Search

BackgroundAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have harmful, long-term health effects. Although primary care providers (PCPs) could help mitigate these effects, no studies have reviewed the impacts of ACE training, screening, and response in primary care.MethodsThis systematic review searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL) for peer-reviewed articles on ACE training, screening, and/or response in primary care published between Jan 1, 1998, and May 31, 2023. Searches were limited to primary research articles in the primary care setting that reported provider-related outcomes (knowledge, confidence, screening behavior, clinical care) and/or patient-related outcomes (satisfaction, referral engagement, health outcomes). Summary data were extracted from published reports.FindingsOf 6532 records, 58 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-two reported provider-related outcomes; 21 reported patient-related outcomes. 50 included pediatric populations, 12 included adults. A majority discussed screening interventions (n = 40). Equal numbers (n = 25) discussed training and clinical response interventions. Strength of evidence (SOE) was generally low, especially for adult studies. This was due to reliance on observational evidence, small samples, and self-report measures for heterogeneous outcomes. Exceptions with moderate SOE included the effect of training interventions on provider confidence/self-efficacy and the effect of screening interventions on screening uptake and patient satisfaction.InterpretationPrimary care represents a potentially strategic setting for addressing ACEs, but evidence on patient- and provider-related outcomes remains scarce.FundingThe California Department of Health Care Services and the Office of the California Surgeon General.

Background:Disease-modifying therapies benefit individuals with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, but their utility remains unclear for those without relapses. Objective:To determine disease-modifying therapy use and costs in 2009, compare use in 2009 and 2000, and examine compliance with evidence-based guidelines. Methods:We determined the extent and characteristics of disease-modifying therapy use by participants in the Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study (Slifka) in 2000 (n=2156) and 2009 (n=2361) and estimated out-of-pocket and total (payer) costs for 2009. Two multivariable logistic regressions predicted disease-modifying therapy use. Results:Disease-modifying therapy use increased from 55.3% in 2000 to 61.5% in 2009. In 2009, disease-modifying therapy use was reported by 76.5% of participants with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, 73.2% with progressive-relapsing multiple sclerosis, 62.5% with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, and 41.8% with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Use was significantly associated with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, shorter duration of illness, one to two relapses per year, non-ambulatory symptoms, using a cane, younger age, higher family income, and having health insurance. Average annual costs in 2009 were US$939-3101 for patients and US$16,302-18,928 for payers. Conclusion:Use rates were highest for individuals with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but substantial for those with progressive courses although clinical trials have not demonstrated significant benefits for them.

OBJECTIVES: Most Medicaid beneficiaries with hepatitis C virus (HCV) are not treated with direct-acting agents because of budget constraints, but they experience costly complications after becoming Medicare eligible. Maryland’s “total coverage” proposal could receive a credit from Medicare to offset Medicaid investments in treatments that could lead to Medicare savings. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of total coverage for HCV treatments sponsored by state Medicare and Medicaid. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov model simulated patients going through the care continuum of HCV. The model simulated 3 pathways: standard coverage with a 50% probability of screening for HCV and 20% probability of treatment; risk-stratified total coverage with assumed 80% probability of screening and 60% treatment rate; and total coverage with assumed 80% probability of screening and 100% treatment rate. METHODS: The model calculated US$ and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) to produce an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio evaluated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. The budget impact for the state of Maryland was calculated in terms of per member per year. RESULTS: Total coverage and risk-stratified coverage saved $158 per patient and $178 per patient, respectively, compared with standard care at an increased effectiveness of 0.05 and 0.02 QALYs over 25 years. Total coverage and risk-stratified total coverage would save $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, after 25 years. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare-Medicaid partnerships to pay for all HCV treatments today represent good value and a low budget impact. States with trouble covering HCV treatments should consider using this model to plan coverage decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform prescribing can promote equitable drug access from a utilitarian perspective. Some theorists of equity, such as Rawls or Powers and Faden, however, would not consider CEA as promoting equity, as they endorse nonutilitarian theories of equity. Novel advances in CEA methodology seek to integrate broader equity concerns but may raise transparency concerns. We argue that incorporating CEA into qualitative multi-criteria decision analysis to inform prescribing decisions could promote equity more effectively and transparently than using CEA alone. Such applications should be implemented, along with recommendations, at the health system level rather than be carried out by individual clinicians alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychiatric and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment beds are essential infrastructure for meeting the needs of individuals with behavioral health conditions. However, not all psychiatric and SUD beds are alike: They represent infrastructure within different types of facilities. For psychiatric beds, these vary from acute psychiatric hospitals to community residential facilities. For SUD treatment beds, these vary from facilities offering short-term withdrawal management services to others offering longer duration residential detoxification services. Different settings also serve clients with different needs. For example, some clients have high-acuity, short-term needs; others have longer-term needs and may return for care on multiple occasions. California's Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties, like other counties throughout the United States, have sought to assess shortages in psychiatric and SUD treatment beds. In this study, the authors estimated psychiatric bed and residential SUD treatment capacity, need, and shortages for adults and children and adolescents at various levels of care: acute, subacute, and community residential services for psychiatric treatment and SUD treatment service categories defined by American Society of Addiction Medicine clinical guidelines. Drawing from various data sets, literature review findings, and facility survey responses, the authors computed the number of beds required-at each level of care-for adults and children and adolescents and identified hard-to-place populations. The authors draw from these findings to offer Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties recommendations to help ensure all their residents, especially nonambulatory individuals, have access to the behavioral health care that they need., (Copyright © 2023 RAND Corporation.)