Effect of Integrating Substance Use Disorder Treatment into Primary Care on Inpatient and Emergency Department Utilization
- 569 Downloads
Components of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have been shown to reduce inpatient and emergency department (ED) utilization. However, integrated treatment using pharmacotherapy and recovery coaches in primary care has not been studied.
To determine whether integrated addiction treatment in primary care reduces inpatient and ED utilization and improves outpatient engagement.
A retrospective cohort study comparing patients in practices with and without integrated addiction treatment including pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching during a staggered roll-out period.
A propensity score matched sample of 2706 adult primary care patients (1353 matched pairs from intervention and control practices) with a SUD diagnosis code, excluding cannabis or tobacco only, matched on baseline utilization.
A multi-modal strategy that included forming interdisciplinary teams of local champions, access to addiction pharmacotherapy, counseling, and recovery coaching. Control practices could refer patients to an addiction treatment clinic offering pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions.
The number of inpatient admissions, hospital bed days, ED visits, and primary care visits.
During the follow-up period, there were fewer inpatient days among the intervention group (997 vs. 1096 days with a mean difference of 7.3 days per 100 patients, p = 0.03). The mean number of ED visits was lower for the intervention group (36.2 visits vs. 42.9 per 100 patients, p = 0.005). There was no difference in the mean number of hospitalizations. The mean number of primary care visits was higher for the intervention group (317 visits vs. 270 visits per 100 patients, p < 0.001). Intervention practices had a greater increase in buprenorphine and naltrexone prescribing.
In a non-randomized retrospective cohort study, integrated addiction pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching in primary care resulted in fewer hospital days and ED visits for patients with SUD compared to similarly matched patients receiving care in practices without these services.
KEY WORDSaddiction substance use disorder recovery coach primary care buprenorphine integrated addiction treatment utilization
All authors contributed to this work. This work was not externally funded. We received internal funding from the Massachusetts General Hospital Substance Use Disorder Initiative. Preliminary findings from this study were presented at the April 2018 American Society of Addiction Medicine Conference.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was approved by the Partners Human Research Committee.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 3.NIDA. Trends & statistics. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics, November 2, 2018.
- 7.Walley AY, Palmisano J, Sorensen-Alawad A, Chaisson C, Raj A, Samet JH, Drainoni ML. Engagement and substance dependence in a primary care-based addiction treatment program for people infected with HIV and people at high-risk for HIV infection. J Subst Abus Treat 2015;59:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Baser O, Chalk M, Fiellin DA, Gastfriend DR. Cost and utilization outcomes of opioid-dependence treatments. Am J Manag Care 2011;17 Suppl 8:S235–48.Google Scholar
- 9.Bryson WC, McConnell J, Korthuis PT, McCarty D. Extended-release naltrexone for alcohol dependence: persistence and healthcare costs and utilization. Am J Manag Care 2011;17 Suppl 8:S222–34.Google Scholar
- 16.Krebs E, Enns B, Evans E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California. Ann Intern Med 2017. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0611.
- 27.Frakt AB, Bagley Nphysicians prescribing more buprenorphine Protection or harm? Suppressing substance-use data. N Engl J Med 2015;372(20):1879–81.Google Scholar