Budget impact tool for the incorporation of medications for opioid use disorder into jail/prison facilities

Development and usability testing of a tool to estimate the budget impact of implementing a smoking cessation intervention for cancer patients

PURPOSE

Budget impact analyses (BIAs) aim to estimate costs of evidence-based programs in specific contexts, an important component of implementation decision making. We developed a BIA tool focused on the Smokefree Support Study, a cost-effective smoking cessation program for patients entering cancer care and refined the tool through usability testing.

METHODS

The BIA tool was structured using data from the Smokefree Support Study cost-effectiveness study. We refined the tool via usability testing to improve functionality and gain insight into the tool's potential for informing adoption decisions. We recruited participants from sites participating in the NCI-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

RESULTS

The final BIA tool allowed users generate context-specific cost estimates. Usability testing interviews informed changes to improve the BIA tool's usability and also illustrated users' natural inclination toward adaptation, helped identify the target audience for the tool, and underscored that cost results should be contextualized with other decision criteria to support program adoption.

CONCLUSION

We developed a BIA tool with which users can generate context-specific cost estimates of the Smokefree Support Study program. The breadth of usability feedback provided by participants and perspectives on using the BIA tool underscore the importance of involving end users in the development of tools and products.

Cost analysis of MOUD implementation and sustainability in Massachusetts jails

BACKGROUND

In 2018 Massachusetts mandated that county jails offer all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to incarcerated individuals with OUD. Estimating costs needed to implement and sustain an MOUD program are not clearly known in jail facilities. The objective of this study was to identify the type of MOUD model deployed by the jails serving as research sites for the Massachusetts JCOIN hub, determine which resources were utilized at each stage of development, and estimate the associated costs.

METHODS

Resources required to implement and sustain the MOUD programs were identified through detailed, site-specific microcosting analyses at six participating jails in Massachusetts. Quantitative resource utilization data were captured primarily through in-person site-visits and semi-structured interviews with key personnel. Unit costs were derived from the Federal Supply Schedule and Bureau Labor of Statistics from a site-specific level perspective. Our customizable budget impact tool, designed to assist jails/prisons with assessing the viability of alternative MOUD models, was used to organize each site's resources and estimate their associated costs. Resources/costs were summarized by site, according to type and phase, and cross-site comparisons were made to identify common program elements and unique models.

RESULTS

Three MOUD models were identified. Model 1 consisted of a vendor hired to deliver and administer methadone daily, while clinical jail staff administered buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. Model 2 included facilities that hired a certified vendor to operate an in-house opioid treatment program (OTP) to oversee the administration of all MOUD. Jails in Model 3 became certified OTPs, thereby allowing jail staff to manage all aspects of the MOUD program. There was considerable variability in implementation costs, both within and across models, driven by model-specific factors, but also with switching models, expanding infrastructure, etc. Entering the sustainment phase, the per-person costs of care were quite similar across models but differed according to the proportion of costs considered time-dependent vs. variable.

CONCLUSION

Our findings represent the most detailed and comprehensive estimates of resource/cost requirements for jail-based MOUD programs. Given the budget constraints faced by jails, the investment required to implement/sustain an MOUD program will likely result in the need to obtain additional funding or reallocate existing resources away from other initiatives.

Medication for opioid use disorder service delivery in carceral facilities: update and summary report

The opioid overdose crisis intersects critically with the criminal legal system where individuals with opioid use disorder (are significantly overrepresented. Subsequently, incarceration increases the risk of opioid overdose due to reduced tolerance, interrupted social supports, and limited access to treatment. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, have been shown to reduce opioid-related mortality and improve outcomes for those in carceral settings. Despite this, access to MOUD in jails and prisons remains limited due to stigma, concerns about medication diversion, and logistical challenges. This paper reviews the current state of knowledge on MOUD in carceral settings, summarizing the prevalence of treatment programs, the role of novel formulations like injectable buprenorphine, and barriers to implementation. It also explores the continuum of care, emphasizing the importance of initiating MOUD during incarceration and ensuring continuation upon release to prevent treatment gaps. Recent policy changes, such as Sect. 1115 Medicaid waivers, offer promising avenues for expanding access, but retention in treatment and post-release outcomes remain significant challenges. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature and updates on MOUD service delivery, including the impact of recent policy shifts and research on outcomes such as recidivism and health improvement. It concludes by identifying key areas for future research, including strategies to improve treatment retention, address systemic barriers through criminal justice reform, and enhance care coordination during the transition from incarceration to the community.

