Sustaining SBIRT in the wild: simulating revenues and costs for Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs

Integrating Evidence-Based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Into a Family Nurse Practitioner Program

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Substance use disorder (SUD)-and more specifically opioid use disorder-is a national epidemic. With the increasing amounts of people suffering from SUD, all healthcare professionals should be educated to identify substance abuse, provide a brief intervention, and refer patients for treatment when indicated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project is to integrate the SBIRT into the curriculum of a graduate-level family nurse practitioner (FNP) program in southeastern Pennsylvania and to determine if educating FNP students on the SBIRT process increases their knowledge of SUDs and their treatment and increases their motivation to work with patients with SUD.

MEASUREMENTS

The measurements used were as follows: shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire (S-AAPPQ), shortened Drug and Drug Problems Perception Questionnaire (S-DDPPQ), a 10-question knowledge test, and demographic data.

RESULTS

All subscales of the S-DDPPQ, the S-AAPPQ, and the knowledge test showed a statistically significant change from the pretest score means and to posttest means. This evidence-based practice project supports the integration of SBIRT education into FNP programs to increase their ability to identify and treat individuals with SUDs.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in oral health settings: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an effective evidence-based model to provide early intervention and treatment to people with substance use disorders across diverse health settings. Yet, how SBIRT has been implemented within oral health settings and its associated outcomes has not been explored. This scoping review assessed how SBIRT has been implemented in oral health settings in the U.S. and discusses the implications for SBIRT integration in dentistry and oral health research, education and practice.

METHODS

Five scholarly databases were searched using a scoping review methodology for relevant literature, yielding seven articles that met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Findings from seven U.S. studies show that SBIRT has been implemented into oral health settings in three distinct ways: through education/training, as an intervention and in one national survey. Findings of this scoping review support the inclusion of SBIRT education for oral health professionals in both practice and clinical environments and offer examples of existing models for future implementation and study.

CONCLUSIONS

The scant literature on SBIRT intervention effects in dental settings-both within and outside of the U.S.-underscores the need for more empirical work to better understand how SBIRT impacts dental providers' knowledge, practices, referrals and ultimately, patient outcomes.

Factors related to substance use treatment attendance after peer recovery coach intervention in the emergency department

Introduction

Brief intervention with peer recovery coach support has been used to generate referrals to substance use disorder treatment from the emergency department (ED). This retrospective study evaluated factors associated with successful linkage to treatment following brief intervention in the ED.

Methods

Data were extracted from the electronic health record for patients who were referred to substance use treatment from the ED and for whom follow-up data regarding treatment attendance was available (n=666). We examined associations between demographic and insurance variables, substance use, mental health diagnosis, prior abstinence, and stage of change with successful linkage to substance use treatment after ED referral.

Results

The sample was majority male (68%), White (62%), and had a mean age of 43 years (SD=12). Medicaid was the most common insurance (49%) followed by employer/private (34%). Multivariable logistic regression determined patients with Medicaid (OR=2.94, 95% CI:2.09-4.13, p=<.001), those who had a documented alcohol use disorder diagnosis (OR=1.59, 95% CI:1.074-2.342, p=.02), and those in the "Action" stage of change (OR=2.33, 95% CI:1.47-3.69, p=<.001) had greater odds of being successfully linked to treatment.

Conclusions

These results identify characteristics of patients available in the health record to determine who is more likely or less likely to attend substance use treatment following ED referral. Given appropriate screening, this information could be used to direct standard care resources to those with high likelihood of treatment attendance and strengthen follow-up interventions with peer recovery coaches for those with lower likelihood of treatment attendance.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

Efficacy of Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Drug Use in Outpatient Medical Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for unhealthy drug use in outpatient medical care has not been sufficiently substantiated through meta-analysis despite its ongoing global delivery. This study aims to determine the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use and the expected length of effects, and describe subgroup analyses by outpatient setting.

METHODS

Trials comparing BI with usual care controls were retrieved through four databases up to January 13, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Primary outcomes included drug use frequency (days used) and severity on validated scales at 4-8 months and were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 9182 randomized patients were included. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use among all outpatient medical care settings for use frequency (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.02, p = 0.12, I² = 37%, high certainty of evidence) and severity (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.78, 0.24, p = 0.30, I² = 98%, low certainty of evidence). However, post hoc subgroup analyses uncovered significant effects for use frequency by setting (interaction p = 0.02), with significant small effects only in emergency departments (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.25, -0.04, p < 0.01). Primary care, student health, women's health, and HIV primary care subgroups were nonsignificant. Primary care BI revealed nonsignificant greater average use in the treatment group compared to usual care.

