Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Mental health diagnoses (MHD) are common among those with opioid use disorders (OUD). Methadone/buprenorphine are effective medication-assisted treatment (MAT) strategies; however, treatment receipt is low among those with dual MHDs. Medicaid expansions have broadly increased access to OUD and mental health services over time, but MAT uptake may vary depending on multiple factors, including MHD status, state Medicaid expansion decisions, and race/ethnicity and gender. Examining clinical and policy approaches to promoting MAT uptake may improve services among marginalized groups. METHODS: MAT treatment discharges were identified using the Treatment Episodes Dataset-Discharges (TEDS-D; 2014-2017) (n = 1,400,808). We used multivariate logistic regression to model MAT receipt using interactions and adjusted for several potential confounders. RESULTS: Nearly one-third of OUD treatment discharges received MAT. Dual MHDs in both expansion and non-expansion states were positively associated with MAT uptake over time. Dual MHDs were negatively associated with MAT receipt only among American Indian/Alaska Native women residing in Medicaid expansion states (aOR = 0.58, 95 % CI = 0.52-0.66, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in MAT utilization are nuanced and vary widely depending on dual MHD status, Medicaid expansion, and race/ethnicity/gender. Medicaid is beneficial but not a universal treatment panacea. Clinical decisions to initiate MAT are dependent on multiple factors and should be tailored to meet the needs of high-risk, historically disadvantaged clients.

BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY RESULTS: Successful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes. CONCLUSIONS: With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.