User login
Integrating buprenorphine and harm eduction tools into primary care may improve clinical outcomes, increase costs only modestly, and be cost effective in health systems, authors conclude in an original investigation in JAMA Network Open.
A team led by Raagini Jawa, MD, MPH, with the Center for Research on Healthcare, University of Pittsburgh, set out to analyze costs of the interventions versus increased benefit in extending life expectancy.
Their analysis found that, compared with the status quo, integrating buprenorphine and harm reduction kits (syringes, wound care supplies, etc.) reduced drug use–related deaths by 33% and was cost effective.
“Our results suggest that integrated addiction care in primary care has the potential to save lives and increase nonemergency health care use, which is consistent with prior literature,” the authors write. “Colocated addiction services within primary care is pragmatic and effective and has comparable quality to specialty care. We found that onsite BUP [buprenorphine prescribing] plus HR [harm reduction] provides better outcomes than BUP alone at a lower cost.”
Three strategies compared
Using a microsimulation model of 2.25 million people in the United States who inject opioids, with an average age of 44 (69% of them male), the researchers tested three strategies:
- Status quo. PCP refers to addiction care.
- BUP. PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to off-site harm reduction kits.
- BUP plus HR. PCP services plus on-site buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits.
The model is the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death.
The status quo (referral for treatment) resulted in 1,162 overdose deaths per 10,000 people (95% credible interval, 1,144-2,303), whereas both BUP and BUP plus HR resulted in about 160 fewer deaths per 10,000 people (95% Crl for BUP, 802-1718; 95% CrI for BUP plus HR, 692-1,810).
Compared with the status quo strategy, life expectancy was lengthened with the BUP strategy by 2.65 years and BUP plus HR by 2.71 years.
Researchers found the average discounted lifetime cost per person of both the BUP strategy and the BUP plus HR strategy were higher than the average status quo.
“The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR,” the authors write. “Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $34,400 per life year).”
Cost for primary care practices
Comparatively, over a 5-year period, BUP plus HR was found to cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13,000.
That cost includes direct costs for resources and opportunity costs, the authors write. These costs could be offset by health care system savings.
“These costs included those for X-waiver training, which has been eliminated; thus, we expect this to cost less. Put another way, our findings inform ways to reinvest health care dollars as financial incentives for PCPs to adopt this new paradigm. Public health departments could provide grants or harm reduction kit supplies directly to PCPs to offset these costs as they do in some places with syringe service programs and/or increase Medicaid reimbursements for providing addiction care in primary care,” they write.
Data help make the case
Dinah Applewhite, MD, a primary care physician and addiction medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, said clinicians there have seen the benefits of integrating various aspects of addiction medicine into primary care but these data on outcomes and cost-effectiveness can help make the case to hospital leaders, legislators, and grant providers.
The primary care setting also provides a chance to engage patients around their injection practice and explore ways to minimize risk, she said.
“By offering them these kits, it lets them know your priority is their safety and well-being,” Dr. Applewhite said.
She noted that the linkage to primary care was low for patients who inject drugs, which speaks to the need for models in addition to this one, such as bringing primary care clinicians into syringe service programs.
“The medical establishment has a lot to learn from these programs,” she said.
Practices need support
She said it’s important to note that primary care practices need support from administrative leaders, philanthropists, and grant providers to help cover the costs.
“It’s one of the barriers to doing this,” she said. “There isn’t a mechanism to pay for this.”
Sarah Bagley, MD, a primary care physician at Boston Medical Center and medical director of BMC’s Center for Addiction Treatment for Adolescents/Young Adults Who Use Substances told this publication she was excited to see that the addition of harm reduction kits to buprenorphine seemed to have the optimal effect in improving outcomes. People with substance abuse disorders should feel they are welcome in primary care even if they are not yet ready to stop drug use, she said.
She said she was also glad to see increased life expectancy with these interventions. The news of overdose deaths contributing to a decrease in life expectancy can be overwhelming, she said.
But this study, she says, offers a road map for addressing the overdose crisis “by including harm reduction in the substance abuse care we provide.”
