Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a public health crisis in the United States, but only 5% of US physicians have obtained a Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat OUD. Increasing the number of primary care physicians (PCPs) who have obtained the waiver and are able to treat patients with OUD is of utmost importance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multimodal educational intervention of PCPs is associated with an increase in the number of buprenorphine waivers obtained and patients initiated into treatment in a primary care setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement study was conducted in primary health care clinics within a large, integrated health care system. Patients included those who had received a diagnosis of OUD, and had Providence Health Plan Medicare or Medicaid insurance. Included PCPs were divided into 2 groups: those who obtained a DATA waiver after an education intervention (uptake PCPs) vs those who did not obtain a DATA waiver (nonuptake PCPs). The study took place between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Data analyses were conducted from December 2017 to August 2019. EXPOSURES: Multimodal educational intervention including video, in-person visits to clinical practitioner meetings by physician champions, and a primary care toolkit with training resources and clinic protocols. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number of new uptake clinics where at least 1 PCP obtained a DATA waiver, the number of new PCPs with DATA waivers, the number of patients receiving a buprenorphine prescription, and the number of patients who received 12 or more weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 41 invited clinics implemented the intervention, and 620 PCPs were included. The number of PCPs with DATA waivers increased from 5 PCPs (0.8%) to 44 PCPs (7.1%), and the number of clinics with at least 1 buprenorphine prescriber increased from 3 clinics (7.3%) to 17 clinics (41.5%). In total, 213 patients underwent buprenorphine treatment, and 140 patients received 12 or more weeks of treatment. A total of 646 patients had Providence Health Plan Medicare or Medicaid insurance and were eligible for the study (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [16.5] years; 410 [63.5%] women). There was a statistically significant difference in treatment with buprenorphine between patients with uptake PCPs vs patients with nonuptake PCPs (23 patients [16.4%] vs 18 patients [3.5%]; odds ratio, 4.61 [95% CI, 2.32-10.51]; P = .01) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this quality improvement study, an educational intervention was associated with an increase in the number of PCPs and clinics that could provide buprenorphine treatment for OUD and with an increase in the patients who were able to access care with medications for OUD.

IMPORTANCE: Health care spending in the United States continues to grow. Mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) are prevalent and associated with worse health outcomes and higher health care spending; alternative payment and delivery models (APMs) have the potential to facilitate higher quality, integrated, and more cost-effective MH/SUD care. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the published literature on populations and MH/SUD conditions examined by APM evaluations and the associations of APMs with MH/SUD outcomes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search of MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Business Source was conducted from January 1, 1997, to May 17, 2019, for publications examining APMs for MH/SUD services, assessing at least 1 MH/SUD outcome, and having a comparison group. A total of 27 articles met these criteria, and each was classified according to the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network's APM framework. Strength of evidence was graded using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. FINDINGS: The 27 included articles evaluated 17 APM implementations that spanned 3 Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network categories and 6 subcategories, with no single category predominating the literature. APMs varied with regard to their assessed outcomes, funding sources, target populations, and diagnostic focuses. The APMs were primarily evaluated on their associations with process-of-care measures (15 [88.2%]), followed by utilization (11 [64.7%]), spending (9 [52.9%]), and clinical outcomes (5 [29.4%]). Medicaid and publicly funded SUD programs were most common, with each representing 7 APMs (41.2%). Most APMs focused on adults (11 [64.7%]), while fewer (2 [11.8%]) targeted children or adolescents. More than half of the APMs (9 [52.9%]) targeted populations with SUD, while 4 (23.5%) targeted MH populations, and the rest targeted MH/SUD broadly defined. APMs were most commonly associated with improvements in MH/SUD process-of-care outcomes (12 of 15 [80.0%]), although they were also associated with lower spending (4 of 8 [50.0%]) and utilization (5 of 11 [45.5%]) outcomes, suggesting gains in value from APMs. However, clinical outcomes were rarely measured (5 APMs [29.4%]). A total of 8 APMs (47.1%) assessed for gaming (ie, falsification of outcomes because of APM incentives) and adverse selection, with 1 (12.5%) showing evidence of gaming and 3 (37.5%) showing evidence of adverse selection. Other than those assessing accountable care organizations, few studies included qualitative evaluations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, APMs were associated with improvements in process-of-care outcomes, reductions in MH/SUD utilization, and decreases in spending. However, these findings cannot fully substitute for assessments of clinical outcomes, which have rarely been evaluated in this context. Additionally, this systematic review identified some noteworthy evidence for gaming and adverse selection, although these outcomes have not always been duly measured or analyzed. Future research is needed to better understand the varied qualitative experiences across APMs, their successful components, and their associations with clinical outcomes among diverse populations and settings.

Elevated mental illness prevalence complicates efforts designed to address the opioid crisis in Appalachia. The recovery community acknowledges that loneliness impacts mood and engagement in care factors; however, the predictive relationship between loneliness and retention in medication-assisted outpatient treatment programs has not been explored. Our objectives were to identify associations between mental health factors and retention in treatment and elucidate treatment retention odds. Data were collected from eighty participants (n = 57 retained, n = 23 not retained) of a mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) intervention for individuals receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Appalachia. Loneliness, depression, and anxiety did not differ between the retained and not retained, nor did they predict not being retained; however, mindfulness was significantly lower among those not retained in treatment compared to those retained (OR = 0.956, 95% CI (0.912-1.00), and p < 0.05). Preliminary findings provide evidence for mindfulness training integration as part of effective treatment, with aims to further elucidate the effectiveness of mindfulness therapies on symptom reduction in co-occurring mental health disorders, loneliness, and MOUD treatment retention.

BACKGROUND: Lack of access to buprenorphine to treat Opioid Use Disorder is profound in rural areas where over half of small and remote rural counties have no buprenorphine prescriber. To increase prescribing, an online, Medication of Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Extensions for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) was developed that addressed known barriers to the startup and expansion of treatment. The objective of the present study was to determine the relationship between participating in MOUD ECHO sessions and prescribing of buprenorphine for OUD in rural primary care. METHODS: Using non-random, rolling-recruitment from Feb 2018 to October of 2021, all rural primary care clinics in New Mexico were contacted via phone call and fax to recruit providers (Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants) who had no or limited buprenorphine experience to enroll in this study. Participation in the MOUD ECHO was tracked across the 12 week series. Start-up and expansion of buprenorphine treatment was measured every 3 months for up to 2 years using 5 implementation benchmarks spanning training completion, obtaining licensure, prescribing and adding patients. Using a dose-response intention to treat type analysis, associations between number of sessions and benchmark achievement were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty providers were enrolled, mostly female (66%) white (82%), non-Hispanic (82%), and mostly nurse practitioners (51%) or MDs (38%). Achievement of prescribing benchmarks at 6 months was significantly increased by attendance at MOUD ECHO sessions including obtaining training and licensure Odds Ratio (OR = 1.24; P = .001); starting to prescribe (OR = 1.31; P = .004), and adding patients (OR = 1.14; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides compelling evidence that MOUD ECHO participation may significantly increase the number of providers implementing this treatment and adding patients onto their panels. The dose-response approach helps address current gaps in ECHO research that call for more rigorous examination of the ECHO model's impact on provider practice improvements.