DISCUSSION

BI for unhealthy drug use lacks evidence of efficacy among all outpatient medical settings. However, small effects found in emergency departments may indicate incremental benefits for some patients. Clinical decisions for SBI or specialty treatment program referrals should be carefully considered accounting for these small effects in emergency departments.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020157733).

Variation in brief treatment for substance use disorder: a qualitative investigation of four federally qualified health centers with SBIRT services

Background

Brief treatment (BT) can be an effective, short-term, and low-cost treatment option for many people who misuse alcohol and drugs. However, inconsistent implementation is suggested to result in BT that often looks and potentially costs similar to regular outpatient care. Prior research is also rife with inconsistent operationalizations regarding the measurement of BT received by patients. As such, there is a need to more explicitly identify and document variations in BT practice.

Methods

A qualitative investigation of BT in four Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) was undertaken as a sub study of a larger clinical trial. Researchers interviewed 12 staff (administrators and clinicians) involved in BT oversight, referral, or delivery within the four FQHCs. Data were analyzed following an inductive approach guided by the primary research questions.

Results

Findings demonstrate considerable differences in how BT was conceptualized and implemented within the FQHCs. This included a variety of ways in which BT was presented and described to patients that likely impacts how they perceive the BT they receive, including potentially not understanding they received substance use disorder treatment at all.

Conclusions

The findings raise questions regarding the validity of prior research, demonstrating more objective definitions of BT and fidelity checklists are needed to ensure integrity of results. Future work in this area should seek to understand BT as practiced among a larger sample of providers and the direct experiences and perspectives of patients. There is also a need for more consistent implementation, quality assurance guidelines, and standardized stage of change assessments to aid practitioners.

Financial sustainability of payment models for office-based opioid treatment in outpatient clinics

BACKGROUND

Office-Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) is a delivery model which seeks to make medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), particularly buprenorphine, widely available in general medical clinics and offices. Despite evidence supporting its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, uptake of the OBOT model has been relatively slow. One important barrier to faster diffusion of OBOT may be the financial challenges facing clinics that could adopt it.

METHODS

We review key features and variants of the OBOT model, then discuss different approaches that have been used to fund it, and the findings from previous economic analyses of OBOT's impact on organizational finances. We conclude by discussing the implications of these analyses for the financial sustainability of the OBOT delivery model.

RESULTS

Like other novel services, OBOT poses challenges for providers due to its reliance on services which are 'non-billable' in a fee-for-service environment. A variety of approaches exist for covering the non-billable costs, but which approaches are feasible depends on local payer policies. The scale of the challenges varies with clinic size, organizational affiliations and the policies of the state where the clinic operates. Small clinics in a purely fee-for-service environment may be particularly challenged in pursuing OBOT, given the need to fund a dedicated staff and extra administrative work. The current pandemic may pose both opportunities and challenges for the sustainability of OBOT, with expanded access to telemedicine, but also uncertainty about the durability of the expansion.

CONCLUSION

The reimbursement environment for OBOT delivery varies widely around the US, and is evolving as Medicare (and possibly other payers) introduce alternative payment approaches. Clinics considering adoption of OBOT are well advised to thoroughly investigate these issues as they make their decision. In addition, payers will need to rethink how they pay for OBOT to make it sustainable.

Efficacy of brief intervention for drug misuse in primary care facilities: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Drug misuse is associated with significant global morbidity, mortality, economic costs and social costs. Many primary care facilities have integrated drug misuse screening and brief intervention (BI) into their usual care delivery. However, the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care has not been substantiated through meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing primary care-delivered BI for drug misuse with no intervention or minimal screening/assessment and usual care. Primary outcomes are (1) drug use frequency scores and (2) severity scores at intermediate follow-up (4-8 months). We will retrieve all studies through searches in CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO until 31 May 2020. The reference list will be supplemented with searches in trial registries (eg, www.clinicaltrials.gov) and through relevant existing study reference lists identified in the literature. We will conduct a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis for primary and secondary outcomes. We will assess statistical heterogeneity though visual inspection of a forest plot and calculate I2 statistics. We will assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2 and evaluate the certainty of evidence through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Sensitivity analyses will account for studies with control group variations and studies with a high risk of bias. If heterogeneity is present, subgroup analyses will consider patient variables of age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, per cent insured, baseline severity and primary drug misused.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will use published aggregate data and will not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of computerized vs. in-person motivational interventions in the criminal justice system