Informing an Intervention to Improve Access to Community Pharmacist-Provided Injectable Naltrexone for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals in Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly prevalent among individuals impacted by the criminal justice system. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including injectable naltrexone, are crucial for treating OUD and especially important for individuals transitioning out of correctional facilities and back into the community. Unfortunately, few formerly incarcerated individuals are able to access MOUD upon community reentry, remaining at high risk of overdose and rearrest. Community pharmacists are a promising resource for providing injectable naltrexone to formerly incarcerated individuals using this treatment option, but are underutilized during reentry planning and by formerly incarcerated individuals upon release. This is due, in large part, to several barriers that exist across the socioecological scale. Accordingly, this study utilized a participatory design process to inform an intervention that address these barriers and improves access to community pharmacist-provided injectable naltrexone for formerly incarcerated individuals upon community reentry. Three iterative focus groups were conducted with five community pharmacists who have experience providing injectable naltrexone and treating formerly incarcerated patients. The goals of each focus group were to: 1) discuss perceptions of existing barriers and prioritize barriers to be addressed, 2) discuss and rank potential interventions to address the prioritized barriers, and 3) discuss components and anticipated challenges related to the prioritized intervention. Focus groups were analyzed via deductive content analysis using a priori categories. Based on discussions of perceived impact and feasibility, the participants prioritized two barriers to be addressed: lack of awareness of community pharmacist-provided injectable naltrexone services and lack of interagency collaboration among primary care clinics, community pharmacies, and correctional facilities. The final intervention included pharmacist-led educational meetings with correctional providers and reentry staff. Several intervention components and anticipated challenges were also identified. Next steps include developing, implementing, and evaluating the efficacy of the intervention on improving access to community pharmacist-provided injectable naltrexone for formerly incarcerated individuals.

Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies

INTRODUCTION

The health and economic consequences of inadequately treated opioid use disorder (OUD) are substantial. Healthcare systems in the United States (US) and other countries are facing a growing healthcare crisis due to opioids. Although effective medications for OUD exist, relying solely on clinical information is insufficient for addressing the opioid crisis.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the role of pharmacoeconomic studies in informing evidence-based medication treatment for OUD is discussed, with a particular emphasis on the US healthcare system, where the economic burden is significantly higher than the global average. The scope/objective of pharmacoeconomics as a distinct scientific research program is briefly defined, followed by a discussion of existing evidence informed by data from systematic reviews, in addition to a convenience sample of recently published pharmacoeconomic studies and protocols. The review also explores the need for methodological advancements in the field.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the potential of pharmacoeconomic research in shaping evidence-based medicine for OUD, significant challenges limiting its real-world application remain. How to address these challenges are explored, including how to combine cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses to address the needs of the healthcare system as a whole and specific stakeholders interested in adopting new OUD treatment strategies.

An Approach to Enhancing Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in the HEALing Communities Study

The HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-term) Communities Study (HCS) aims to test the effectiveness of the Communities That HEAL intervention in decreasing opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities across four U.S. states. This intervention enlists a collaborative team of researchers, academic experts, and community coalitions to select and implement interventions from a menu of evidence-based practices, including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The HCS's New York team developed an integrated network systems (INS) approach with a mapping tool to coach coalitions in the selection of strategies to enhance medication treatment. With the INS approach, community coalitions develop a map of service delivery venues in their local county to better engage people with medication treatment wherever this need arises. The map is structured around core services that can provide maintenance MOUD and satellite services, which include all settings where people with opioid use disorder are encountered and can be identified, possibly given medication, and referred to core programs for ongoing MOUD care. This article describes the rationale for the INS mapping tool, with a discussion framed by the consolidated framework for implementation research, and provides a case example of its application.

Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy and Infectious Diseases Care for Justice-Involved Populations

The Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy (MIEP) prohibits using federal funds for ambulatory care services and medications (including for infectious diseases) for incarcerated persons. More than one quarter of states, including California and Massachusetts, have asked the federal government for authority to waive the MIEP. To improve health outcomes and continuation of care, those states seek to cover transitional care services provided to persons in the period before release from incarceration. The Massachusetts Sheriffs' Association, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School have collaborated to improve infectious disease healthcare service provision before and after release from incarceration. They seek to provide stakeholders working at the intersection of criminal justice and healthcare with tools to advance Medicaid policy and improve treatment and prevention of infectious diseases for persons in jails and prisons by removing MIEP barriers through Section 1115 waivers.

