Randomized Controlled Trial of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Mood Disorders by a National Commercial Health Plan.

OBJECTIVE: Few individuals with mood disorders have access to evidence-based collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) because most patients are seen in small-group practices (<20 providers) with limited capacity to deliver CCMs. In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, we determined whether a CCM delivered nationally in a U.S. health plan improved 12-month outcomes among enrollees with mood disorders compared with usual care. METHODS: Aetna insurance enrollees (N=238), mostly females (66.1%) with a mean age of 41.1 years, who were recently hospitalized for unipolar major depression or bipolar disorder provided informed consent, completed baseline assessments, and were randomly assigned to usual care or CCM. The CCM included 10 sessions of the Life Goals self-management program and brief contacts by phone by a care manager to determine symptom status. Primary outcomes were changes over 12 months in depression symptoms (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and mental health-related quality of life (Short Form-12). RESULTS: Adjusted mean PHQ-9 scores were lower by 2.34 points (95% confidence level [CL]=-4.18 to -0.50, p=0.01), indicating improved symptoms, and adjusted mean SF-12 mental health scores were higher by 3.21 points (CL=-.97 to 7.38, p=0.10), indicating better quality of life, among participants receiving CCM versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals receiving CCM compared with usual care had improved clinical outcomes, although substantial attrition may limit the impact of health plan-level delivery of CCMs. Further research on the use of health plan-level interventions, such as CCMs, as alternatives to practice-based models is warranted.

Claims-based proxies of patient instability among commercially insured adults with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia (Sz) patients are among the highest utilizers of hospital-based services. Prevention of relapse is in part a treatment goal in order to reduce hospital admissions. However, predicting relapse is a challenge, particularly for payers and disease management firms with only access to claims data. Understandably, such organizations have had little success predicting relapse. A tool that allows payers to identify patients at elevated risk of relapse could facilitate targeted interventions prior to relapse and avoid rehospitalization. In this study, a series of proxy measures of patient instability, calculated from claims data were examined for their utility in identifying Sz patients at elevated risk of relapse. METHODS: Aetna claims were used to assess the relationship between instability of Sz patients and valence and magnitude of antipsychotic (AP) medication change during a 2-year period. Six proxies of instability including hospital admissions, emergency department visits, medication utilization patterns, and use of outpatient services were identified. Results were replicated using claims data from Truven MarketScan®. RESULTS: Patients who switched AP ingredient had the highest overall instability at the point of switch and the second steepest decline in instability following switch. Those who changed to a long-acting injectable AP showed the second highest level of instability and the steepest decrease in instability following the change. Patients augmented with a second AP showed the smallest increase in instability, up to the switch. Results were directionally consistent between the two data sets. CONCLUSION: Using claims-based proxy measures to estimate instability may provide a viable method to better understand Sz patient markers of change in disease severity. Also, such proxies could be used to identify those individuals with the greatest need for treatment modification preventing relapse, improving patient outcomes, and reducing the burden of illness.

Heterogeneity of nonadherent buprenorphine patients: subgroup characteristics and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient characteristics and outcomes associated with nonadherence to buprenorphine and to identify specific patterns of nonadherent behavior. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of health claims data. METHODS: Aetna's administrative claims data were used to categorize incident opioid use disorder (OUD) patients based on buprenorphine medication possession ratio (MPR) into adherent (n = 172) and nonadherent (n = 305) groups. Adherent groups were then divided into 5 subgroups based on level of MPR, as well as 2 a priori-defined groups: intermittent adherent (IA) and early treatment discontinuation-no consequences (ETDNC). Groups were compared on patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Nonadherent members incurred significantly greater healthcare costs and were more likely to relapse (P <.05). The use of high-cost healthcare services increased as a function of decreasing MPR (P <.05). Assessment of the a priori groups revealed IA members to have outcomes similar to nonadherent patients, while ETDNC members exhibited outcomes similar to adherent members. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative claims can be used to define subgroups of buprenorphine-medication assisted treatment (B-MAT) patients. Nonadherence was related to an increased likelihood of relapse, and there is an inverse relationship between MPR and cost. The heterogeneity observed within this sample indicates that treatment regimens effective for 1 subgroup may not be appropriate for all OUD patients. Increased understanding of B-MAT nonadherent subgroups may facilitate development of new interventions and medications specifically designed for nonadherent B-MAT patients, potentially leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs of care.

Randomized controlled trial of a health plan-level mood disorders psychosocial intervention for solo or small practices.

BACKGROUND: Mood disorders represent the most expensive mental disorders for employer-based commercial health plans. Collaborative care models are effective in treating chronic physical and mental illnesses at little to no net healthcare cost, but to date have primarily been implemented by larger healthcare organizations in facility-based models. The majority of practices providing commercially insured care are far too small to implement such models. Health plan-level collaborative care treatment can address this unmet need. The goal of this study is to implement at the national commercial health plan level a collaborative care model to improve outcomes for persons with mood disorders. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care model versus usual care will be conducted among beneficiaries of a large national health plan from across the country seen by primary care or behavioral health practices. At discharge 344 patients identified by health plan claims as hospitalized for unipolar depression or bipolar disorder will be randomized to receive collaborative care (patient phone-based self-management support, care management, and guideline dissemination to practices delivered by a plan-level care manager) or usual care from their provider. Primary outcomes are changes in mood symptoms and mental health-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include rehospitalization, receipt of guideline-concordant care, and work productivity. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether a collaborative care model for mood disorders delivered at the national health plan level improves outcomes compared to usual care, and will inform a business case for collaborative care models for these settings that can reach patients wherever they receive treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02041962; registered January 3, 2014.

