Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) but remain underutilized. To reduce barriers to MOUD prescribing and increase treatment access, New Jersey's Medicaid program implemented the Office-Based Addiction Treatment (OBAT) Program in 2019, which increased reimbursement for office-based buprenorphine prescribing and established newly reimbursable patient navigation services in OBAT clinics. Using a mixed-methods design, this study aimed to describe stakeholder experiences with the OBAT program and to assess implementation and uptake of the program. METHODS: This study used a concurrent, triangulated mixed-methods design, which integrated complementary qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative (Medicaid claims) data to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of the OBAT program. We elicited stakeholder perspectives through interviews with 22 NJ Medicaid MOUD providers and 8 policy key informants, and examined trends in OBAT program utilization using 2019-2020 NJ Medicaid claims for 5380 Medicaid enrollees who used OBAT services. We used cross-case analysis (provider interviews) and a case study approach (key informant interviews) in analyzing qualitative data, and calculated descriptive statistics and trends for quantitative data. RESULTS: Provider enrollment and utilization of OBAT services increased steadily during the first two years of program implementation. Interviewees reported that enhanced reimbursements for office-based MOUD incentivized greater MOUD prescribing, while coverage of patient navigation services improved patient care. Despite increasing enrollment in the OBAT program, the proportion of primary care physicians in the state who enrolled in the program remained limited. Key barriers to enrollment included: requirements for a patient navigator; concerns about administrative burdens and reimbursement delays from Medicaid; lack of awareness of the program; and beliefs that patients with OUD were better served in comprehensive care settings. Patient navigation was highlighted as a critical and valuable element of the program, but navigator enrollment and reimbursement challenges may have prevented greater uptake of this service. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an OBAT model that enhanced reimbursement and provided coverage for patient navigation likely expanded access to MOUD in NJ. Results support initiatives like the OBAT program in improving access to MOUD, but program adaptations, where feasible, could improve uptake and utilization.

Integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) models in primary care are positioned to address the unmet needs of traditional behavioral health models. However, research support is limited to specific populations, settings, and behavioral health conditions. Empirical evidence is lacking for expansion to larger health systems and diverse behavioral health conditions. This study examines perspectives on IBHC implementation in a large medical center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 health providers and administrators in two primary care clinics with IBHC. Thematic analysis demonstrated that participants had an overall favorable perception of IBHC, but also perceived implementation challenges, including difficulties with access, underutilization, team dynamics, and financial and interdepartmental issues. The findings suggest that IBHC implementation barriers in existing large health systems risk diminishing potential benefits and successful adoption. These barriers can be combated by incorporating systems change strategies into implementation frameworks, with a focus on barrier prevention and detection and long-term sustainability.

BACKGROUND: As an alternative to co-located integrated care, off-site integration (partnerships between primary care and non-embedded specialty mental health providers) can address the growing need for pediatric mental health services. Our goal is to review the existing literature on implementing off-site pediatric integrated care. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for peer-reviewed publications on off-site pediatric integrated care interventions. We included studies that involved systematic data collection and analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, of implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability). RESULTS: We found 39 original articles from 24 off-site programs with a variety of study designs, most with secondary implementation outcomes. Models of off-site integration varied primarily along two dimensions: direct vs. indirect, and in-person vs. remote. Overall, off-site models were acceptable to providers, particularly when the following were present: strong interdisciplinary communication, timely availability and reliability of services, additional support beyond one-time consultation, and standardized care algorithms. Adoption and penetration were facilitated by enhanced program visibility, including on-site champions. Certain clinical populations (e.g., school-age, less complicated ADHD) seemed more amenable to off-site integrated models than others (e.g., preschool-age, conduct disorders). Lack of funding and inadequate reimbursement limited sustainability in all models. CONCLUSIONS: Off-site interventions are feasible, acceptable, and often adopted widely with adequate planning, administrative support, and interprofessional communication. Studies that focus primarily on implementation and that consider the perspectives of specialty providers and patients are needed.