coverage. Plan decisions may also reflect other factors, including anticipation of the 2010 regulations and a continuation of trends away from requiring prior authorization.

Little is known about the rates and predictors of substance use treatment received in the Military Health System among Army soldiers diagnosed with a postdeployment substance use disorder (SUD). We used data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat study to determine the proportion of active duty (n = 338,708) and National Guard/Reserve (n = 178,801) enlisted soldiers returning from an Afghanistan/Iraq deployment in fiscal years 2008 to 2011 who had an SUD diagnosis in the first 150 days postdeployment. Among soldiers diagnosed with an SUD, we examined the rates and predictors of substance use treatment initiation and engagement according to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set criteria. In the first 150 days postdeployment 3.3% of active duty soldiers and 1.0% of National Guard/Reserve soldiers were diagnosed with an SUD. Active duty soldiers were more likely to initiate and engage in substance use treatment than National Guard/Reserve soldiers, yet overall, engagement rates were low (25.0% and 15.7%, respectively). Soldiers were more likely to engage in treatment if they received their index diagnosis in a specialty behavioral health setting. Efforts to improve substance use treatment in the Military Health System should include initiatives to more accurately identify soldiers with undiagnosed SUD. Suggestions to improve substance use treatment engagement in the Military Health System will be discussed.

Many clients with substance use disorders (SUD) have multiple admissions to a 24-hour level of care for detoxification without ever progressing to SUD treatment. In the US, health insurers have become concerned about the high costs and ineffective results of repeat detox admissions. For other diseases, health systems increasingly target high-risk, high-cost patients with individually tailored interventions delivered by `navigators' who help patients negotiate the complex health care system. Patient incentives are another increasingly common intervention.(i) To examine how health care spending was affected by an intervention intended to improve entry to SUD treatment among clients who had multiple detox admissions. (ii) To see whether spending effects, overall and by type of service, differed by intervention arm. (iii) To assess whether the intervention resulted in net savings from the payer perspective, after subtracting implementation costs.The intervention was implemented in a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population, and used Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs) who were trained to effectively engage and connect clients with SUD to follow-up care and community resources. Services were funded using a flat daily rate per client. Additionally, in one of the two intervention arms, clients were offered successive incentive payments for meeting pre-specified milestones to reinforce recovery-oriented behaviors. For this paper, multivariate analyses of claims and administrative data were used to measure the intervention's effect on health care spending, and to estimate net savings to the payer.Health care spending grew 1.6 percentage points more slowly for intervention-enrolled members than for others, implying gross savings of $68 per member per month. After subtracting intervention-related costs, net savings were estimated at $57 per member per month. The intervention was also associated with shifts in the health care service mix from more to less acute settings.While the results for total spending did not reach statistical significance, they suggest some potential for insurers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox utilization by using a navigator-based intervention. Analyses reported elsewhere found that this intervention had favorable effects on rates of initiation of SUD treatment. Limitations of the study include the fact that neither subjects nor sites were randomized between study groups; lack of data on crime or productivity outcomes; low participant use of RSN services; and a policy change which altered the participant pool and truncated follow-up for some.These results suggest some potential for payers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox by using a navigator-based intervention. To the extent that this results in shifting resources from repeat detox to actual treatment, the result should provide longer term benefit to the population coping with SUD.These results may encourage Medicaid and other payers to further experiment with similar interventions using navigators to decrease health care costs and improved the lives of SUD patients.It could be informative to test similar navigator interventions for detox patients in other settings where enrollment periods are longer.

