Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model

Nurse and midwife involvement in task-sharing and telehealth service delivery models in primary care: A scoping review

AIM

To synthesise and map current evidence on nurse and midwife involvement in task-sharing service delivery, including both face-to-face and telehealth models, in primary care.

DESIGN

This scoping review was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Methodology for Scoping Reviews.

DATA SOURCE/REVIEW METHODS

Five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to 16 January 2024, and articles were screened for inclusion in Covidence by three authors. Findings were mapped according to the research questions and review outcomes such as characteristics of models, health and economic outcomes, and the feasibility and acceptability of nurse-led models.

RESULTS

One hundred peer-reviewed articles (as 99 studies) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Task-sharing models existed for a range of conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension. Nurse-led models allowed nurses to work to the extent of their practice scope, were acceptable to patients and providers, and improved health outcomes. Models can be cost-effective, and increase system efficiencies with supportive training, clinical set-up and regulatory systems. Some limitations to telehealth models are described, including technological issues, time burden and concerns around accessibility for patients with lower technological literacy.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led models can improve health, economic and service delivery outcomes in primary care and are acceptable to patients and providers. Appropriate training, funding and regulatory systems are essential for task-sharing models with nurses to be feasible and effective.

IMPACT

Nurse-led models are one strategy to improve health equity and access; however, there is a scarcity of literature on what these models look like and how they work in the primary care setting. Evidence suggests these models can also improve health outcomes, are perceived to be feasible and acceptable, and can be cost-effective. Increased utilisation of nurse-led models should be considered to address health system challenges and improve access to essential primary healthcare services globally.

REPORTING METHOD

This review is reported against the PRISMA-ScR criteria.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The study protocol is published in BJGP Open (Moulton et al., 2022).

Nurse led models of care for outpatient substance use disorder treatment: A scoping review

AIM

To map key characteristics and describe nurse led models of care for the treatment of persons with substance use disorders (SUDs) in the outpatient setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

METHODS

Conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, APA PsycNet and Scopus were searched from 1999 to May 2022 and updated on 28 November 2023. A handsearch and a grey literature search was conducted.

RESULTS

Title and abstract screening was performed on 774 articles resulting in 88 articles for full text screening. Full text screening yielded 13 articles that met inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

Existing nurse-led models of care for SUDS are scarce and limited in scope, with the majority focused on treating opioid use disorder. Additional research is needed to develop, test, and implement efficacious nurse-led models of care for the treatment and management of SUDs.

IMPLICATIONS TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurse led models of care have demonstrated their efficacy and quality in the management of other chronic diseases. As we move forward with innovative solutions for individuals with addiction, nurse led models of care can be a mechanism to deliver high quality, evidence-based care for SUDs.

IMPACT

SUDs are chronic diseases that impact individuals, families, and communities. SUDs require a biopsychosocial approach to treatment. Globally, nurses are well positioned to provide high quality care to mitigate the impact of SUDs. This scoping review mapped the extant literature on nurse led models of care for substance use disorder treatment in the outpatient setting finding that additional research is needed to develop, test and implement evidence-based interventions to care for individuals, families, and communities experiencing SUDs.

REPORTING METHOD

PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. No patient or public contribution were part of this study.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework accessible at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NSW7V.

Implementation of an office-based addiction treatment model for Medicaid enrollees: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) but remain underutilized. To reduce barriers to MOUD prescribing and increase treatment access, New Jersey's Medicaid program implemented the Office-Based Addiction Treatment (OBAT) Program in 2019, which increased reimbursement for office-based buprenorphine prescribing and established newly reimbursable patient navigation services in OBAT clinics. Using a mixed-methods design, this study aimed to describe stakeholder experiences with the OBAT program and to assess implementation and uptake of the program.

METHODS

This study used a concurrent, triangulated mixed-methods design, which integrated complementary qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative (Medicaid claims) data to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of the OBAT program. We elicited stakeholder perspectives through interviews with 22 NJ Medicaid MOUD providers and 8 policy key informants, and examined trends in OBAT program utilization using 2019-2020 NJ Medicaid claims for 5380 Medicaid enrollees who used OBAT services. We used cross-case analysis (provider interviews) and a case study approach (key informant interviews) in analyzing qualitative data, and calculated descriptive statistics and trends for quantitative data.