INTRODUCTION

Although substance use is common among probationers in the United States, treatment initiation remains an ongoing problem. Among the explanations for low treatment initiation are that probationers are insufficiently motivated to seek treatment, and that probation staff have insufficient training and resources to use evidence-based strategies such as motivational interviewing. A web-based intervention based on motivational enhancement principles may address some of the challenges of initiating treatment but has not been tested to date in probation settings. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a computerized intervention, Motivational Assessment Program to Initiate Treatment (MAPIT), relative to face-to-face Motivational Interviewing (MI) and supervision as usual (SAU), delivered at the outset of probation.

METHODS

The intervention took place in probation departments in two U.S. cities. The baseline sample comprised 316 participants (MAPIT = 104, MI = 103, and SAU = 109), 90% (n = 285) of whom completed the 6-month follow-up. Costs were estimated from study records and time logs kept by interventionists. The effectiveness outcome was self-reported initiation into any treatment (formal or informal) within 2 and 6 months of the baseline interview. The cost-effectiveness analysis involved assessing dominance and computing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Implementation costs were used in the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis, which excludes both a hypothetical license fee to recoup development costs and startup costs. An intent-to-treat approach was taken.

RESULTS

MAPIT cost $79.37 per participant, which was ~$55 lower than the MI cost of $134.27 per participant. Appointment reminders comprised a large proportion of the cost of the MAPIT and MI intervention arms. In the base case, relative to SAU, MAPIT cost $6.70 per percentage point increase in the probability of initiating treatment. If a decision-maker is willing to pay $15 or more to improve the probability of initiating treatment by 1%, estimates suggest she can be 70% confident that MAPIT is good value relative to SAU at the 2-month follow-up and 90% confident that MAPIT is good value at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-based MAPIT may be good value compared to in-person delivered alternatives. This conclusion is qualified because the results are not robust to narrowing the outcome to initiating formal treatment only. Further work should explore ways to improve access to efficacious treatment in probation settings.

Implementing SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) in primary care: lessons learned from a multi-practice evaluation portfolio

Background

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary care offices geared toward frontline providers and office staff.

Methods

Ten primary care practices were awarded small community grants to implement an SBIRT program in their location. Each practice chose the conditions for which they would screen, the screening tools, and how they would provide brief intervention and referral to treatment within their setting. An evaluation team communicated with each practice throughout the process, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to SBIRT success. Using the editing method, the qualitative data were analyzed and key strategies for success are detailed for implementing SBIRT in primary care.

Results

The SBIRT program practices included primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, school-based health centers, and a safety-net emergency department. Conditions screened for included alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, child safety, and tobacco use. Across practices, 49,964 patients were eligible for screening and 36,394 pre-screens and 21,635 full screens were completed. From the qualitative data, eight best practices for primary care SBIRT are described: Have a practice champion; Utilize an interprofessional team; Define and communicate the details of each SBIRT step; Develop relationships with referral partners; Institute ongoing SBIRT training; Align SBIRT with the primary care office flow; Consider using a pre-screening instrument, when available; and Integrate SBIRT into the electronic health record.

Conclusions and implications

SBIRT is an effective tool that can empower primary care providers to identify and treat patients with substance use and mental health problems before costly symptoms emerge. Using the pragmatic best practices we describe, primary care providers may improve their ability to successfully create, implement, and sustain SBIRT in their practices.

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment: implications of SAMHSA's SBIRT initiative for substance abuse policy and practice

AIMS

This paper describes the major findings and public health implications of a cross-site evaluation of a national Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) demonstration program funded by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

METHODS

Eleven multi-site programs in two cohorts of SAMHSA grant recipients were each funded for 5 years to promote the adoption and sustained implementation of SBIRT. The SBIRT cross-site evaluation used a multi-method evaluation design to provide comprehensive information on the processes, outcomes and costs of SBIRT as implemented in a variety of medical and community settings.