Budget Impact Tool for Implementing Contingency Management for Co-occurring Alcohol Use Disorders and Serious Mental Illness

OBJECTIVE

Contingency management (CM) is a behavioral intervention in which tangible incentives are provided to patients when they achieve a desired behavior (e.g., reducing or abstaining from alcohol use). The authors sought to describe the resource requirements and associated costs of various CM versions (usual, high magnitude, and shaping) tailored to a high-risk population with co-occurring serious mental illness and severe alcohol use disorder.

METHODS

A microcosting analysis was conducted to identify the resource requirements of the different CM versions. This approach included semistructured interviews with site investigators, who also staffed the intervention. The resource costing method-multiplying the number of units of each resource utilized by its respective unit cost-was used to value the resources from a provider's perspective. All cost estimates were calculated in 2021 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

The cost of setting up a CM program was $6,038 per site. Assuming full capacity and 56% of urine samples meeting the requirement for receipt of the CM incentive, the average cost of 16 weeks of usual and shaping CM treatments was $1,119-$1,136 and of high-magnitude CM was $1,848-$1,865 per participant.

CONCLUSIONS

A customizable tool was created to estimate the costs associated with various levels of treatment success and CM design features. After the trial, the tool will be updated and used to finalize per-participant cost for incorporation into a comprehensive economic evaluation. This costing tool will help a growing number of treatment providers who are interested in implementing CM with budgeting for and sustaining CM in their practices.

Get It in Writing: How to Make Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Available During Incarceration

In a case example from the Kentucky HEALing Communities Study, extensive resources were deployed to address structural barriers and facilitate the provision of medication for opioid use disorder (OUD) in an urban county jail. However, implementation was unsuccessful, and this case example emphasizes the importance of including evidence-based medication for OUD (MOUD) treatment in the scope of work of jails' contracted medical providers. The privatization of correctional health care services allows local governments with opioid abatement funds to incorporate requirements into medical provider contracts to screen all people entering jails for OUD and to offer MOUD at intake, throughout incarceration, and upon release to everyone for whom it is clinically indicated. We provide sample contractual language that can be added to requests for medical provider proposals to help drive the private correctional health care market toward integrating MOUD treatment into their standard of care. This approach also could expedite efforts to scale up broad MOUD access across U.S. jails through sharing of workflows and best practices among the small group of national correctional health care companies contracted with jails in states with broad mandates, such as Massachusetts. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04111939.

A mixed methods partner-focused cost and budget impact analysis to deploy implementation strategies for school-based prevention

BACKGROUND

Obtaining information on implementation strategy costs and local budget impacts from multiple perspectives is essential to data-driven decision-making about resource allocation for successful evidence-based intervention delivery. This mixed methods study determines the costs and priorities of deploying Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP) to implement the Michigan Model for Health™, a universal school-based prevention intervention, from key shareholder perspectives.

METHODS

Our study included teachers in 8 high schools across 3 Michigan counties as part of a pilot cluster randomized trial. We used activity-based costing, mapping key Enhanced REP activities across implementation phases. We included multiple perspectives, including state agencies, regional education service agencies, lead organization, and implementers. We also conducted a budget impact analysis (BIA, assessing the potential financial impact of adopting Enhanced REP) and a scenario analysis to estimate replication and account for cost variability. We used an experimental embedded mixed methods approach, conducting semi-structured interviews and collecting field notes during the trial to expand and explain the cost data and the implications of costs across relevant perspectives.

RESULTS

Based on trial results, we estimate costs for deploying Enhanced REP are $11,903/school, with an estimated range between $8263/school and $15,201/school. We estimate that adding four additional schools, consistent with the pilot, would cost $8659/school. Qualitative results indicated misalignment in school and teacher priorities in some cases. Implementation activities, including training and implementation facilitation with the health coordinator, were sometimes in addition to regular teaching responsibilities. The extent to which this occurred was partly due to leadership priorities (e.g., sticking to the district PD schedule) and organizational priorities (e.g., budget).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research findings indicate that, from a societal perspective, universal prevention is an excellent return on investment. However, notable misalignment in cost burden and priorities exists across shareholder groups. Our results indicate significant personal time costs by teachers when engaging in implementation strategy activities that impose an opportunity cost. Additional strategies are needed to improve the alignment of costs and benefits to enhance the success and sustainability of implementation. We focus on those perspectives informed by the analysis and discuss opportunities to expand a multi-level focus and create greater alignment across perspectives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04752189. Registered on 12 February 2021.