Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that medications for treating opioid use disorder (MOUD) -namely buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone-are effective at treating opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing associated harms. However, MOUDs are heavily underutilized, largely due to the under-supply of providers trained and willing to prescribe the medications. METHODS: To understand comparative beliefs about MOUD and barriers to MOUD, we conducted a mixed-methods study that involved focus group interviews and an online survey disseminated to a random group of licensed U.S. physicians, which oversampled physicians with a preexisting waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Focus group results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. RESULTS: Study findings suggest that physicians have higher perceptions of efficacy for methadone and buprenorphine than for extended-release naltrexone, including for patients with co-occurring mental health disorders. Insurance obstacles, such as prior authorization requirements, were the most commonly cited barrier to prescribing buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. Regulatory barriers, such as the training required to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, were not considered significant barriers by many physicians to prescribing buprenorphine and naltrexone in office-based settings. Nor did physicians perceive diversion to be a prominent barrier to prescribing buprenorphine. In focus groups, physicians identified financial, logistical, and workforce barriers-such as a lack of addiction treatment specialists-as additional barriers to prescribing medications to treat OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Additional education is needed for physicians regarding the comparative efficacy of different OUD medications. Governmental policies should mandate full insurance coverage of and prohibit prior authorization requirements for OUD medications.

Behavioral health problems are involved in the majority of primary care visits. These behavior disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, smoking, insomnia, etc.) are costly, burdensome to both the patient and the healthcare system, and result in greater medical utilization/cost and poorer future health outcomes. Integrated behavioral healthcare has been proposed as a model for more efficiently addressing the burden of behavioral health problems. While this model has demonstrated some promise in the treatment of behavioral health problems, as well as in the reduction in costs and improvement in healthcare outcomes, the primary prevention of behavioral health problems in this delivery model has been relatively neglected. The present paper discusses the potential value of incorporating the prevention of behavioral health problems into the annual physical/wellness checkup and proposes a detailed system for how this might be accomplished. Limitations, future research, and costs associated with increased prevention in a primary care context are discussed.

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an innovative video telehealth program called Virtual Integrated Multisite Patient Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) in fiscal year (FY) 2014. V-IMPACT set up one regional "hub" site where primary care (PC) teams provided regular PC through telehealth services to patients in outlying "spoke" sites that experienced gaps in provider coverage. We evaluated associations between clinic-level adoption of V-IMPACT and patients' utilization and VHA's costs for primary, emergency, and inpatient care. Materials and Methods: This observational study used repeated cross-sections of 208,612 unique veteran patients assigned to a PC team in 22 V-IMPACT spoke sites from FY2013 to FY2018. V-IMPACT adoption in a spoke site was indicated if more than 1% of patients assigned to PC in a site used V-IMPACT services during the year. Association between V-IMPACT adoption and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects models. Results: V-IMPACT adoption was associated with increased telehealth visits for PC (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.42 [1.29 to 4.55]) and for primary care mental health integration (IRR = 7.25 [2.69 to 19.54]). V-IMPACT adoption was not associated with in-person visits, or with total visits (in-person plus video telehealth). V-IMPACT adoption was also not associated with acute hospital stays, emergency department visits, or VHA costs. Conclusions: Programs such as VHA's V-IMPACT can increase telehealth visits for PC, allowing successful transition across modalities and facilitating continuity of care without impacting total care. Programs should track substitution of in-person visits with telehealth visits and examine its effects on patients' health outcomes, satisfaction, and travel costs.