She pointed out that the study showed that costs increase per patient with both interventions, compared with the status quo. The study found that health care costs per person during a lifetime increased, compared with the status quo, by 69.1% for BUP and 74.3% for BUP plus HR.
But it’s important to understand the reason for that, she said: “The cost was higher because people were staying alive.”
She said it may help to compare giving optimal care to people who have substance abuse disorders with giving optimal care to people with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes, who may not always adhere to recommended diets or treatment regimens.
“We still invite those patients in and work with them based on where they are,” she said.
Growing epidemic
The researchers point to the urgent need for solutions given the U.S. opioid epidemic, which has led to increasing numbers of overdoses and injection drug use–related infections, such as infective endocarditis, and severe skin and soft tissue infections.
They point out that primary care providers are the largest clinical workforce in the United States, but few of their practices offer comprehensive addiction care onsite.
“Primary care practices are a practical place to integrate addiction services, where PCPs can prescribe buprenorphine and deliver harm reduction kits,” they write.
Coauthor Dr. Kimmel reports personal fees from Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services Overdose Education and Prevention Program, and American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Opioid Response Network for harm reduction education outside the submitted work and previous consulting with Abt Associates on a Massachusetts Department of Public Health–funded project to improve access to medications for opioid use disorder treatment. Dr. Applewhite and Dr. Bagley report no relevant financial relationships.
Integrating buprenorphine and harm eduction tools into primary care may improve clinical outcomes, increase costs only modestly, and be cost effective in health systems, authors conclude in an original investigation in JAMA Network Open.
A team led by Raagini Jawa, MD, MPH, with the Center for Research on Healthcare, University of Pittsburgh, set out to analyze costs of the interventions versus increased benefit in extending life expectancy.
Their analysis found that, compared with the status quo, integrating buprenorphine and harm reduction kits (syringes, wound care supplies, etc.) reduced drug use–related deaths by 33% and was cost effective.
“Our results suggest that integrated addiction care in primary care has the potential to save lives and increase nonemergency health care use, which is consistent with prior literature,” the authors write. “Colocated addiction services within primary care is pragmatic and effective and has comparable quality to specialty care. We found that onsite BUP [buprenorphine prescribing] plus HR [harm reduction] provides better outcomes than BUP alone at a lower cost.”
Three strategies compared
Using a microsimulation model of 2.25 million people in the United States who inject opioids, with an average age of 44 (69% of them male), the researchers tested three strategies:
- Status quo. PCP refers to addiction care.
- BUP. PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to off-site harm reduction kits.
- BUP plus HR. PCP services plus on-site buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits.
The model is the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death.
The status quo (referral for treatment) resulted in 1,162 overdose deaths per 10,000 people (95% credible interval, 1,144-2,303), whereas both BUP and BUP plus HR resulted in about 160 fewer deaths per 10,000 people (95% Crl for BUP, 802-1718; 95% CrI for BUP plus HR, 692-1,810).
Compared with the status quo strategy, life expectancy was lengthened with the BUP strategy by 2.65 years and BUP plus HR by 2.71 years.
Researchers found the average discounted lifetime cost per person of both the BUP strategy and the BUP plus HR strategy were higher than the average status quo.
“The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR,” the authors write. “Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $34,400 per life year).”
Cost for primary care practices
Comparatively, over a 5-year period, BUP plus HR was found to cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13,000.
That cost includes direct costs for resources and opportunity costs, the authors write. These costs could be offset by health care system savings.
“These costs included those for X-waiver training, which has been eliminated; thus, we expect this to cost less. Put another way, our findings inform ways to reinvest health care dollars as financial incentives for PCPs to adopt this new paradigm. Public health departments could provide grants or harm reduction kit supplies directly to PCPs to offset these costs as they do in some places with syringe service programs and/or increase Medicaid reimbursements for providing addiction care in primary care,” they write.
Data help make the case
Dinah Applewhite, MD, a primary care physician and addiction medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, said clinicians there have seen the benefits of integrating various aspects of addiction medicine into primary care but these data on outcomes and cost-effectiveness can help make the case to hospital leaders, legislators, and grant providers.