The effects of federal parity on substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the US Congress enacted the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requiring insurers to equalize private insurance coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services with coverage for general medical services. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of MHPAEA on substance use disorder treatment. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences design to compare changes in outcomes among plan enrollees in the years before and after implementation of federal parity (2009-2010) with changes in outcomes among a comparison group of enrollees previously covered by state substance use disorder parity laws. METHODS: Insurance claims data from Aetna Inc health plans in 10 states with state parity laws were used to compare outcomes for plan enrollees in fully insured and self-insured health plans (N = 298,339). RESULTS: In the first year of implementation, we found that federal parity did not lead to changes in the proportion of enrollees using substance use disorder treatment. We did find a modest increase in spending on substance use disorder treatment per enrollee ($9.99, 95% confidence interval, 2.54-18.21), but no significant change in identification, treatment initiation, or treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of substance use disorder services in the federal parity law did not result in substantial increases in health plan spending. It will be critical to study results for year 2 after regulations affecting the management of care (eg, utilization review, network access) take effect.

Relationship between buprenorphine adherence and health service utilization and costs among opioid dependent patients.

Buprenorphine-medication assisted therapy (B-MAT) is an effective treatment for opioid dependence, but may be considered cost-prohibitive based on ingredient cost alone. The purpose of this study was to use medical and pharmacy claims data to estimate the healthcare service utilization and costs associated with B-MAT adherence among a sample of opioid dependent members. Members were placed into two adherence groups based on 1-year medication possession ratio (≥ 0.80 vs. <0.80). The B-MAT adherent group incurred significantly higher pharmacy charges (adjusted means; $6,156 vs. $3,581), but lower outpatient ($9,288 vs. $14,570), inpatient ($10,982 vs. $26,470), ER ($1,891 vs. $4,439), and total healthcare charges ($28,458 vs. $49,051; p<0.01) compared to non-adherent members. Adherence effects were confirmed in general linear models. Though B-MAT adherence requires increased pharmacy utilization, adherent individuals were shown to use fewer expensive health care services, resulting in overall reduced healthcare expenditure compared to non-adherent patients.

Opioid analgesic-treated chronic pain patients at risk for problematic use.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize potentially problematic opioid use (PPOU) among opioid analgesic-treated chronic pain (OAT-CP) patients and to compare their healthcare service utilization and expenditures with those of a control group of OAT-CP patients not exhibiting these behaviors. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of health claims data. METHODS: Members of a national health plan (n = 3891) with chronic pain and an opioid prescription were categorized into 3 groups: PPOU group (n = 1499), those displaying evidence of doctor shopping or rapid opioid dose escalation; buprenorphine/naloxone group (n =199), those who filled a prescription for buprenorphine/naloxone, which served as a proxy for opioid dependence; and control group (n = 2193), those not meeting either of the above criteria. Groups were compared on 1-year healthcare service utilization and costs. RESULTS: The PPOU group made up more than one-third of the study sample. Compared with the control group, they incurred significantly greater 1-year adjusted mean pharmacy costs ($6573 vs $6160), office costs ($5705 vs $4479), emergency department (ED) costs ($835 vs $388), inpatient costs ($15,646 vs $7445), and total healthcare costs ($39,048 vs $26,171) (all P <.05). The buprenorphine/naloxone group incurred significantly greater 1-year pharmacy costs ($6981 vs $6160) and ED costs ($1126 vs $388) (both P <.05) than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The PPOU group had the highest healthcare service utilization and costs. Although drivers of elevated service utilization and cost among this population are not clear, health plans may want to focus on PPOU case identification and development of interventions.

Primary care and behavioral health practice size: the challenge for health care reform.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the size profile of US primary care and behavioral health physician practices since size may impact the ability to institute care management processes (CMPs) that can enhance care quality. METHOD: We utilized 2009 claims data from a nationwide commercial insurer to estimate practice size by linking providers by tax identification number. We determined the proportion of primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and behavioral health providers practicing in venues of >20 providers per practice (the lower bound for current CMP practice surveys). RESULTS: Among primary care physicians (n=350,350), only 2.1% of practices consisted of >20 providers. Among behavioral health practitioners (n=146,992) and psychiatrists (n=44,449), 1.3% and 1.0% of practices, respectively, had >20 providers. Sensitivity analysis excluding single-physician practices as "secondary" confirmed findings, with primary care and psychiatrist practices of >20 providers comprising, respectively, only 19.4% and 8.8% of practices (difference: P<0.0001). In secondary analyses, bipolar disorder was used as a tracer condition to estimate practice census for a high-complexity, high-cost behavioral health condition; only 1.3-18 patients per practice had claims for this condition. CONCLUSIONS: The tax identification number method for estimating practice size has strengths and limitations that complement those of survey methods. The proportion of practices below the lower bound of prior CMP studies is substantial, and care models and policies will need to address the needs of such practices and their patients. Achieving a critical mass of patients for disorder-specific CMPs will require coordination across multiple small practices.

Electroconvulsive Therapy of the Lethal Catatonia Syndrome.

Lethal catatonia (LC) is a life-threatening syndrome associated with diverse neuropsychiatric or systemic disorders. Neuroleptic agents appear inadequate in treating LC. We report a case of LC successfully treated by electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) that adds to the experience of ECT as a safe and effective treatment for LC occurring in the context of the major psychoses. Anecdotal evidence suggests that ECT is dramatically effective in LC regardless of etiology. The use of ECT in the treatment of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), viewed here as a subtype of LC, is considered and compared with that of specific drug therapies for NMS.