Healthcare systems are implementing value-based payment (VBP) arrangements in efforts to incentivize cost-effective, high quality of care. These arrangements represent a major shift for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers who may need to make changes to their clinical and business operations to meet new demands for quality under value-based contracts. This qualitative study was conducted in the context of New York State’s efforts to implement VBP among SUD treatment providers to understand their experiences, challenges, and needs. Five focus groups were conducted across the State with a total of 68 treatment professionals. Content analysis was conducted and five themes emerged. First, competing demands, limited workforce and technology infrastructure, and perceived lack of information were leading to overwhelmed administrators. Second, confusion and financial fear was being driven by the need for new clinical roles, business practices, and external partnerships. Third, providers were undertaking a number of measures to address workforce needs. Fourth, providers were building new business models and clinical practices. Fifth, providers desired more support and information. As VBP models are being adopted, healthcare systems should identify ways to mitigate challenges and support SUD treatment providers that may have limited resources to address complex workforce, client, and infrastructure needs.

Background The misuse of and addiction to opioids is a national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare. There is an urgent need for strategies to improve opioid use disorder treatment quality (e.g., 6-month retention). Substance use disorder treatment programs are challenged by limited resources and a workforce that does not have the requisite experience or education in quality improvement methods. The purpose of this study is to test a multicomponent clinic-level intervention designed to aid substance use disorder treatment clinics in implementing quality improvement processes to improve high-priority indicators of treatment quality for opioid use disorder. Methods A stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with 30 outpatient treatment clinics serving approximately 2000 clients with opioid use disorder each year will test whether a clinic-level measurement-driven, quality improvement intervention, called Coaching for Addiction Recovery Enhancement (CARE), improves (a) treatment process quality measures (use of medications for opioid use disorder, in-treatment symptom and therapeutic progress, treatment retention) and (b) recovery outcomes (substance use, health, and healthcare utilization). The CARE intervention will have the following components: (1) staff clinical training and tools, (2) quality improvement and change management training, (3) external facilitation to support implementation and sustainability of quality improvement processes, and (4) an electronic client-reported treatment progress tool to support data-driven decision making and clinic-level quality measurement. The study will utilize multiple sources of data to test study aims, including state administrative data, client-reported survey and treatment progress data, and staff interview and survey data. Discussion This study will provide the field with a strong test of a multicomponent intervention to improve providers’ capacity to make systematic changes tied to quality metrics. The study will also result in training and materials that can be shared widely to increase quality improvement implementation and enhance clinical practice in the substance use disorder treatment system. Trial registration Trial #NCT04632238NCT04632238 registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 17 November 2020

Two studies examined inter-rater reliability and content-related validity of an addiction treatment level of care determination tool currently in use in New York, the LOCADTR 3.0. The studies occurred after tool implementation. In study 1, 139 providers used the LOCADTR 3.0 to determine level of care for four case vignettes. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were calculated. In study 2, 387,338 state records from existing data were analyzed to determine how often providers opted to override the LOCADTR 3.0 level of care determination by choosing an alternative level of care. In study 1, an acceptable inter-rater reliability (IRR = .57-.59) was found. Good indication of content-related validity was also found; participants chose the same level of care the study team chose for each vignette 80% of the time. In study 2, the override option was selected only 10% of the time, further establishing the content validity of the tool. These studies provide evidence for acceptable preliminary reliability and validity of the LOCADTR 3.0.

No abstract