The primary care setting also provides a chance to engage patients around their injection practice and explore ways to minimize risk, she said.
“By offering them these kits, it lets them know your priority is their safety and well-being,” Dr. Applewhite said.
She noted that the linkage to primary care was low for patients who inject drugs, which speaks to the need for models in addition to this one, such as bringing primary care clinicians into syringe service programs.
“The medical establishment has a lot to learn from these programs,” she said.
Practices need support
She said it’s important to note that primary care practices need support from administrative leaders, philanthropists, and grant providers to help cover the costs.
“It’s one of the barriers to doing this,” she said. “There isn’t a mechanism to pay for this.”
Sarah Bagley, MD, a primary care physician at Boston Medical Center and medical director of BMC’s Center for Addiction Treatment for Adolescents/Young Adults Who Use Substances told this publication she was excited to see that the addition of harm reduction kits to buprenorphine seemed to have the optimal effect in improving outcomes. People with substance abuse disorders should feel they are welcome in primary care even if they are not yet ready to stop drug use, she said.
She said she was also glad to see increased life expectancy with these interventions. The news of overdose deaths contributing to a decrease in life expectancy can be overwhelming, she said.
But this study, she says, offers a road map for addressing the overdose crisis “by including harm reduction in the substance abuse care we provide.”
She pointed out that the study showed that costs increase per patient with both interventions, compared with the status quo. The study found that health care costs per person during a lifetime increased, compared with the status quo, by 69.1% for BUP and 74.3% for BUP plus HR.
But it’s important to understand the reason for that, she said: “The cost was higher because people were staying alive.”
She said it may help to compare giving optimal care to people who have substance abuse disorders with giving optimal care to people with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes, who may not always adhere to recommended diets or treatment regimens.
“We still invite those patients in and work with them based on where they are,” she said.
Growing epidemic
The researchers point to the urgent need for solutions given the U.S. opioid epidemic, which has led to increasing numbers of overdoses and injection drug use–related infections, such as infective endocarditis, and severe skin and soft tissue infections.
They point out that primary care providers are the largest clinical workforce in the United States, but few of their practices offer comprehensive addiction care onsite.
“Primary care practices are a practical place to integrate addiction services, where PCPs can prescribe buprenorphine and deliver harm reduction kits,” they write.
Coauthor Dr. Kimmel reports personal fees from Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services Overdose Education and Prevention Program, and American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Opioid Response Network for harm reduction education outside the submitted work and previous consulting with Abt Associates on a Massachusetts Department of Public Health–funded project to improve access to medications for opioid use disorder treatment. Dr. Applewhite and Dr. Bagley report no relevant financial relationships.
Integrating buprenorphine and harm eduction tools into primary care may improve clinical outcomes, increase costs only modestly, and be cost effective in health systems, authors conclude in an original investigation in JAMA Network Open.
A team led by Raagini Jawa, MD, MPH, with the Center for Research on Healthcare, University of Pittsburgh, set out to analyze costs of the interventions versus increased benefit in extending life expectancy.
Their analysis found that, compared with the status quo, integrating buprenorphine and harm reduction kits (syringes, wound care supplies, etc.) reduced drug use–related deaths by 33% and was cost effective.
“Our results suggest that integrated addiction care in primary care has the potential to save lives and increase nonemergency health care use, which is consistent with prior literature,” the authors write. “Colocated addiction services within primary care is pragmatic and effective and has comparable quality to specialty care. We found that onsite BUP [buprenorphine prescribing] plus HR [harm reduction] provides better outcomes than BUP alone at a lower cost.”
Three strategies compared
Using a microsimulation model of 2.25 million people in the United States who inject opioids, with an average age of 44 (69% of them male), the researchers tested three strategies:
- Status quo. PCP refers to addiction care.
- BUP. PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to off-site harm reduction kits.
- BUP plus HR. PCP services plus on-site buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits.
The model is the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death.
