Jason Paltzer1, David Paul Moberg2, Marguerite Burns3, Richard L Brown4. 1. Population Health Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Nursing & Health Care Professions, Grand Canyon University. 2. Population Health Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 4. ConcertoHealth, Kalamazoo, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Authorities recommend universal substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for all (ie, universal) adult primary care patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine long-term (24-mo) changes in health care utilization and costs associated with receipt of universal substance use SBIRT implemented by paraprofessionals in primary care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study used a difference-in-differences design and Medicaid administrative data to assess changes in health care use among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SBIRT. The difference-in-differences estimates were used in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate potential cost-offsets associated with SBIRT. SUBJECTS: The treatment patients were Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a 4-question substance use screen as part of an SBIRT demonstration program between 2006 and 2011. Comparison Medicaid patients were randomly selected from matched clinics in Wisconsin. MEASURES: The study includes 4 health care utilization measures: outpatient days; inpatient length of stay; inpatient admissions; and emergency department admissions. Each outcome was assigned a unit cost based on mean Wisconsin Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: We found an annual increase of 1.68 outpatient days (P=0.027) and a nonsignificant annual decrease in inpatient days of 0.67 days (P=0.087) associated with SBIRT. The estimates indicate that the cost of a universal SBIRT program could be offset by reductions in inpatient utilization with an annual net cost savings of $782 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Paraprofessional-delivered universal SBIRT is likely to yield health care cost savings and is a cost-effective mechanism for integrating behavioral health services in primary care settings.
BACKGROUND: Authorities recommend universal substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for all (ie, universal) adult primary care patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine long-term (24-mo) changes in health care utilization and costs associated with receipt of universal substance use SBIRT implemented by paraprofessionals in primary care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study used a difference-in-differences design and Medicaid administrative data to assess changes in health care use among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SBIRT. The difference-in-differences estimates were used in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate potential cost-offsets associated with SBIRT. SUBJECTS: The treatment patients were Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a 4-question substance use screen as part of an SBIRT demonstration program between 2006 and 2011. Comparison Medicaid patients were randomly selected from matched clinics in Wisconsin. MEASURES: The study includes 4 health care utilization measures: outpatient days; inpatient length of stay; inpatient admissions; and emergency department admissions. Each outcome was assigned a unit cost based on mean Wisconsin Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: We found an annual increase of 1.68 outpatient days (P=0.027) and a nonsignificant annual decrease in inpatient days of 0.67 days (P=0.087) associated with SBIRT. The estimates indicate that the cost of a universal SBIRT program could be offset by reductions in inpatient utilization with an annual net cost savings of $782 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Paraprofessional-delivered universal SBIRT is likely to yield health care cost savings and is a cost-effective mechanism for integrating behavioral health services in primary care settings.
Authors: Rahul Khanna; Patrick F Pace; Rohan Mahabaleshwarkar; Ram Sankar Basak; Manasi Datar; Benjamin F Banahan Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Ellen E Bouchery; Henrick J Harwood; Jeffrey J Sacks; Carol J Simon; Robert D Brewer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michael F Fleming; Marlon P Mundt; Michael T French; Linda Baier Manwell; Ellyn A Stauffacher; Kristen Lawton Barry Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Laura Dwyer-Lindgren; Amelia Bertozzi-Villa; Rebecca W Stubbs; Chloe Morozoff; Shreya Shirude; Jürgen Unützer; Mohsen Naghavi; Ali H Mokdad; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Michael R Polen; Carla A Green; Tracy Orleans; Jonathan Klein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kristina Monti; Keren Bachi; Madeline Gray; Vibhor Mahajan; Gabrielle Sweeney; Anna M Oprescu; Kevin G Munjal; Yasmin L Hurd; Sabina Lim Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Lindsay R Meredith; Erica N Grodin; Mitchell P Karno; Amanda K Montoya; James MacKillop; Aaron C Lim; Lara A Ray Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-08-24