Faculty Bibliography

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing changes to clinical practice within traditional addiction treatment programmes, including the increased use of telehealth, reduced restrictions on methadone administration (eg, increased availability of take-home doses and decreased requirements for in-person visits), reduced reliance on group counselling and less urine drug screening. This paper describes the protocol for a mixed-methods study analysing organisational-level factors that are associated with changes in clinic-level practice changes and treatment retention. Methods and analysis We will employ an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to study the treatment practices for opioid use disorder (OUD) patients in New York State (NYS). For the quantitative aim, we will use the Client Data System and Medicaid claims data to examine the variation in clinical practices (ie, changes in telehealth, pharmacotherapy, group vs individual counselling and urine drug screening) and retention in treatment for OUD patients across 580 outpatient clinics in NYS during the pandemic. Clinics will be categorised into quartiles based on composite rankings by calculating cross-clinic Z scores for the clinical practice change and treatment retention variables. We will apply the random-effects modelling to estimate change by clinic by introducing a fixed-effect variable for each clinic, adjusting for key individual and geographic characteristics and estimate the changes in the clinical practice changes and treatment retention. We will then employ qualitative methods and interview 200 key informants (ie, programme director, clinical supervisor, counsellor and medical director) to develop an understanding of the quantitative findings by examining organisational characteristics of programmes (n=25) representative of those that rank in the top quartile of clinical practice measures as well as programmes that performed worst on these measures (n=25). Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of NYU Langone Health (#i21-00573). Study findings will be disseminated through national and international conferences, reports and peer-reviewed publications.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is limited evaluation of the performance of Medicaid managed care (MMC) private plans in covering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare the performance of MMC plans across 19 indicators of access, quality, and outcomes of SUD treatment. Design Setting and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study used administrative claims and mandatory assignment to plans of up to 159 016 adult Medicaid recipients residing in 1 of the 5 counties (boroughs) of New York, New York, from January 2009 to December 2017 to identify differences in SUD treatment access, patterns, and outcomes among different types of MMC plans. Data from the latest years were received from the New York State Department of Health in October 2019, and analysis began soon thereafter. Approximately 17% did not make an active choice of plan, and a subset of these (approximately 4%) can be regarded as randomly assigned. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Plan assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Percentage of the enrollees achieving performance measures across 19 indicators of access, process, and outcomes of SUD treatment. Results/UNASSIGNED:Medicaid claims data from 159 016 adults (mean [SD] age, 35.9 [12.7] years; 74 261 women [46.7%]; 8746 [5.5%] Asian, 73 783 [46.4%] Black, and 40 549 [25.5%] White individuals) who were auto assigned to an MMC plan were analyzed. Consistent with national patterns, all plans achieved less than 50% (range, 0%-62.1%) on most performance measures. Across all plans, there were low levels of treatment engagement for alcohol (range, 0%-0.4%) and tobacco treatment (range, 0.8%-7.2%), except for engagement for opioid disorder treatment (range, 41.5%-61.4%). For access measures, 4 of the 9 plans performed significantly higher than the mean on recognition of an SUD diagnosis, any service use for the first time, and tobacco use screening. Of the process measures, total monthly expenditures on SUD treatment was the only measure for which plans differed significantly from the mean. Outcome measures differed little across plans. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:The results of this cross-sectional study suggest the need for progress in engaging patients in SUD treatment and improvement in the low performance of SUD care and limited variation in MMC plans in New York, New York. Improvement in the overall performance of SUD treatment in Medicaid potentially depends on general program improvements, not moving recipients among plans.

Aims/UNASSIGNED:We examined the effects of a statewide New York (NY) care management (CM) program for substance use disorder (SUD), Managed Addiction Treatment Services (MATS), on SUD treatment services' utilization and spending among patients with a recent history of high Medicaid spending and among those for whom a predictive algorithm indicates a higher probability of outlier spending in the following year. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We applied difference-in-difference analyses with propensity score matching using NY Medicaid claims data and a state registry of SUD-treatment episodes from 2006 to 2009. A total of 1263 CM enrollees with high SUD treatment spending (>$10K) in the prior year and a matched comparison group were included in the analysis. Crisis care utilization for SUD (detoxification and hospitalizations), outpatient SUD treatment, and Medicaid spending were examined over 12 months among both groups. CM effects among predicted high-future-spending patients (HFS) were also analyzed. Results/UNASSIGNED:CM increased outpatient SUD treatment visits by approximately 10.5 days (95% CI = 0.9, 20.0). CM crisis care and spending outcomes were not statistically different from comparison since both conditions had comparable pre-post declines. Conversely, CM significantly reduced SUD treatment spending by approximately $955 (95% CI = -1518, -391) and reduced days of detox utilization by about 1.0 days (95% CI = -1.9, -0.1) among HFS. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Findings suggest that CM can reduce SUD treatment spending and utilization when targeted at patients with a greater likelihood of high future spending, indicating the potential value of predictive models to select CM patients.

