Dominic Hodgkin1, Deborah W Garnick2, Constance M Horgan2, Alisa B Busch3, Maureen T Stewart2, Sharon Reif2. 1. Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, USA. Electronic address: hodgkin@brandeis.edu. 2. Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, USA. 3. McLean Hospital, and the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some US payers are starting to vary payment to providers depending on patient outcomes, but this approach is rarely used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. PURPOSE: We examine the feasibility of applying a pay-for-outcomes approach to SUD treatment. METHODS: We reviewed several relevant literatures: (1) economic theory papers that describe the conditions under which pay-for-outcomes is feasible in principle; (2) description of the key outcomes expected from SUD treatment, and the measures of these outcomes that are available in administrative data systems; and (3) reports on actual experiences of paying SUD treatment providers based on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The economics literature notes that when patient outcomes are strongly influenced by factors beyond provider control and when risk adjustment performs poorly, pay-for-outcomes will increase provider financial risk. This is relevant to SUD treatment. The literature on SUD outcome measurement shows disagreement on whether to include broader outcomes beyond abstinence from substance use. Good measures are available for some of these broader constructs, but the need for risk adjustment still brings many challenges. Results from two past payment experiments in SUD treatment reinforce some of the concerns raised in the more conceptual literature. CONCLUSION: There are special challenges in applying pay-for-outcomes to SUD treatment, not all of which could be overcome by developing better measures. For SUD treatment it may be necessary to define outcomes more broadly than for general medical care, and to continue conditioning a sizeable portion of payment on process measures.
BACKGROUND: Some US payers are starting to vary payment to providers depending on patient outcomes, but this approach is rarely used in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. PURPOSE: We examine the feasibility of applying a pay-for-outcomes approach to SUD treatment. METHODS: We reviewed several relevant literatures: (1) economic theory papers that describe the conditions under which pay-for-outcomes is feasible in principle; (2) description of the key outcomes expected from SUD treatment, and the measures of these outcomes that are available in administrative data systems; and (3) reports on actual experiences of paying SUD treatment providers based on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The economics literature notes that when patient outcomes are strongly influenced by factors beyond provider control and when risk adjustment performs poorly, pay-for-outcomes will increase provider financial risk. This is relevant to SUD treatment. The literature on SUD outcome measurement shows disagreement on whether to include broader outcomes beyond abstinence from substance use. Good measures are available for some of these broader constructs, but the need for risk adjustment still brings many challenges. Results from two past payment experiments in SUD treatment reinforce some of the concerns raised in the more conceptual literature. CONCLUSION: There are special challenges in applying pay-for-outcomes to SUD treatment, not all of which could be overcome by developing better measures. For SUD treatment it may be necessary to define outcomes more broadly than for general medical care, and to continue conditioning a sizeable portion of payment on process measures.
Authors: Aimee N C Campbell; Dennis McCarty; Traci Rieckmann; Jennifer McNeely; John Rotrosen; Li-Tzy Wu; Gavin Bart Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-11-19
Authors: Bryan R Garner; Susan H Godley; Michael L Dennis; Brooke D Hunter; Christin M L Bair; Mark D Godley Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2012-10
Authors: Arlene S Ash; Eric O Mick; Randall P Ellis; Catarina I Kiefe; Jeroan J Allison; Melissa A Clark Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ellen Montz; Tim Layton; Alisa B Busch; Randall P Ellis; Sherri Rose; Thomas G McGuire Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Rebecca E Stewart; Courtney Benjamin Wolk; Geoffrey Neimark; Ridhi Vyas; Jordyn Young; Chris Tjoa; Kyle Kampman; David T Jones; David S Mandell Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-10-20