RESULTS

Provider enrollment and utilization of OBAT services increased steadily during the first two years of program implementation. Interviewees reported that enhanced reimbursements for office-based MOUD incentivized greater MOUD prescribing, while coverage of patient navigation services improved patient care. Despite increasing enrollment in the OBAT program, the proportion of primary care physicians in the state who enrolled in the program remained limited. Key barriers to enrollment included: requirements for a patient navigator; concerns about administrative burdens and reimbursement delays from Medicaid; lack of awareness of the program; and beliefs that patients with OUD were better served in comprehensive care settings. Patient navigation was highlighted as a critical and valuable element of the program, but navigator enrollment and reimbursement challenges may have prevented greater uptake of this service.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an OBAT model that enhanced reimbursement and provided coverage for patient navigation likely expanded access to MOUD in NJ. Results support initiatives like the OBAT program in improving access to MOUD, but program adaptations, where feasible, could improve uptake and utilization.

Financial Sustainability of Novel Delivery Models in Behavioral Health Treatment

BACKGROUND

In the US, much of the research into new intervention and delivery models for behavioral health care is funded by research institutes and foundations, typically through grants to develop and test the new interventions. The original grant funding is typically time-limited. This implies that eventually communities, clinicians, and others must find resources to replace the grant funding -otherwise the innovation will not be adopted. Diffusion is challenged by the continued dominance in the US of fee-for-service reimbursement, especially for behavioral health care.

AIMS

To understand the financial challenges to disseminating innovative behavioral health delivery models posed by fee-for-service reimbursement, and to explore alternative payment models that promise to accelerate adoption by better addressing need for flexibility and sustainability.

METHODS

We review US experience with three specific novel delivery models that emerged in recent years. The models are: collaborative care model for depression (CoCM), outpatient based opioid treatment (OBOT), and the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) model. These examples were selected as illustrating some common themes and some different issues affecting diffusion. For each model, we discuss its core components; evidence on its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; how its dissemination was funded; how providers are paid; and what has been the uptake so far.

RESULTS

The collaborative care model has existed for longest, but has been slow to disseminate, due in part to a lack of billing codes for key components until recently. The OBOT model faced that problem, and also (until recently) a regulatory requirement requiring physicians to obtain federal waivers in order to prescribe buprenorphine. Similarly, the CCBHC model includes previously nonbillable services, but it appears to be diffusing more successfully than some other innovations, due in part to the approach taken by funders.

DISCUSSION

A common challenge for all three models has been their inclusion of services that were not (initially) reimbursable in a fee-for-service system. However, even establishing new procedure codes may not be enough to give providers the flexibility needed to implement these models, unless payers also implement alternative payment models.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE

For providers who receive time-limited grant funding to implement these novel delivery models, one key lesson is the need to start early on planning how services will be sustained after the grant ends.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY

For research funders (e.g., federal agencies), it is clearly important to speed up the process of obtaining coverage for each novel delivery model, including the development of new billable service codes, and to plan for this as early as possible. Funders also need to collaborate with providers early in the grant period on sustainability planning for the post-grant environment. For payers, a key lesson is the need to fold novel models into stable existing funding streams such as Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage, rather than leaving them at the mercy of revolving time-limited grants, and to provide pathways for contracting for innovations under new payment models.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

For researchers, a key recommendation would be to pay greater attention to the payment environment when designing new delivery models and interventions.

Estimated Costs of Intervening in Health-Related Social Needs Detected in Primary Care

Importance

Health-related social needs are increasingly being screened for in primary care practices, but it remains unclear how much additional financing is required to address those needs to improve health outcomes.

Objective

To estimate the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions to address social needs identified in primary care practices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytical microsimulation of patients seen in primary care practices, using data on social needs from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 through 2018 (N = 19 225) was conducted. Primary care practices were categorized as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas, non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas, and practices in lower-poverty areas. Data analysis was performed from March 3 to December 16, 2022.

