Cost Savings from a Navigator Intervention for Repeat Detoxification Clients.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Dominic Hodgkin, Mary F Brolin, Grant A Ritter, Maria E Torres, Elizabeth L Merrick, Constance M Horgan, Jonna C Hopwood, Natasha De Marco, Andrea Gewirtz
{"title":"Cost Savings from a Navigator Intervention for Repeat Detoxification Clients.","authors":"Dominic Hodgkin,&nbsp;Mary F Brolin,&nbsp;Grant A Ritter,&nbsp;Maria E Torres,&nbsp;Elizabeth L Merrick,&nbsp;Constance M Horgan,&nbsp;Jonna C Hopwood,&nbsp;Natasha De Marco,&nbsp;Andrea Gewirtz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many clients with substance use disorders (SUD) have multiple admissions to a 24-hour level of care for detoxification without ever progressing to SUD treatment. In the US, health insurers have become concerned about the high costs and ineffective results of repeat detox admissions. For other diseases, health systems increasingly target high-risk, high-cost patients with individually tailored interventions delivered by `navigators' who help patients negotiate the complex health care system. Patient incentives are another increasingly common intervention.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>(i) To examine how health care spending was affected by an intervention intended to improve entry to SUD treatment among clients who had multiple detox admissions. (ii) To see whether spending effects, overall and by type of service, differed by intervention arm. (iii) To assess whether the intervention resulted in net savings from the payer perspective, after subtracting implementation costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The intervention was implemented in a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population, and used Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs) who were trained to effectively engage and connect clients with SUD to follow-up care and community resources. Services were funded using a flat daily rate per client. Additionally, in one of the two intervention arms, clients were offered successive incentive payments for meeting pre-specified milestones to reinforce recovery-oriented behaviors. For this paper, multivariate analyses of claims and administrative data were used to measure the intervention's effect on health care spending, and to estimate net savings to the payer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Health care spending grew 1.6 percentage points more slowly for intervention-enrolled members than for others, implying gross savings of $68 per member per month. After subtracting intervention-related costs, net savings were estimated at $57 per member per month. The intervention was also associated with shifts in the health care service mix from more to less acute settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While the results for total spending did not reach statistical significance, they suggest some potential for insurers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox utilization by using a navigator-based intervention. Analyses reported elsewhere found that this intervention had favorable effects on rates of initiation of SUD treatment. Limitations of the study include the fact that neither subjects nor sites were randomized between study groups; lack of data on crime or productivity outcomes; low participant use of RSN services; and a policy change which altered the participant pool and truncated follow-up for some.</p><p><strong>Implications for health care provision and use: </strong>These results suggest some potential for payers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox by using a navigator-based intervention. To the extent that this results in shifting resources from repeat detox to actual treatment, the result should provide longer term benefit to the population coping with SUD.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policy: </strong>These results may encourage Medicaid and other payers to further experiment with similar interventions using navigators to decrease health care costs and improved the lives of SUD patients.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>It could be informative to test similar navigator interventions for detox patients in other settings where enrollment periods are longer.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"22 1","pages":"3-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many clients with substance use disorders (SUD) have multiple admissions to a 24-hour level of care for detoxification without ever progressing to SUD treatment. In the US, health insurers have become concerned about the high costs and ineffective results of repeat detox admissions. For other diseases, health systems increasingly target high-risk, high-cost patients with individually tailored interventions delivered by `navigators' who help patients negotiate the complex health care system. Patient incentives are another increasingly common intervention.

Aims of the study: (i) To examine how health care spending was affected by an intervention intended to improve entry to SUD treatment among clients who had multiple detox admissions. (ii) To see whether spending effects, overall and by type of service, differed by intervention arm. (iii) To assess whether the intervention resulted in net savings from the payer perspective, after subtracting implementation costs.

Methods: The intervention was implemented in a segment of the Massachusetts Medicaid population, and used Recovery Support Navigators (RSNs) who were trained to effectively engage and connect clients with SUD to follow-up care and community resources. Services were funded using a flat daily rate per client. Additionally, in one of the two intervention arms, clients were offered successive incentive payments for meeting pre-specified milestones to reinforce recovery-oriented behaviors. For this paper, multivariate analyses of claims and administrative data were used to measure the intervention's effect on health care spending, and to estimate net savings to the payer.

