Abstract:Despite incentives for improved integration and quality of care under a global payment contract, the initial 3 years of the AQC showed no impact on MT use for AUD or OUD among privately insured enrollees with behavioral health benefits.
“…It is noteworthy that qualitative themes and barriers identified in this systematic review were overwhelmingly from evaluations of ACOs (LAN 3 and 4) that spanned a variety of payers and populations, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance. 59 , 60 , 61 , 73 , 74 Some of these findings are likely generalizable beyond ACOs. For example, in earlier ACOs that were not designed solely to manage MH/SUD care, these services were not considered low-hanging fruit and were often not an early focus of coordination or integration efforts.…”
“…Three study publications 59 , 60 , 61 (all OCEBM rating 3A) assessed the 3-year MH/SUD outcome associations of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), a LAN 4B commercial insurance ACO. The AQC compensated participating organizations via a risk-adjusted, prospective payment for all primary and specialty care, with bonuses available based on performance across 64 measures (most unrelated to MH/SUD care).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, including organizations with and without MH/SUD risk, the AQC was not associated with any changes in SUD medication use or spending. 61 …”
Key Points
Question
Are alternative health care payment and delivery models (APMs) associated with changes in service delivery or outcomes for mental health and/or substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) in the United States?
Findings
This systematic review included 27 articles on 17 APM implementations in MH/SUD care. Some specific APMs (eg, pay-for-performance) have been associated with improved MH/SUD outcomes, while others (eg, APMs with shared savings) have not; broadly, clinical outcome data are lacking in evaluations of APMs.
Meaning
This systematic review identified some evidence for APM effectiveness in MH/SUD care; further research is needed to identify successful program components and associations with clinical outcomes.
“…It is noteworthy that qualitative themes and barriers identified in this systematic review were overwhelmingly from evaluations of ACOs (LAN 3 and 4) that spanned a variety of payers and populations, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance. 59 , 60 , 61 , 73 , 74 Some of these findings are likely generalizable beyond ACOs. For example, in earlier ACOs that were not designed solely to manage MH/SUD care, these services were not considered low-hanging fruit and were often not an early focus of coordination or integration efforts.…”
“…Three study publications 59 , 60 , 61 (all OCEBM rating 3A) assessed the 3-year MH/SUD outcome associations of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), a LAN 4B commercial insurance ACO. The AQC compensated participating organizations via a risk-adjusted, prospective payment for all primary and specialty care, with bonuses available based on performance across 64 measures (most unrelated to MH/SUD care).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, including organizations with and without MH/SUD risk, the AQC was not associated with any changes in SUD medication use or spending. 61 …”
Key Points
Question
Are alternative health care payment and delivery models (APMs) associated with changes in service delivery or outcomes for mental health and/or substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) in the United States?
Findings
This systematic review included 27 articles on 17 APM implementations in MH/SUD care. Some specific APMs (eg, pay-for-performance) have been associated with improved MH/SUD outcomes, while others (eg, APMs with shared savings) have not; broadly, clinical outcome data are lacking in evaluations of APMs.
Meaning
This systematic review identified some evidence for APM effectiveness in MH/SUD care; further research is needed to identify successful program components and associations with clinical outcomes.
“…Real-world instances of initiatives include the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and Health Resources and Services Administration (SAMHSA-HRSA) joint project on expanding the use of medications in safety-net settings [ 92 ], SAMHSAâs Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network [ 93 ], CVS Pharmacy providing naloxone without prescriptions in most states [ 94 ], California implementing a state-wide hub-and-spoke model to improve access to OUD treatments [ 95 ], improving the rate of follow-up treatments among Medicaid enrollees in Pennsylvania by offering incentives to providers [ 96 ], and the SUPPORTAct expanding Medicare coverage to include bundled payment for treatments [ 97 ]. By contrast, in the first three year implementation of Global Payment and Accountable Care by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, no significant impact on using treatments was observed [ 98 ].…”
The current opioid epidemic has killed more than 446,000 Americans over the past two decades. Despite the magnitude of the crisis, little is known to what degree the misalignment of incentives among stakeholders due to competing interests has contributed to the current situation. In this study, we explore evidence in the literature for the working hypothesis that misalignment rooted in the cost, quality, or access to care can be a significant contributor to the opioid epidemic. The review identified several problems that can contribute to incentive misalignment by compromising the triple aims (cost, quality, and access) in this epidemic. Some of these issues include the inefficacy of conventional payment mechanisms in providing incentives for providers, practice guidelines in pain management that are not easily implementable across different medical specialties, barriers in adopting multi-modal pain management strategies, low capacity of providers/treatments to address opioid/substance use disorders, the complexity of addressing the co-occurrence of chronic pain and opioid use disorders, and patientsâ non-adherence to opioid substitution treatments. In discussing these issues, we also shed light on factors that can facilitate the alignment of incentives among stakeholders to effectively address the current crisis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citationsâcitations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.