Intervention

Simulated evidence-based interventions of primary care-based screening and referral protocols, food assistance, housing programs, nonemergency medical transportation, and community-based care coordination.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was per-person per-month cost of interventions. Intervention costs that have existing federally funded financing mechanisms (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and costs without such an existing mechanism were tabulated.

Results

Of the population included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 34.4 (25.9) years, and 54.3% were female. Among people with food and housing needs, most were program eligible for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment (eg, due to inadequate program capacity), with 78.0% of people with housing needs being program eligible vs 24.0% enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs being program eligible vs 70.2% enrolled. Among those with transportation insecurity and care coordination needs, eligibility criteria limited enrollment (26.3% of those in need being program eligible for transportation programs, and 5.7% of those in need being program eligible for care coordination programs). The cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these 4 domains averaged $60 (95% CI, $55-$65) per member per month (including approximately $5 for screening and referral management in clinics), of which $27 (95% CI, $24-$31) (45.8%) was federally funded. While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps (intervention costs not borne by existing federal funding mechanisms).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this decision analytical microsimulation study, food and housing interventions were limited by low enrollment among eligible people, whereas transportation and care coordination interventions were more limited by narrow eligibility criteria. Screening and referral management in primary care was a small expenditure relative to the cost of interventions to address social needs, and just under half of the costs of interventions were covered by existing federal funding mechanisms. These findings suggest that many resources are necessary to address social needs that fall largely outside of existing federal financing mechanisms.

Characteristics, work environments, and rates of burnout and job dissatisfaction among registered nurses in primary care

BACKGROUND

Although more people than ever are seeking primary care, the ratio of primary care providers to the population continues to rapidly decline. As such, registered nurses (RNs) are taking on increasingly central roles in primary care delivery. Yet little is known about their characteristics, their work environments, and the extent to which they experience poor job outcomes such as nurse burnout.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of the primary care RN workforce and analyze the association of the nurse work environment with job outcomes in primary care.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of survey data representing N = 463 RNs who worked in 398 primary care practices, including primary care offices, community clinics, retail/urgent care clinics, and nurse-managed clinics. Survey questions included measures of the nurse work environment and levels of burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave.

DISCUSSION

Approximately one-third of primary care RNs were burnt out and dissatisfied with their jobs, with the highest risk of these outcomes among RNs in community clinics. Community clinic RNs were also significantly more likely to be Black or Hispanic/Latino, hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, and speak English as a second language (all p < .01). Across all settings, better nurse work environments were significantly associated with lower levels of burnout and job dissatisfaction (both p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Primary care practices must be equipped to support their RN workforce. Adequate nursing resources are especially needed in community clinics, as patients receiving primary care in these settings frequently face structural inequities.

Implications of Increased Access to Buprenorphine for Medical Providers in Rural Areas: A Review of the Literature and Future Directions

Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone®) is an efficacious treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) due to its more convenient dosing, superior safety profile, and decreased incidence of negative side effects when compared to other forms of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). In the United States, updated legislation in 2021 entitled, "The Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder", released by the Department of Health and Human Services, creates an exemption for the previously required Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA) waiver for buprenorphine prescribing for clinicians. This legislation was born out of a need for making MOUD more accessible for patients living with OUD as rates of opioid-related deaths in the United States have continued to rise and have increased disproportionately during the time period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This legislation has the potential to improve access to MOUD across all geographic locations, but may have the most profound impact in rural areas where significant disparities and challenges still exist in patients’ ability to access buprenorphine. The purpose of this literature review is to 1) examine how MOUD prescribing has changed after previous legislation changes, 2) explore the current state of buprenorphine access for treatment of OUD in rural America, 3) detail existing barriers in patients' ability to access MOUD, and 4) discuss future directions and considerations as a result of new legislation. This literature review found several existing barriers to receiving MOUD such as increasing costs, insufficient education, significant stigma, and the need for more innovative methods of delivery. We also found that there is currently a large opportunity for growth in the number of rural clinicians able to prescribe buprenorphine, particularly in primary care, that may now occur as a result of this new legislation. Overall, this legislation has the potential to have a positive impact on combating OUD, especially in rural areas, and may be a critical step towards ending the current opioid epidemic in the United States as these described barriers are addressed. 

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.