Results: Health care spending grew 1.6 percentage points more slowly for intervention-enrolled members than for others, implying gross savings of $68 per member per month. After subtracting intervention-related costs, net savings were estimated at $57 per member per month. The intervention was also associated with shifts in the health care service mix from more to less acute settings.

Discussion: While the results for total spending did not reach statistical significance, they suggest some potential for insurers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox utilization by using a navigator-based intervention. Analyses reported elsewhere found that this intervention had favorable effects on rates of initiation of SUD treatment. Limitations of the study include the fact that neither subjects nor sites were randomized between study groups; lack of data on crime or productivity outcomes; low participant use of RSN services; and a policy change which altered the participant pool and truncated follow-up for some.

Implications for health care provision and use: These results suggest some potential for payers to reduce the health care costs associated with repeat detox by using a navigator-based intervention. To the extent that this results in shifting resources from repeat detox to actual treatment, the result should provide longer term benefit to the population coping with SUD.

Implications for health policy: These results may encourage Medicaid and other payers to further experiment with similar interventions using navigators to decrease health care costs and improved the lives of SUD patients.

Implications for further research: It could be informative to test similar navigator interventions for detox patients in other settings where enrollment periods are longer.

导航员干预对重复戒毒病人的成本节约。
背景:许多患有物质使用障碍(SUD)的患者多次入院接受24小时的戒毒治疗,但从未进行过SUD治疗。在美国,医疗保险公司已经开始担心反复戒毒的高成本和无效结果。对于其他疾病,卫生系统越来越多地以高风险、高费用患者为目标,由“导航员”提供量身定制的干预措施,帮助患者与复杂的卫生保健系统谈判。患者激励是另一种越来越常见的干预措施。本研究的目的:(i)研究旨在改善多次戒毒入院的客户进入SUD治疗的干预措施如何影响医疗保健支出。(ii)就整体及按服务类别划分的开支效果,是否因不同的干预部门而有所不同。(iii)在减去实施成本后,从付款人的角度评估干预措施是否带来净节省。方法:干预在马萨诸塞州医疗补助人群中实施,并使用康复支持导游员(rsn),他们接受过培训,可以有效地与SUD的客户进行随访护理和社区资源的联系。服务是按每个客户的每日固定费率提供资金的。此外,在两种干预手段之一中,为客户提供连续的奖励,以满足预先规定的里程碑,以加强以恢复为导向的行为。本文使用索赔和行政数据的多变量分析来衡量干预对医疗保健支出的影响,并估计支付人的净储蓄。结果:参与干预的会员的医疗支出增长速度比其他会员慢1.6个百分点,这意味着每位会员每月节省了68美元。减去与干预有关的费用后,估计每位会员每月净节余为57美元。干预还与卫生保健服务组合的转变有关,从较严重的环境到较不严重的环境。讨论:虽然总支出的结果没有达到统计学意义,但它们表明保险公司通过使用基于导航器的干预来降低与重复排毒利用相关的医疗保健成本的一些潜力。其他报道的分析发现,这种干预对SUD治疗的起始率有有利影响。该研究的局限性包括:研究对象和研究地点均未在研究组之间随机分配;缺乏关于犯罪或生产力结果的数据;RSN服务参与率低;政策的改变改变了参与者的数量,并缩短了一些人的随访时间。对卫生保健提供和使用的影响:这些结果表明,支付者可以通过使用基于导航器的干预来降低与重复排毒相关的卫生保健成本。在某种程度上,这导致将资源从重复排毒转移到实际治疗上,结果应该为应对SUD的人群提供长期利益。对卫生政策的启示:这些结果可能鼓励医疗补助和其他支付方进一步试验类似的干预措施,使用导航器来降低卫生保健成本,改善SUD患者的生活。对进一步研究的启示:在其他登记期较长的环境中,对排毒患者进行类似的导航干预可能会提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信