Unintentional overdose deaths, most involving opioids, have eclipsed all other causes of US deaths for individuals less than 50 years of age. An estimated 2.4 to 5 million individuals have opioid use disorder (OUD) yet a minority receive treatment in a given year. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the gold standard treatment for OUD however early dropout remains a major challenge for improving clinical outcomes. A Cascade of Care (CoC) framework, first popularized as a public health accountability strategy to stem the spread of HIV, has been adapted specifically for OUD. The CoC framework has been promoted by the NIH and several states and jurisdictions for organizing quality improvement efforts through clinical, policy, and administrative levers to improve OUD treatment initiation and retention. This roadmap details CoC design domains based on available data and potential linkages as individual state agencies and health systems typically rely on limited datasets subject to diverse legal and regulatory requirements constraining options for evaluations. Both graphical decision trees and catalogued studies are provided to help guide efforts by state agencies and health systems to improve data collection and monitoring efforts under the OUD CoC framework.

BACKGROUND:Individuals that have both diabetes and substance use disorder (SUD) are more likely to have adverse health outcomes and are less likely to receive high quality diabetes care, compared with patients without coexisting SUD. Care management programs for patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes and SUD, have been associated with improvements in the process and outcomes of care. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to assess the impact of having coexisting SUD on diabetes process of care metrics. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS:Preintervention/postintervention triple difference analysis. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Participants in the New York State Medicaid Health Home (NYS-HH) care management program who have diabetes and a propensity-matched comparison group of nonparticipants (N=37,260). MEASURES/METHODS:Process of care metrics for patients with diabetes: an eye (retinal) exam, HbA1c test, medical attention (screening laboratory measurements) for nephropathy, and receiving all 3 in the past year. RESULTS:Before enrollment in NYS-HH, individuals with comorbid SUD had fewer claims for eye exams and HbA1c tests compared with those without comorbid SUD. Diabetes process of care improvements associated with NYS-HH enrollment were larger among those with comorbid SUD [eye exam: adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.15]; HbA1c test: AOR=1.20 (95% CI: 1.11-1.29); medical attention for nephropathy: AOR=1.21 (95% CI: 1.12-1.31); all 3: AOR=1.09 (95% CI: 1.02-1.16). CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with both diabetes and SUD may benefit moderately more from care management than those without comorbid SUD. Individuals with both SUD and diabetes who are not enrolled in care management may be missing out on crucial diabetes care.

BACKGROUND:The New York State (NYS) Level of Care for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referral (LOCADTR) was launched in 2015 to determine the most appropriate level of care for individuals seeking addiction treatment. However, research has not studied its predictive validity. We examined the predictive validity of the LOCADTR recommendation for outpatient treatment by determining whether those who entered a level of care (LOC) concordant with the LOCADTR recommendation differed in continuous engagement in treatment compared to those who entered a discordant LOC. METHODS:The study combined data from two NYS administrative sources, the LOCADTR database and a treatment registry. The study examined characteristics of the clients who entered concordant and discordant LOCs as well as tested for differences in continuous engagement of clients who entered discordant care compared to a propensity score-matched comparison group of clients who entered the concordant LOC. RESULTS:Among clients for whom the LOCADTR recommended the outpatient LOC, concordant clients who entered the outpatient LOC were more likely to be retained in care than discordant clients who entered the inpatient LOC (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.77). We did not observe statistical differences in continuous engagement among clients who were recommended for outpatient and entered that LOC versus those who entered the outpatient rehabilitation LOC instead (aOR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.30). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study provides support for predictive validity of recommendations stemming from the LOCADTR. Clients, treatment providers, and payers benefited from a tool that provides clear guidance and predictively valid recommendations for treatment placement. The study found that clients were more likely to be retained in treatment for 6 months or longer if admitted to outpatient care, as recommended by the LOCADTR algorithm, rather than to inpatient treatment. One factor accounting for the longer engagement in outpatient care is the low level of continuity of care among patients being discharged from inpatient treatment.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:New York State implemented a Health Homes (HH) care management program to facilitate access to health services for Medicaid enrollees with multiple chronic conditions. This study assessed the impact of HH on health care utilization outcomes among enrollees who have substance use disorder (SUD). METHODS:Using HH enrollment data and Medicaid claims data 1 year before and after enrollment, this study compared HH enrollees who enrolled between 2012 and 2014 to a statistically matched comparison group created with propensity score methods. Analyses used generalized gamma models, logistic regression models, and difference-in-differences analyses to assess the impact of HH on general (all-cause) health care and SUD-related outpatient, emergency department (ED), hospitalization, and detoxification utilization as well as total Medicaid cost. RESULTS:The sample consisted of 41,229 HH enrollees and a comparison group of 39,471 matched patients. HH-enrolled patients who had SUD utilized less SUD-related ED services (average marginal effect (AME) = -1.85; 95% CI = -2.45, -1.24), SUD-related hospitalizations (AME = -1.28; 95% CI: -1.64, -0.93), and detoxification services (AME = -1.30; 95% CI = -1.64, -0.96), relative to the comparison group during the 1 year post-HH enrollment. SUD-related outpatient visits did not change significantly (AME = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.76, 0.19) for enrollees, but general health care outpatient visits increased (AME = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.33, 1.93). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:These findings provide preliminary evidence that care management programs can decrease ED visits and hospitalizations among people with SUD.