Strengthening partnerships between substance use researchers and policy makers to take advantage of a window of opportunity.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute on Drug Abuse has identified a persistent research-to-practice gap in the implementation of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs for substance use disorder. To identify mechanisms to close this gap, we sought to obtain and characterize the range of policy makers' perspectives on the use of research in substance use disorder treatment and coverage decisions. METHODS: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eighteen policy makers involved in the delivery of health services. The aim was to identify barriers and facilitators, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences surrounding the use of research related to the treatment and economics of substance use disorder. RESULTS: The analysis generated four themes: 1) policy maker engagement with evidence and researchers; 2) strategic use and usefulness of research; 3) scientific rigor versus relevance; and 4) communication of evidence. Within each theme, the participants identified barriers, facilitators, current practice, and gave their perspectives on "ideal conditions" for research design, conduct and communication. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for investigators are the following actionable steps: 1) partner with policy makers early in the research process, 2) formulate and use research designs to meet the strategic goals of end-users; 3) systematically test alternative phrasing of scientific terminology - particularly in the realm of cost effectiveness research - that allow end users to better understand and repurpose the data; 4) incorporate qualitative research methods to uncover the narratives that explain the context and relevance of evidence; 5) incorporate study designs that prioritize timeliness of results; and 6) promote and reward researcher involvement in policy discussions.

Shopping on the Public and Private Health Insurance Marketplaces: Consumer Decision Aids and Plan Presentation.

BACKGROUND: The design of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) health insurance marketplaces influences complex health plan choices. OBJECTIVE: To compare the choice environments of the public health insurance exchanges in the fourth (OEP4) versus third (OEP3) open enrollment period and to examine online marketplace run by private companies, including a total cost estimate comparison. DESIGN: In November-December 2016, we examined the public and private online health insurance exchanges. We navigated each site for "real-shopping" (personal information required) and "window-shopping" (no required personal information). PARTICIPANTS: Public (n = 13; 12 state-based marketplaces and HealthCare.gov ) and private (n = 23) online health insurance exchanges. MAIN MEASURES: Features included consumer decision aids (e.g., total cost estimators, provider lookups) and plan display (e.g., order of plans). We examined private health insurance exchanges for notable features (i.e., those not found on public exchanges) and compared the total cost estimates on public versus private exchanges for a standardized consumer. RESULTS: Nearly all studied consumer decision aids saw increased deployment in the public marketplaces in OEP4 compared to OEP3. Over half of the public exchanges (n = 7 of 13) had total cost estimators (versus 5 of 14 in OEP3) in window-shopping and integrated provider lookups (window-shopping: 7; real-shopping: 8). The most common default plan orders were by premium or total cost estimate. Notable features on private health insurance exchanges were unique data presentation (e.g., infographics) and further personalized shopping (e.g., recommended plan flags). Health plan total cost estimates varied substantially between the public and private exchanges (average difference $1526). CONCLUSIONS: The ACA's public health insurance exchanges offered more tools in OEP4 to help consumers select a plan. While private health insurance exchanges presented notable features, the total cost estimates for a standardized consumer varied widely on public versus private exchanges.