Literature Collection

The US government funds integrated care demonstration projects to decrease health disparities for individuals with serious mental illness. Drawing on the Exploration Preparation Implementation Sustainability (EPIS) implementation framework, this case study of a community mental health clinic describes implementation barriers and sustainability challenges with grant-funded integrated care. Findings demonstrate that integrated care practices evolve during implementation and the following factors influenced sustainability: workforce rigidity, intervention clarity, policy and funding congruence between the agency and state/federal regulations, on-going support and training in practice application, and professional institutions. Implementation strategies for primary care integration within CMHCs include creating a flexible workforce, shared definition of integrated care, policy and funding congruence, and on-going support and training.

The purpose of this study was to compare the utilization of primary care services and presence of mental health disorder diagnoses among children in foster care to children on Medicaid not in foster care in a large health system. The data for this study were analyzed from a clinical database of a multipractice pediatric health system in Houston, Texas. The sample included more than 95 000 children covered by Medicaid who had at least one primary care visit during the 2-year study period. The results of the study demonstrated that children not in foster care had a greater number of primary care visits and the odds of having >3 visits were significantly lower for children in foster care with a mental health disorder diagnosis. Additionally, more than a quarter of children in foster care had a diagnosis of a mental health disorder, compared with 15% of children not in foster care.

To address the high demand for youth anxiety treatment, researchers have begun to evaluate stepped care approaches to use limited resources efficiently. Quantifying cost savings can inform policy decisions about optimal ways to use limited resources. This study presents a cost analysis of a stepped care treatment approach for anxiety disorders in youth. Youths (N = 112) completed an 8-session computer-administered attention bias modification treatment (Step 1), and families were given the option to "step up" to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; Step 2). Stepped care treatment cost estimates were based on (a) resources used in treatment (i.e., clinician/paraprofessional time, equipment/materials) and (b) Medicaid reimbursement rates for clinician and paraprofessional time. We compared these two cost estimates with a hypothetical standard treatment approach for youth anxiety disorders: CBT only. We also tested predictive models to determine whether they could guide decisions about which youths, based on baseline characteristics, should be assigned to stepped care or directly to CBT only to avoid the costs associated with Step 1. Compared to a hypothetical standard CBT approach, the stepped care treatment was associated with an overall cost savings of 44.4% for the Medicaid reimbursement model and 47.7% for the resource cost model. The predictive models indicated that assigning all youths to stepped care would be more cost-effective than assigning certain youths directly to CBT only. This study provides the first evidence that a stepped care treatment approach for youth anxiety is associated with substantial cost savings compared with a standard CBT.

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.