Literature Collection

Integrated treatment services for co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are recommended best practice, yet their relationship with facility-level provision of detoxification and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) is not well understood. The researchers analyzed 2021-2023 National Substance Use and Mental Health Services Survey (N-SUMHSS) data from 49,623 facilities offering any substance use services. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between integrated services and availability of detoxification and MOUD, adjusting for facility characteristics and Chronic Care Model elements. Primary treatment focus (substance use, mental health, mixed) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Overall, 61.2% of facilities offered integrated services, 21.2% provided detoxification, and 56.0% provided MOUD. Among substance use-focused facilities, integrated services were associated with higher odds of offering detox (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.27, 95% CI 1.17-1.37) and MOUD (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.56). Among mixed-focus facilities, integrated services were associated with higher odds of MOUD (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.28-1.51) but not detoxification. Among mental health-focused facilities, integrated services were associated with lower odds of detoxification (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.22-0.53) and did not predict MOUD availability. Facility type, ownership, and Chronic Care Model elements, including delivery system redesign, self-management support, and clinical information systems, were strong independent predictors of both outcomes. Integrated services may be associated with greater access to detoxification and MOUD in substance use-focused settings but appear insufficient within mental health-focused facilities; efforts to strengthen integrated care should account for facility focus and infrastructure capacity.

BACKGROUND: In the US, medication assisted treatment, particularly with office-based buprenorphine, has been an important component of opioid dependence treatment among patients with iatrogenic addiction to opioid analgesics. The predictors of initiating buprenorphine for addiction among opioid analgesic patients have not been well-described. METHODS: We conducted a time-to-event analysis using data from the North Carolina (NC) Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Our outcome of interest was time-to-initiation of sublingual buprenorphine. Our study population was a prospective cohort of all state residents receiving a full-agonist opioid analgesic between 2011 and 2015. Predictors of initiation of sublingual buprenorphine examined included: age, gender, cumulative pharmacies and prescribers utilized, cumulative opioid intensity (defined as cumulative opioid exposure divided by duration of opioid exposure), and benzodiazepine dispensing. FINDINGS: Of 4.3 million patients receiving opioid analgesics in NC between 2011 and 2015 (accumulated 8.30 million person-years of follow-up), and a total of 28,904 patients initiated buprenorphine formulations intended for addiction treatment (overall rate 3.48 per 1,000 person-years). In adjusted multivariate models, the utilization of 3 or more pharmacies (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 2.82, 3.05) or 6 or more controlled substance prescribers (HR: 12.09; 95% CI: 10.76, 13.57) was associated with buprenorphine initiation. A dose-response relationship was observed for cumulative opioid intensity (HR in highest decile relative to lowest decile: 5.05; 95% CI: 4.70, 5.42). Benzodiazepine dispensing was negatively associated with buprenorphine initiation (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid analgesic patients utilizing multiple prescribers or pharmacies are more likely to initiate sublingual buprenorphine. This finding suggests that patients with multiple healthcare interactions are more likely to be treated for high-risk opioid use, or may be more likely to be identified and treated for addiction. Future research should utilize prescription monitoring program data linked to electronic health records to include diagnosis information in analytic models.

BACKGROUND: Same-day access to mental health services is associated with better patient outcomes (e.g., diagnosis, treatment). Telehealth appointments via video or phone can improve timely access to care but may complicate in-person care transfers ("warm handoffs") between primary care and mental health teams. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between receiving telehealth services and same-day access to integrated mental health services within primary care (PCMHI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included 1,220,902 Veterans who newly initiated PCMHI services between 10/01/18 and 09/30/23. MAIN MEASURE(S): Our primary outcome of interest was whether "same-day access" occurred, defined as a PCMHI visit that took place on the same day as a primary care visit. Our exposure of interest was whether a patient's initial PCMHI visit took place through in-person versus telehealth, defined as either video or phone. Using multi-level regression models, we examined the association between same-day access and PCMHI visit modality (in-person/phone/video), adjusting for time, region, patient (e.g., demographics, physical and mental health diagnoses), and clinic (e.g., rurality, staffing). Models were stratified by pre-/early-pandemic (FY19-21) versus late-pandemic (FY22-23) periods. RESULTS: Patients with an initial PCMHI visit conducted through telehealth (video/phone) had 86% lower odds of receiving same-day access than those with an in-person PCMHI visit (95% CI = 0.1444-0.1448). Lower odds of same-day access with PCMHI providers were found for both video (OR = 0.0912; 95% CI = 0.0909-0.0915) and phone (OR = 0.1604, 95% CI = 0.1602-0.1606) visits. Odds of same-day access from primary care to telehealth-based PCMHI care improved with time (OR(FY19-21) = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.09-0.12; OR(FY22-23) = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.16-0.20). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results suggest that primary care patients who receive integrated mental health services via telehealth may be less likely to access primary care services on the same day. Further research should consider how traditional primary care workflows (e.g., warm handoffs) may need to adapt to better integrate tele-mental health services.

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.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are an established fall-risk factor in older adults, potentially mediated by gait and dynamic balance impairments. However, this relationship remains unexamined in older individuals discharged from the emergency department (ED) following a fall - a group at particularly high risk for recurrent falls. Therefore, this study examined whether depressive symptoms predict 12-month prospective fall risk in this population, and whether gait and dynamic balance impairments act as mediators. METHODS: This prospective sub-study analysed participants from the SeFallED study aged ≥ 60 years who had recently been discharged from the ED following a fall. Data were collected through home visits, gait analyses, and monthly follow-up interviews. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Depression in Old Age Scale. Gait speed, stride length, swing and double support time were combined into a single gait performance factor using principal component analysis, while dynamic balance was quantified by mediolateral and anteroposterior margin of stability. Ordinal logistic regression analysis investigated the association between depressive symptoms and fall risk, while causal mediation analysis examined gait and dynamic balance as mediators. RESULTS: In a sample of 143 participants, depressive symptoms (OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.35-10.37, p = 0.011) and higher mediolateral margin of stability (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.73, p = 0.011) independently predicted higher prospective fall risk, whereas gait performance was negatively associated with fall risk (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.80, p = 0.005). Neither gait nor dynamic balance impairments significantly mediated the association between depressive symptoms and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms, alongside gait and dynamic balance impairments, represent modifiable indicators of future fall risk following ED presentation after a fall. Integrating mood and mobility assessments into post-ED falls prevention strategies could help mitigate fall risk in this high-risk population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 4 November 2021 in the Deutsches Register für Klinische Studien, (DRKS00025949; Date of registration in DRKS: 2021-11 - 04).