This study examined private health plans' arrangements for accessing and continuing specialty behavioral health treatment in 2010 as federal health reforms were being implemented. These management practices have historically been stricter in behavioral health care than in general medical care; however, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2010 required parity in management policies.The data source was a nationally representative survey of private health plans' behavioral health treatment management approaches in 2010. Health plan executives were asked about activities for their plan's three products with highest enrollment (weighted N=8,427, 88% response rate).Prior authorization for outpatient behavioral health care was rarely required (4.7% of products), but 75% of products required authorization for ongoing care and over 90% required prior authorization for other levels of care. The most common medical necessity criteria were self-developed and American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria. Nearly all products had formal standards to limit waiting time for routine and urgent treatment, but almost 30% lacked such standards for detoxification services. A range of wait time-monitoring approaches was used.Health plans used a variety of methods to influence behavioral health treatment entry and continuing care. Few relied on prior authorization for outpatient care, but the use of other approaches to influence, manage, or facilitate access was common. Results provide a baseline for understanding the current management environment for specialty behavioral health care. Tracking health plans' approaches over time will be important to ensure that access to behavioral health care is not prohibitively restrictive.

Background Clinical inertia has been defined as lack of change in medication treatment at visits where a medication adjustment appears to be indicated. This paper seeks to identify the extent of clinical inertia in medication treatment of bipolar disorder. A second goal is to identify patient characteristics that predict this treatment pattern. Method Data describe 23,406 visits made by 1815 patients treated for bipolar disorder during the STEP-BD practical clinical trial. Visits were classified in terms of whether a medication adjustment appears to be indicated, and also whether or not one occurred. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to find which patient characteristics were predictive of whether adjustment occurred. Results 36% of visits showed at least 1 indication for adjustment. The most common indications were non-response to medication, side effects, and start of a new illness episode. Among visits with an indication for adjustment, no adjustment occurred 19% of the time, which may be suggestive of clinical inertia. In multivariable models, presence of any indication for medication adjustment was a predictor of receiving one (OR=1.125, 95% CI =1.015, 1.246), although not as strong as clinical status measures. Limitations The associations observed are not necessarily causal, given the study design. The data also lack information about physician-patient communication. Conclusions Many patients remained on the same medication regimen despite indications of side effects or non-response to treatment. Although lack of adjustment does not necessarily reflect clinical inertia in all cases, the reasons for this treatment pattern merit further examination.

Multiple detoxification admissions among clients with substance use disorders (SUD) are costly to the health care system. This study explored the impact on behavior and cost outcomes of recovery support navigator (RSN) services delivered with and without a contingent incentive intervention.New intakes at four detoxification programs were offered RSN-only (N=1116) or RSN plus incentive (RSN+I; N=1551) services. The study used a group-level cross-over design with the intervention in place at each clinic reversed halfway through the enrollment period. RSN+I clients could earn up to $240 in gift cards for accomplishing 12 different recovery-oriented target behaviors. All eligible clients entering the detoxification programs were included in the analyses, regardless of actual service use.Among RSN+I clients, 35.5% accessed any RSN services compared to 22.3% in the RSN-only group (p.01). Of RSN+I clients, 19% earned one, 12% earned two and 18% earned three or more incentives; 51% did not earn any incentives. The majority of incentives earned were for meeting with the RSN either during or after detoxification. Adjusted average monthly health care costs among clients in the RSN-only and RSN+I groups increased at a similar rate over 12 months post-detoxification.Possible explanations for limited uptake of the incentive program discussed include features of the incentive program itself, navigator-client communication, organizational barriers and navigator bias. The findings provide lessons to consider for future design and implementation of multi-target contingency management interventions in real-world settings.

Contracts between health plans and managed behavioral health care organizations (MBHOs) influence access and quality of behavioral health care. This report presents information on performance requirements, information sharing, and financial risk from a nationally representative survey of private health plans. Most contracts include geographic access to providers (93.3%) and NCQA’s performance standards (84.2%). Health plans and MBHOs share data (99.0%), generally by the MBHO sending information to the health plan (96.3%). About a quarter of contracts impose financial penalties (23.0%), but few include incentives related to performance standards (

