Costs of care for persons with opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems

BACKGROUND: When used in general medical practices, buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid dependence, yet little is known about how use of buprenorphine affects the utilization and cost of health care in commercial health systems. METHODS: The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine how buprenorphine affects patterns of medical care, addiction medicine services, and costs from the health system perspective. Individuals with two or more opioid-dependence diagnoses per year, in two large health systems (System A: n = 1836; System B: n = 4204) over the time span 2007–2008 were included. Propensity scores were used to help adjust for group differences. RESULTS: Patients receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling had significantly lower total health care costs than patients with little or no addiction treatment (mean health care costs with buprenorphine treatment = $13,578; vs. mean health care costs with no addiction treatment =$31,055; p < .0001), while those receiving buprenorphine plus addiction counseling and those with addiction counseling only did not differ significantly in total health care costs (mean costs with counseling only: $17,017; p = .5897). In comparison to patients receiving buprenorphine plus counseling, those with little or no addiction treatment had significantly greater use of primary care (p < .001), other medical visits (p = .001), and emergency services (p = .020). Patients with counseling only (compared to patients with buprenorphine plus counseling) used less inpatient detoxification (p < .001), and had significantly more PC visits (p = .001), other medical visits (p = .005), and mental health visits (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is a viable alternative to other treatment approaches for opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems, with total costs of health care similar to abstinence-based counseling. Patients with buprenorphine plus counseling had reduced use of general medical services compared to the alternatives

New systems of care for substance use disorders: treatment, finance, and technology under health care reform

This article outlined ways in which persons with addiction are currently underserved by our current health care system. However, with the coming broad scale reforms to our health care system, the access to and availability of high-quality care for substance use disorders will increase. Addiction treatments will continue to be offered through traditional substance abuse care systems, but these will be more integrated with primary care, and less separated as treatment facilities leverage opportunities to blend services, financing mechanisms, and health information systems under federally driven incentive programs. To further these reforms, vigilance will be needed by consumers, clinicians, and policy makers to assure that the unmet treatment needs of individuals with addiction are addressed. Embedded in this article are essential recommendations to facilitate the improvement of care for substance use disorders under health care reform. Ultimately, as addiction care acquires more of the look and feel of mainstream medicine, it is important to be mindful of preexisting trends in health care delivery overall that are reflected in recent health reform legislation. Within the world of addiction care, clinicians must move beyond their self-imposed stigmatization and sequestration of specialty addiction treatment. The problem for addiction care, as it becomes more mainstream, is to not comfortably feel that general slogans like Treatment Works, as promoted by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration\u27s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment during its annual Recovery Month celebrations, will meet the expectations of stakeholders outside the specialty addiction treatment community. Rather, the problem is to show exactly how addiction treatment works, and to what extent it works-there have to be metrics showing changes in symptom level or functional outcome, changes in health care utilization, improvements in workplace attendance and productivity, or other measures. At minimum, clinicians will be required to demonstrate that their new systems of care and future clinical activity are in conformance with overall standards of best practice in health care

A qualitative study of the adoption of buprenorphine for opioid addiction treatment.

Qualified physicians may prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid dependence, but medication use remains controversial. We examined adoption of buprenorphine in two not-for-profit integrated health plans, over time, completing 101 semi-structured interviews with clinicians and clinician-administrators from primary and specialty care. Transcripts were reviewed, coded, and analyzed. A strong leader championing the new treatment was critical for adoption in both health plans. Once clinicians began using buprenorphine, patients' and other clinicians' experiences affected decisions more than did the champion. With experience, protocols developed to manage unsuccessful patients and changed to support maintenance rather than detoxification. Diffusion outside addiction and mental health settings was nonexistent; primary care clinicians cited scope-of-practice issues and referred patients to specialty care. With greater diffusion came questions about long-term use and safety. Recognizing how implementation processes develop may suggest where, when, and how to best expend resources to increase adoption of such treatments

Examination of the Effects of an Intervention Aiming to Link Patients Receiving Addiction Treatment With Health Care: The LINKAGE Clinical Trial.

ImportanceResearch has shown that higher activation and engagement with health care is associated with better self-management. To our knowledge, the linkage intervention (LINKAGE) is the first to engage patients receiving addiction treatment with health care using the electronic health record and a patient activation approach.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of an intervention aiming to link patients receiving addiction treatment with health care.Design, setting, and participantsA nonrandomized clinical trial evaluating the LINKAGE intervention vs usual care by applying an alternating 3-month off-and-on design over 30 months. Participants were recruited from an outpatient addiction treatment clinic in a large health system between April 7, 2011, and October 2, 2013.InterventionsSix group-based, manual-guided sessions on patient engagement in health care and the use of health information technology resources in the electronic health record, as well as facilitated communication with physicians, vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes, measured at 6 months after enrollment, were patient activation (by interview using the Patient Activation Measure), patient engagement in health care (by interview and electronic health record), and alcohol, drug, and depression outcomes (by interview using the Addiction Severity Index for alcohol and drug outcomes and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) for depression).ResultsA total of 503 patients were recruited and assigned to the LINKAGE (n = 252) or usual care (n = 251) conditions, with no differences in baseline characteristics between conditions. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 42.5 (11.8) years, 31.0% (n = 156) were female, and 455 (90.5%) completed the 6-month interview. Compared with usual care participants, LINKAGE participants showed an increase in the mean number of log-in days (incidence rate ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.19-1.97; P = .001). Similar results were found across types of patient portal use (communicating by email, viewing laboratory test results and information, and obtaining medical advice). LINKAGE participants were more likely to talk with their physicians about addiction problems (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.52-3.49; P &lt; .001). Although 6-month abstinence rates were high for both conditions (≥70.0% for both) and depression symptoms improved (the proportion with scores ≥15 on the 9-item PHQ dropped from 15.1% [38 of 252] to 8.0% [18 of 225] among LINKAGE participants), there were no differences between conditions. Those who received all intervention components had significantly better alcohol and other drug outcomes than those who received fewer intervention components.Conclusions and relevanceFindings support the feasibility and effectiveness of the LINKAGE intervention in helping patients receiving addiction treatment engage in health care and increase communication with their physicians. The intervention did not affect short-term abstinence or depression outcomes. Understanding if the LINKAGE intervention helps prevent relapse and manage long-term recovery will be important.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01621711

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

BackgroundUnhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports.MethodsThe study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment.ResultsScreening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51&nbsp;%); followed by the PCP arm (9&nbsp;%) and the Control arm (3.5&nbsp;%). Screening increased over the 12&nbsp;months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44&nbsp;%) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4&nbsp;%) or the Control arm (2.7&nbsp;%). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm.ConclusionFindings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01135654

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

BackgroundUnhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports.MethodsThe study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment.ResultsScreening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51&nbsp;%); followed by the PCP arm (9&nbsp;%) and the Control arm (3.5&nbsp;%). Screening increased over the 12&nbsp;months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44&nbsp;%) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4&nbsp;%) or the Control arm (2.7&nbsp;%). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm.ConclusionFindings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01135654