Sharon Reif1, Mary F Brolin2, Maureen T Stewart2, Thomas J Fuchs3, Elizabeth Speaker4, Shayna B Mazel2. 1. Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02453, USA. Electronic address: reif@brandeis.edu. 2. Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02453, USA. 3. Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, Washington State Health Care Authority, 626 8th Avenue SE, P.O. Box 45330, Olympia, WA 98504, USA. 4. Research and Data Analysis, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 1115 Washington Street, P.O. Box 4520, Olympia, WA 98504, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The federal Opioid State Targeted Response (Opioid STR) grants provided funding to each state to ramp up the range of responses to reverse the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S. Washington State used these funds to develop and implement an integrated care model to expand access to medication treatment and reduce unmet need for people with opioid use disorders (OUD), regardless of how they enter the treatment system. This paper examines the design, early implementation and results of the Washington State Hub and Spoke Model. METHODS: Descriptive data were gathered from key informants, document review, and aggregate data reported by hubs and spokes to Washington State's Opioid STR team. RESULTS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model reflects a flexible approach that incorporates primary care and substance use treatment programs, as well as outreach, referral and social service organizations, and a nurse care manager. Hubs could be any type of program that had the required expertise and capacity to lead their network in medication treatment for OUD, including all three FDA-approved medications. Six hub-spoke networks were funded, with 8 unique agencies on average, and multiple sites. About 150 prescribers are in these networks (25 on average). In the first 18 months, nearly 5000 people were inducted onto OUD medication treatment: 73% on buprenorphine, 19% on methadone, and 9% on naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model built on prior approaches to improve the delivery system for OUD medication treatment and support services, by increasing integration of care, ensuring "no wrong door," engaging with community agencies, and supporting providers who are offering medication treatment. It used essential elements from existing integrated care OUD treatment models, but allowed for organic restructuring to meet the population needs within a community. To date, there have been challenges and successes, but with this approach, Washington State has provided medication treatment for OUD to nearly 5000 people. Sustainability efforts are underway. In the face of the ongoing opioid crisis, it remains essential to develop, implement and evaluate novel models, such as Washington's Hub and Spoke approach, to improve treatment access and increase capacity.
INTRODUCTION: The federal Opioid State Targeted Response (Opioid STR) grants provided funding to each state to ramp up the range of responses to reverse the ongoing opioid crisis in the U.S. Washington State used these funds to develop and implement an integrated care model to expand access to medication treatment and reduce unmet need for people with opioid use disorders (OUD), regardless of how they enter the treatment system. This paper examines the design, early implementation and results of the Washington State Hub and Spoke Model. METHODS: Descriptive data were gathered from key informants, document review, and aggregate data reported by hubs and spokes to Washington State's Opioid STR team. RESULTS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model reflects a flexible approach that incorporates primary care and substance use treatment programs, as well as outreach, referral and social service organizations, and a nurse care manager. Hubs could be any type of program that had the required expertise and capacity to lead their network in medication treatment for OUD, including all three FDA-approved medications. Six hub-spoke networks were funded, with 8 unique agencies on average, and multiple sites. About 150 prescribers are in these networks (25 on average). In the first 18 months, nearly 5000 people were inducted onto OUD medication treatment: 73% on buprenorphine, 19% on methadone, and 9% on naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model built on prior approaches to improve the delivery system for OUD medication treatment and support services, by increasing integration of care, ensuring "no wrong door," engaging with community agencies, and supporting providers who are offering medication treatment. It used essential elements from existing integrated care OUD treatment models, but allowed for organic restructuring to meet the population needs within a community. To date, there have been challenges and successes, but with this approach, Washington State has provided medication treatment for OUD to nearly 5000 people. Sustainability efforts are underway. In the face of the ongoing opioid crisis, it remains essential to develop, implement and evaluate novel models, such as Washington's Hub and Spoke approach, to improve treatment access and increase capacity.
Authors: Arthur Robin Williams; Edward V Nunes; Adam Bisaga; Frances R Levin; Mark Olfson Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Jared A Leff; Daniel Polsky; Brent A Moore; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sean M Murphy; Kathryn E McCollister; Jared A Leff; Xuan Yang; Philip J Jeng; Joshua D Lee; Edward V Nunes; Patricia Novo; John Rotrosen; Bruce R Schackman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Catherine Anne Fullerton; Meelee Kim; Cindy Parks Thomas; D Russell Lyman; Leslie B Montejano; Richard H Dougherty; Allen S Daniels; Sushmita Shoma Ghose; Miriam E Delphin-Rittmon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Cindy Parks Thomas; Catherine Anne Fullerton; Meelee Kim; Leslie Montejano; D Russell Lyman; Richard H Dougherty; Allen S Daniels; Sushmita Shoma Ghose; Miriam E Delphin-Rittmon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Valerie S Harder; Andrea C Villanti; Sarah H Heil; M Lindsey Smith; Diann E Gaalema; Marjorie C Meyer; Nathaniel H Schafrick; Stacey C Sigmon Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Miriam Harris; Samantha F Schoenberger; Spoorthi Sampath; Alexander Y Walley; Sarah M Bagley Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Eric J Hawkins; Carol A Malte; Adam J Gordon; Emily C Williams; Hildi J Hagedorn; Karen Drexler; Brittany E Blanchard; Jennifer L Burden; Jennifer Knoeppel; Anissa N Danner; Aline Lott; Joseph G Liberto; Andrew J Saxon Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01