FINDINGS

SBIRT programs in the two evaluated SAMHSA cohorts screened more than 1 million patients/clients. SBIRT implementation was facilitated by committed leadership and the use of substance use specialists, rather than medical generalists, to deliver services. Although the quasi-experimental nature of the outcome evaluation does not permit causal inferences, pre-post differences were clinically meaningful and statistically significant for almost every measure of substance use. Greater intervention intensity was associated with larger decreases in substance use. Both brief intervention and brief treatment were associated with positive outcomes, but brief intervention was more cost-effective for most substances. Sixty-nine (67%) of the original performance sites adapted and redesigned SBIRT service delivery after initial grant funding ended. Four factors influenced SBIRT sustainability: presence of program champions, availability of funding, systemic change and effective management of SBIRT provider challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) demonstration program was adapted successfully to the needs of early identification efforts for hazardous use of alcohol and illicit drugs. SBIRT is an innovative way to integrate the management of substance use disorders into primary care and general medicine. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment implementation was associated with improvements in treatment system equity, efficiency and economy.

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): rationale, program overview and cross-site evaluation

AIMS

Since 2003, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (SAMHSA, CSAT) has awarded 32 Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grants to states, territories and tribal organizations to enhance services for persons with, or at risk for, substance use disorders. The grants supported an expansion of the continuum of care to include screening, brief intervention, brief treatment and referral to treatment in general medical and community settings. This paper describes the SAMHSA SBIRT program in the context of the scientific research that motivated its development, as well as the two cross-site evaluations that are the subject of subsequent papers in this Supplement.

METHODS

A narrative review of research evidence pertaining to SBIRT and of the cross-site evaluation design that made it possible to determine whether the SAMHSA SBIRT grant program achieved its intended aims. The 11 programs within the two cohorts of grant recipients that were the subject of the cross-site evaluations are described in terms of SBIRT service components, performance sites, providers, management structure/activities and patient/client characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The US SAMHSA SBIRT program is an effective way to introduce a variety of new services that extend the continuum of care for substance-involved individuals, ranging from early intervention with non-dependent substance users to referral of more serious cases to specialized substance abuse treatment.

Costs of screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE

In this article, the authors estimate implementation costs for illicit drug screening and brief intervention (SBI) and identify a key source of variation in cost estimates noted in the alcohol SBI literature. This is the first study of the cost of SBI for drug use only.

METHOD

Using primary data collected from a clinical trial of illicit drug SBI (n = 528) and a hybrid costing approach, we estimated a per-service implementation cost for screening and two models of brief intervention. A taxonomy of activities was first compiled, and then resources and prices were attached to estimate the per-activity cost. Two components of the implementation cost, direct service delivery and service support costs, were estimated separately.

RESULTS

Per-person cost estimates were $15.61 for screening, $38.94 for a brief negotiated interview, and $252.26 for an adaptation of motivational interviewing. (Amounts are in 2011 U.S. dollars.) Service support costs per patient are 5 to 7.5 times greater than direct service delivery costs per patient. Ongoing clinical supervision costs are the largest component of service support costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation cost estimates for illicit drug brief intervention vary greatly depending on the brief intervention method, and service support is the largest component of SBI costs. Screening and brief intervention cost estimates for drug use are similar to those published for alcohol SBI. Direct service delivery cost estimates are similar to costs at the low end of the distribution identified in the alcohol literature. The magnitude of service support costs may explain the larger cost estimates at the high end of the alcohol SBI cost distribution.

Program- and service-level costs of seven screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs

This paper examines the costs of delivering screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services within the first seven demonstration programs funded by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Service-level costs were estimated and compared across implementation model (contracted specialist, inhouse specialist, inhouse generalist) and service delivery setting (emergency department, hospital inpatient, outpatient). Program-level costs were estimated and compared across grantee recipient programs. Service-level data were collected through timed observations of SBIRT service delivery. Program-level data were collected during key informant interviews using structured cost interview guides. At the service level, support activities that occur before or after engaging the patient comprise a considerable portion of the cost of delivering SBIRT services, especially short duration services. At the program level, average costs decreased as more patients were screened. Comparing across program and service levels, the average annual operating costs calculated at the program level often exceeded the cost of actual service delivery. Provider time spent in support of service provision may comprise a large share of the costs in some cases because of potentially substantial fixed and quasifixed costs associated with program operation. The cost structure of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment is complex and discontinuous of patient flow, causing annual operating costs to exceed the costs of actual service provision for some settings and implementation models.