Private health insurance plays a large role in the U.S. health system, including for many individuals with depression. Private insurers have been actively trying to influence pharmaceutical utilization and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients' access to antidepressant medications.To report which approaches (e.g., tiered copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) commercial health plans are employing to manage newer antidepressant medications, and how the use of these approaches has changed since 2003.Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of six branded antidepressant medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and if so, on what copayment tier, and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics.Less than 1% of health plan products excluded any of the six antidepressants studied. Medications were more likely to be subjected to restrictions if they were newer, more expensive or were reformulations. 55% of products used placement on a high cost-sharing tier (3 or 4) as their only form of restriction for newer branded antidepressants. This proportion was lower than in 2003, when 71% of products took this approach. In addition, only 2% of products left all the newer branded medications unrestricted, down from 25% in 2003. Multivariate analysis indicated that preferred provider organizations were more likely than other product types to use tier 3 or 4 placement.We find that U.S. health plans are using a variety of strategies to manage cost and utilization of newer branded antidepressant medications. Plans appear to be finding that approaches other than exclusion are adequate to meet their cost-management goals for newer branded antidepressants, although they have increased their use of administrative restrictions since 2003. Limitations include lack of information about how administrative restrictions were applied in practice, information on only six medications, and some potential for endogeneity bias in the regression analyses.This study has documented substantial use of various restrictions on access to newer branded antidepressants in U.S. commercial health plans. Most of these medications had generic equivalents that offered at least some substitutability, reducing access concerns. At the same time, it is worth noting that high copayments and administrative requirements can nonetheless be burdensome for some patients.Health plans' pharmacy management approaches may concern policymakers less than in the early 2000s, due to the lesser distinctiveness of today's branded medications. This may change depending on future drug introductions.Future research should examine the impact of plans' pharmacy management approaches, using patient-level data.

Employee assistance programs (EAPs) address issues affecting work performance and well-being. Among other services, EAPs may offer information and referral, problem assessment, and/or short-term counseling, without cost-sharing. Studies show positive EAP outcomes, although methodological limitations necessitate additional research (1). Health plans are among the vendors selling EAPs to employers but data on these EAPs are sparse. These data come from a 2010 nationally representative survey of private health plans in 60 markets. 389 market-area-specific plans (89% response) reported on behavioral health services in 939 insurance products (2). Executive directors or designees reported on EAPs offered as part of their three largest commercial products. The analysis includes 200 products (from 72 plans) reporting EAPs. Most products required that purchasers pay additional fees rather than including EAP without charge in standard packages (Figure 1). Only 12.4% of products contracted with an EAP vendor outside the plan. Although 36.2%recommended enrollees use EAP before accessing behavioral health benefits, only 4.0% required this. Figure 1 Features of Private Health Plans' Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) Offered as Part of Health Insurance Product, 2010 Almost 45% of products with EAPs covered clinical assessment. Nearly all covered in-person and telephonic counseling. None covered Web-based counseling. Almost all products providing information on benefit limits reported a limit. All reporting per-year limits reported 8-session limits (data not shown). 77.5% of products with per-problem limits had 5-session limits; the remainder had 6-session limits. Study limitations include the focus on assessment and counseling, not all services. Also, EAPs not viewed by plans as part of insurance products are excluded. These health plan EAPs typically offer assessment/short-term counseling. Ensuring benefit awareness and encouraging utilization are essential. Stakeholders concerned with differences between “free” and separately-purchased EAPs will be interested that many EAPs are included in standard packages (3). The generally optional nature of EAPs aligns with federal regulations for the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act; EAP cannot be a required gateway to behavioral health care unless also required for medical services. Quantitative EAP limits are also consistent with parity. Parity-related guidance indicates that, at least through 2014, EAPs are not subject to parity unless they provide “significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.” Proposed excepted-benefits regulations would extend this exception and add other criteria.

in various HAP studies. This will begin to elucidate and define the recreation drug user population based on the number of criteria as well as the nature of the criteria endorsed on the DSM-IV-TR. In the interim,we caution against adoptingDSM5 criteria as exclusionary criteria for substance use disorders in HAP studies as additional research will be needed to develop valid criteria utilizing DSM 5 criteria to define this population. Financial support: No.