Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: This study examined factors related to retention in buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) among privately insured patients. METHODS: Patients with OUD who were newly started on buprenorphine during federal fiscal year (FY) 2011 were identified in a national private insurance claims database (MarketScan), and treatment retention (filled buprenorphine prescriptions) was evaluated through FY 2014. Proportional hazards models were used to examine demographic, clinical, and service use characteristics in FY 2011, including ongoing insurance coverage, associated with discontinuation of treatment. RESULTS: Of 16,190 patients with OUD newly started on buprenorphine in FY 2011, 45.0% were retained in treatment for more than one year, and 13.7% for more than three years (mean+/-SD duration of retention=1.23+/-1.16 years). During the first three years after buprenorphine initiation, 49.3% (N=7,988) disenrolled from their insurance plan. Cox proportional hazards models showed that for every 30 days of enrollment, the risk of discontinuation declined by 10% (hazard ratio [HR]=.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.90-.91). FY 2011 factors reducing discontinuation risk were age greater than the median (HR=.90, CI=.87-.93) and receipt of outpatient psychotherapy (HR=.90, CI=.86-.92); increased risk was associated with psychiatric hospitalization (HR=1.30, CI=1.24-1.36), emergency department visits (HR=1.07, CI=1.04-1.14), and additional substance use disorders (HR=1.05, CI=1.01-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine treatment retention declined markedly in the first year and was substantially lower than in comparable studies from publicly funded health care systems, apparently largely due to disenrollment. The association of psychotherapy with greater retention suggests that it may be an important complement to opioid agonist treatment.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

To support effective implementation of these strategies in practices throughout the country--including the identification of barriers and challenges--this case study examines the redesign of the New Mexico Cancer Center (NMCC) as one example of how a group of clinicians can implement change. This case study will focus on the care redesign model and potential payment reform options to sustain improvements at NMCC. With the aim to support the education of a clinical audience regarding how care innovations can be aligned with alternative payment models, this case will answer the following questions: What challenges or problems encouraged the organization to redesign cancer care? How did NMCC redesign care to improve quality, enhance the patient experience, and reduce costs? How can an organization prove they are improving quality and contract with a payer to maintain sustainability? How can alternative payment models sustain a community oncology medical home?