Advancing Health Policy and Outcomes for People With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: A Community-Led Agenda.

Importance: At least 10 million people in the United States have an intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD). People with IDD experience considerably higher rates of poor overall health, chronic conditions including diabetes, mental health challenges, maternal mortality, and preventable deaths. This Special Communication proposes national goals based on a community-led consensus model that advances priority health outcomes for people with IDD and their caregivers/partners and identifies critical policy opportunities and challenges in achieving these goals. A community-led consensus agenda offers a foundation for focusing research, improving data collection and quality measurement, enhancing coverage and payment for services, and investing in a prepared clinical workforce and infrastructure in ways that align with lived experiences and perspectives of community members. Observations: People with IDD prioritize holistic health outcomes and tailored supports and services, driven by personalized health goals, which shift over their life course. Caregivers/partners need support for their own well-being, and easy access to resources to optimize how they support loved ones with IDD. Development of an adequately prepared clinical workforce to serve people with IDD requires national and regional policy changes that incentivize and structure training and continuing education. Ensuring effective and high-value coverage, payment, and clinical decisions requires investments in new data repositories and data-sharing infrastructure, shared learning across public and private payers, and development of new technologies and tools to empower people with IDD to actively participate in their own health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus health priorities identified in this project and centered on IDD community members' perspectives are generalizable to many other patient populations. Public and private payers and regulators setting standards for health information technology have an opportunity to promote clinical data collection that focuses on individuals' needs, quality measurement that emphasizes person-centered goals rather than primarily clinical guidelines, and direct involvement of community members in the design of payment policies. Clinical education leaders, accrediting bodies, and investors/entrepreneurs have an opportunity to innovate a better prepared health care workforce and shared data infrastructure to support value-based care programs.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.

Application of System Dynamics to Inform a Model of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation in Primary Care Settings.

System dynamics (SD) modeling is used to compare and contrast strategies for effective implementation of an evidence-based adolescent behavioral health treatment in primary care settings. With qualitative and quantitative data from an on-going cluster-randomized trial in 7 federally qualified health center sites, two implementation conditions were compared: generalist vs. specialist. In the generalist approach, the primary care provider (PCP) delivered brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse (n = 4 clinics). In the specialist approach, BIs were delivered by behavioral health counselors (BHCs) (n = 3 clinics). The resultant SD model compared 'basecase' dynamics to strategic approaches to deploying continuous technical assistance (TA) and performance feedback reporting (PFR). The basecase effectively represented the SBIRT intervention, which reflected actual monthly volume of adolescent primary care visits (N = 9639), screenings (N = 5937), positive screenings (N = 246), and brief interventions (BIs; N = 50) over the 20-month implementation period. Insights gained suggest that implementation outcomes are sensitive to frequency of PFR, with bimonthly events generating the most rapid and sustained screening results. Simulated trends indicated that availability of the BHC directly impacts success of the specialist model. Similarly, understanding PCPs' perception of severity of need for intervention is key to outcomes in either condition.

Start-Up Costs of SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the costs to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent substance use in primary care settings is important for providers in planning for services and for decision makers considering dissemination and widespread implementation of SBIRT. We estimated the start-up costs of two models of SBIRT for adolescents in a multisite U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In both models, screening was performed by a medical assistant, but models differed on delivery of brief intervention, with brief intervention delivered by a primary care provider in the generalist model and a behavioral health specialist in the specialist model. METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster randomized trial. SBIRT implementation costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Start-up activities were defined as (a) planning activities (e.g., changing existing electronic medical record system and tailoring service delivery protocols); and (b) initial staff training. Data collection instruments were developed to collect staff time spent in start-up activities and quantity of nonlabor resources used. RESULTS: The estimated average costs to implement SBIRT were $5,182 for the specialist model and $3,920 for the generalist model. Planning activities had the greatest impact on costs for both models. Overall, more resources were devoted to planning and training activities in specialist sites, making the specialist model costlier to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The initial investment required to implement SBIRT should not be neglected. The level of resources necessary for initial implementation depends on the delivery model and its integration into current practice.

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. METHODS: This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. DISCUSSION: The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

The CRAFFT cut-points and DSM-5 criteria for alcohol and other drugs: a reevaluation and reexamination.

BACKGROUND: The CRAFFT, previously validated against DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnostic criteria, is the most widely used screening instrument for alcohol and other substance misuse in adolescents. The present secondary analysis study sought to compare the CRAFFT with the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in order to assess the CRAFFT's psychometric properties and determine the optimal cut-point for identifying adolescents in need of further assessment. METHODS: Participants were primary care patients aged 12-17 (N = 525) who were recruited while waiting for a medical appointment in an urban federally qualified health center in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Participants were administered the CRAFFT and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, second edition, modified to include the new DSM-5 craving item. The authors examined the performance of the CRAFFT in identifying any problem use (defined as 1 or more DSM-5 criteria) and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (2 or more DSM-5 criteria) for alcohol or drugs other than tobacco. The authors examined sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUC) to determine the optimal CRAFFT cut-point(s) for predicting any problem use and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Examining the CRAFFT as a continuous measure, AUC values were 0.93 for problem use or higher and 0.97 for DSM-5 SUD. Consistent with previously recommended cut-points for the CRAFFT, the cut-point of 2 performed optimally for identifying adolescents both exhibiting problem use of alcohol or drugs and meeting DSM-5 SUD criteria for alcohol or other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in the DSM substance use diagnostic criteria, the CRAFFT continues to demonstrate excellent sensitivity and specificity at its established cut-point of 2. Additional studies examining the CRAFFT in light of the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria with more diverse populations are warranted.