The status quo (referral for treatment) resulted in 1,162 overdose deaths per 10,000 people (95% credible interval, 1,144-2,303), whereas both BUP and BUP plus HR resulted in about 160 fewer deaths per 10,000 people (95% Crl for BUP, 802-1718; 95% CrI for BUP plus HR, 692-1,810).
Compared with the status quo strategy, life expectancy was lengthened with the BUP strategy by 2.65 years and BUP plus HR by 2.71 years.
Researchers found the average discounted lifetime cost per person of both the BUP strategy and the BUP plus HR strategy were higher than the average status quo.
“The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR,” the authors write. “Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $34,400 per life year).”
Cost for primary care practices
Comparatively, over a 5-year period, BUP plus HR was found to cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13,000.
That cost includes direct costs for resources and opportunity costs, the authors write. These costs could be offset by health care system savings.
“These costs included those for X-waiver training, which has been eliminated; thus, we expect this to cost less. Put another way, our findings inform ways to reinvest health care dollars as financial incentives for PCPs to adopt this new paradigm. Public health departments could provide grants or harm reduction kit supplies directly to PCPs to offset these costs as they do in some places with syringe service programs and/or increase Medicaid reimbursements for providing addiction care in primary care,” they write.
Data help make the case
Dinah Applewhite, MD, a primary care physician and addiction medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, said clinicians there have seen the benefits of integrating various aspects of addiction medicine into primary care but these data on outcomes and cost-effectiveness can help make the case to hospital leaders, legislators, and grant providers.
The primary care setting also provides a chance to engage patients around their injection practice and explore ways to minimize risk, she said.
“By offering them these kits, it lets them know your priority is their safety and well-being,” Dr. Applewhite said.
She noted that the linkage to primary care was low for patients who inject drugs, which speaks to the need for models in addition to this one, such as bringing primary care clinicians into syringe service programs.
“The medical establishment has a lot to learn from these programs,” she said.
Practices need support
She said it’s important to note that primary care practices need support from administrative leaders, philanthropists, and grant providers to help cover the costs.
“It’s one of the barriers to doing this,” she said. “There isn’t a mechanism to pay for this.”
Sarah Bagley, MD, a primary care physician at Boston Medical Center and medical director of BMC’s Center for Addiction Treatment for Adolescents/Young Adults Who Use Substances told this publication she was excited to see that the addition of harm reduction kits to buprenorphine seemed to have the optimal effect in improving outcomes. People with substance abuse disorders should feel they are welcome in primary care even if they are not yet ready to stop drug use, she said.
She said she was also glad to see increased life expectancy with these interventions. The news of overdose deaths contributing to a decrease in life expectancy can be overwhelming, she said.
But this study, she says, offers a road map for addressing the overdose crisis “by including harm reduction in the substance abuse care we provide.”
She pointed out that the study showed that costs increase per patient with both interventions, compared with the status quo. The study found that health care costs per person during a lifetime increased, compared with the status quo, by 69.1% for BUP and 74.3% for BUP plus HR.
But it’s important to understand the reason for that, she said: “The cost was higher because people were staying alive.”
She said it may help to compare giving optimal care to people who have substance abuse disorders with giving optimal care to people with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes, who may not always adhere to recommended diets or treatment regimens.
“We still invite those patients in and work with them based on where they are,” she said.
Growing epidemic
The researchers point to the urgent need for solutions given the U.S. opioid epidemic, which has led to increasing numbers of overdoses and injection drug use–related infections, such as infective endocarditis, and severe skin and soft tissue infections.
They point out that primary care providers are the largest clinical workforce in the United States, but few of their practices offer comprehensive addiction care onsite.
“Primary care practices are a practical place to integrate addiction services, where PCPs can prescribe buprenorphine and deliver harm reduction kits,” they write.
Coauthor Dr. Kimmel reports personal fees from Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services Overdose Education and Prevention Program, and American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Opioid Response Network for harm reduction education outside the submitted work and previous consulting with Abt Associates on a Massachusetts Department of Public Health–funded project to improve access to medications for opioid use disorder treatment. Dr. Applewhite and Dr. Bagley report no relevant financial relationships.
JAMA NETWORK OPEN