Opioid Overdoses Among High-Risk Medicaid Members: Healthcare Cost, Service Utilization, and Risk Factor Analysis
AuthorsSavageau, Judith A.
Sefton, Laura A.
UMass Chan AffiliationsCommonwealth Medicine, Research and Evaluation Unit
Health Law and Policy
Health Services Administration
Health Services Research
Substance Abuse and Addiction
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractResearch Objective: Identify risk factors associated with opioid overdoses among three high-risk populations of Medicaid members related to cost and service utilization. Study Design: Repeated cross-sectional study using five years of Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) claims and state agency data. Population Studied: MassHealth members aged 11-64 years considered to be high-risk (homeless, unstably housed, and/or criminal justice-involved) and in need of support services, especially those with extensive behavioral health (BH) needs. These three populations were identified as being particularly vulnerable to non-fatal and/or fatal opioid overdoses. Principal Findings: MassHealth members who were both justice-involved and unstably housed were at much higher risk of an opioid overdose than the MassHealth population overall, especially those with a substance use disorder (SUD) or a serious mental illness (SMI). Experiencing both homelessness and justice involvement substantially compounded members’ non-fatal overdose risk, regardless of BH diagnosis. Co-occurring SUD/SMI was a key driver of high overdose prevalence, particularly among the justice-involved. Compared to MassHealth members in general, those with justice involvement and unstable housing had costs that were 50-65% higher; members who experienced homelessness had triple the costs. Healthcare service use both before and after an overdose was relatively low, including the timeframe between multiple non-fatal overdoses. In multivariate analyses, all three high-risk factors (i.e., populations) were significantly related to an increased opioid overdose risk after controlling for additional risk factors (BH diagnoses, chronic medical conditions, and demographic characteristics). Males and whites were more likely to have an opioid overdose; those with diabetes or hypertension were less likely. These results were similar when assessing various opioid overdose outcomes (non-fatal and/or fatal). Conclusions: These findings helped inform MassHealth’s understanding of its members’ experiences regarding medical and BH services, especially among high-risk populations with an opioid overdose. The identification of risk factors most predictive of a subsequent overdose may help address the needs of these high-risk groups. For most of the populations studied, prevalence of co-occurring BH diagnoses was much higher than MassHealth members in general and appeared to impact opioid overdose rates. Most members received services for 1-2 months in both the pre- and post-overdose periods; service use was relatively low in the year following a non-fatal overdose, suggesting retention was also low. Multivariate analyses consistently showed that gender and race were significantly associated with increased overdose risk. Implications for Policy or Practice: Understanding opioid overdose risk factors and identifying service utilization gaps and missed opportunities are important. As payment reforms evolve under the umbrella of accountable care organizations, BH community partnership models are key for collaborating with healthcare and social service providers, and community resources for care management, care coordination, and referrals to support services. Our study initially developed an in-depth descriptive analysis of individuals with SUD, SMI, or both identified as being at high risk for an opioid overdose. Understanding service trajectory and outcomes through additional analyses was critical for planning and prioritizing appropriate services. As payors are actively making decisions about effective systems of care, they are particularly interested in understanding the need for community-based and residential services, particularly for those with housing instability and/or criminal justice involvement.
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/27013
Rights© 2020 University of Massachusetts Medical School
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Policy Brief: Addressing Social Determinants of Health through Community Health Workers: A Call to ActionLondon, Katharine; Damio, Grace; Ferrazo, Meredith; Perez-Escamalla, Rafael; Wiggins, Noelle (2018-01-30)This technical report was compiled by the Hispanic Health Council in partnership with Southwestern AHEC and a panel of Community Health Worker Policy Research Experts which included our Katharine London from the Center for Health Law and Economics. The report offers a number of policy recommendations for community health workers for communities that might benefit from community-based services. The report offers recommendations on; payment of community health workers; community health worker caseloads; community health worker recruitment; community health worker training; reflective and trauma-informed mentoring and supportive supervision of community health workers; integration of community health workers into care teams; documenting the effect of community heal worker services on social determination of health. The Hispanic Health Council believes a service design that effectively supports community health workers would incorporate the seven areas of policy recommendation included in this report.
A Public Health Framework for the State Mental Health Authority: A Call for Action by Massachusetts Consumers and Family MembersDelman, Jonathan (2006-01-01)During the Spring of 2006, Consumer Quality Initiatives (CQI) conducted 20 focus groups across the state, 12 with adults with mental illness, 3 with parents of youth with serious emotional disorder, 2 with youth with SED, 1 with family members of adult consumers, and 2 with youth in transition. Supported by a contract with Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), the goal was to assist DMH in framing the criteria for its upcoming reprocurement. Our findings reveal a frustration with an approach to health care delivery that focuses primarily on the provision of psychiatric care (egs, medication, therapy, hospitalization). We reviewed the focus group reports to identify the most significant themes, which clustered within eight broad categories.
Making the Case for Sustainable Funding for Community Health Worker Services: Talking to Payers and ProvidersLondon, Katharine (2018-01-27)In this presentation, Katharine London of the Center for Health Law and Economics makes her case for offering sustainable funding for community health worker services. Research has shown community health workers can have a distinct impact on health systems, helping them improve population health and contain costs, while also promoting health equity and community engagement. This presentation was designed to assist CHWs and other advocates in engaging with policymakers and payers to support CHW sustainability and develop a financial plan for their CHW work. It was presented as part of a CHW Sustainability event held at the Families USA’s annual conference, Health Action 2018: Staying Strong for America’s Families, in Washington, DC. See Katharine London's blog post on payment delivery methods for community health workers here.