Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application.

BACKGROUND: The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed. METHODS: We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study. RESULTS: We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

Improving quality and performance in substance use treatment programs: What is being done and why is it so hard?

SUMMARY: As states plan to implement system-wide change of any kind, it is important to understand program directors' perspectives on challenges they face. This is especially true with quality improvement reforms. Much research has focused on quality improvement in medicine, but there is a gap in our knowledge about programs that treat individuals with drug or alcohol use. From 2007 to 2016, Maine contracted with selected substance use treatment programs using financial incentives to improve quality, with focus on treatment access, engagement, retention, and completion as measures of quality. Using surveys and in-depth interviews, this research documents strategies that programs used to improve performance and challenges faced in implementing reforms. Only programs that received federal block grant funding through the state to provide substance use treatment were eligible for an incentive contract, creating a natural experiment with non-block grant programs (non-incentive). Directors were interviewed in incentive (n=13) and non-incentive programs (n=12). FINDINGS: Thematic analysis revealed that: 1) programs focused on QI, but those eligible for incentives focused on different quality measures, 2) most of the reforms in both groups targeted improving treatment access and retention, and 3) programs faced substantial challenges in undertaking reforms. Despite efforts, many programs could not meet quality measures consistently over time and faced barriers over which they had little control. APPLICATIONS: Policy makers and program administrators will benefit from knowing the challenges of undertaking QI initiatives and provide support for the programs.

Effectiveness of value-based purchasing for substance use treatment engagement and retention.

INTRODUCTION: Many people drop out of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment within the first few sessions, which suggests the need for innovative strategies to address this. We examined the effectiveness of incentive-based contracting for Maine's publicly funded outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) SUD treatment, to determine its potential for improving treatment engagement and retention. METHODS: Maine's incentive-based contract with federally block grant-funded OP and IOP treatment agencies created a natural experiment, in which we could compare treatment engagement and retention with a group of state-licensed treatment agencies that were not part of the incentive-based contract. We used administrative data for OP (N = 18,375) and IOP (N = 5986) SUD treatment admissions from FY2005-FY2011 to capture trends prior to and after the FY2008 contract implementation date. We performed multivariable difference-in-difference logistic regression models following propensity score matching of clients. RESULTS: Two-thirds (66%) of OP admissions engaged in treatment, defined as 4+ treatment sessions, and 85% of IOP admissions satisfied the similar criteria of 4+ treatment days. About 40-45% of OP admissions reached the threshold for retention, defined as 90 days in treatment. IOP treatment completion was attained by 50-58% of admissions. For OP, the incentive and nonincentive groups had no significant differences in percentages with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.28, DID = 5.9%, p = .19), and 90-day retention was significant in the opposite direction of what we hypothesized (AOR = 0.80, DID = -4.6%, p = .0003). For IOP, the incentive group had a significant, but still small, increase in percentage with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.52, DID = 5.5%, p = .003), but the corresponding increase in treatment completion was not similarly significant (AOR = 1.12, DID = 2.7%, p = .53). In all models, individual-level variables were strong predictors of outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found little to no impact of the incentive-based contract on the treatment engagement, retention, and completion measures, adding to the body of evidence that shows few or null results for value-based purchasing in SUD treatment programs. The limited success of such efforts is likely to reflect the bandwidth that providers and programs have to focus on new endeavors, the importance of the incentive funding to their bottom line, and forces beyond their immediate control.

Incentives in a public addiction treatment system: Effects on waiting time and selection.

Program-level financial incentives are used by some payers as a tool to improve quality of substance use treatment. However, evidence of effectiveness is mixed and performance contracts may have unintended consequences such as creating barriers for more challenging clients who are less likely to meet benchmarks. This study investigates the impact of a performance contract on waiting time for substance use treatment and client selection. Admission and discharge data from publicly funded Maine outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) substance use treatment programs (N = 38,932 clients) were used. In a quasi-experimental pre-post design, pre-period (FY 2005-2007) admission data from incentivized (IC) and non-incentivized (non-IC) programs were compared to post-period (FY 2008-2012) using propensity score matching and multivariate difference-in-difference regression. Dependent variables were waiting time (incentivized) and client selection (severity: history of mental disorders and substance use severity, not incentivized). Despite financial incentives designed to reduce waiting time for substance use treatment among state-funded outpatient programs, average waiting time for treatment increased in the post period for both IC and non-IC groups, as did client severity. There were no significant differences in waiting time between IC and non-IC groups over time. Increases in client severity over time, with no group differences, indicate that programs did not restrict access for more challenging clients. Adequate funding and other approaches to improve quality may be beneficial.

Complementary and alternative medicine among veterans and military personnel: a synthesis of population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports reinforce the widespread interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), not only among military personnel with combat-related disorders, but also among providers who are pressed to respond to patient demand for these therapies. However, an understanding of utilization of CAM therapies in this population is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study are to synthesize the content of self-report population surveys with information on use of CAM in military and veteran populations, assess gaps in knowledge, and suggest ways to address current limitations. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research team conducted a literature review of population surveys to identify CAM definitions, whether military status was queried, the medical and psychological conditions queried, and each specific CAM question. Utilization estimates specific to military/veterans were summarized and limitations to knowledge was classified. RESULTS: Seven surveys of CAM utilization were conducted with military/veteran groups. In addition, 7 household surveys queried military status, although there was no military/veteran subgroup analysis. Definition of CAM varied widely limiting cross-survey analysis. Among active duty and Reserve military, CAM use ranged between 37% and 46%. Survey estimates do not specify CAM use that is associated with a medical or behavioral health condition. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons between surveys are hampered due to variation in methodologies. Too little is known about reasons for using CAM and conditions for which it is used. Additional information could be drawn from current surveys with additional subgroup analysis, and future surveys of CAM should include military status variable.