• No results found

MANAGED CARE'S DUAL IMPACT ON OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: MAINTENANCE VS. DRUG FREE METHADONE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "MANAGED CARE'S DUAL IMPACT ON OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: MAINTENANCE VS. DRUG FREE METHADONE"

Copied!
23
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

MANAGED CARE'S DUAL IMPACT ON OUTPATIENT

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: METHADONE

MAINTENANCE VS. DRUG FREE

JODY L. SINDELAR, TODD A. OLMSTEAD

The number and type of services offered at substance abuse treatment (SAT) facilities are important aspects of the quality of care. Managed care (MC) is a growing presence in SAT and has been shown to affect the provision of treatment. We expand on earlier work and examine the impact of managed care on the number and type of services offered by methadone maintenance (MM) and drug-free (DF) outpatient treatment facilities. We use the econometric technique of instrumental variables to address the issue of endogeneity of MC and service offerings, thereby allowing a causal interpretation of results. Using data from the 2000 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, we find that MC significantly increases the total number of services offered in MM outpatient facilities by four, yet decreases the number by two in DF outpatient facilities. We also show how the impact on specific services differs by modality and provide explanations for our findings.

INTRODUCTION

The majority of substance abuse treatment (SAT) in the U.S. takes place in outpatient settings (Alexander, Lemak, & Campbell, 2003). Organizational and financial factors that affect outpatient care therefore can have a large impact on substance abuse treatment provided in the US. One such factor is managed care. Managed care has been growing recently in the general medical sector and increasingly so in drug treatment. Although there has been much research on managed care in the general medical sector, relatively little research has focused on the role of managed care (MC) and how it affects services offered in SAT, let alone

Jody L. Sindelar, Ph.D., is a professor of health economics at Yale's School of Public Health and has an appointment at Yale's Institution of Social and Policy Studies. She is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research and was previously associate dean of Yale's School of Public Health. Todd A. Olmstead, Ph.D., is an associate research scientist at Yale's School of Public Health. He was previously a research fellow at Harvard's Center for Business and Government and a consultant with McKinsey & Company.

(2)

SINDELAR, OLMSTEAD

outpatient SAT (OSAT). The goal of this paper is to analyze the causal impact of MC on the total number and range of services offered by OSAT facilities and to delineate the differential impact of MC across the methadone maintenance (MM) and drug-free (DF) modalities. Total services and detailed specific services have been found to increase the effectiveness of care and thus we consider them an indicator of the quality of care (McLellan, Arndt, Metzger, Woody, & O'Brien, 1993; Milby et al., 1996; McLellan et al., 1997; McLellan et al., 1998; Gould, Levine, & McLellan, 2000; Marsh, D'Aunno, & Smith, 2000; Smith & Marsh, 2002).

One goal of MC is cost containment; thus, its impact may be to reduce services offered due to cost constraints through the use of incentives and administrative requirements. However, MC is also concerned with quality, so its impact may be to increase service offerings by implementing appropriate clinical standards and oversight procedures. Thus, the net effect of MC on services offered at OSAT facilities is an empirical issue. A recent study (Olmstead, White, & Sindelar, 2004) finds that MC reduces total services offered at SAT facilities. This study examined the full spectrum of facilities, including inpatient, residential, and outpatient settings. However, pooling heterogeneous facilities may hide important differential impacts by type of facility. As outpatient care is the type most frequently provided to substance abusers, it is important to understand the impact of MC on service offerings in OSAT facilities. Furthermore, outpatient care is composed of two major types of treatment that differ dramatically: methadone maintenance and nonpharmacological counseling-based (i.e., drug free) treatment. Because these two types of outpatient treatment vary with respect to so many dimensions, it is likely that MC impacts each differently. In addition, problems and policy prescriptions vary across these two modalities, so it is critical to understand the impact of MC on each modality separately.

This paper contributes to the literature in several ways. It is the first paper to estimate separately the causal effect of managed care on services offered by outpatient MM and DF facilities. We look beyond pure association and use valid econometric methods (instrumental variables) to identify causal relationships between MC and services offered. We use facility-level data from the 2000 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS). These data allow us to examine the availability of 26 different services at over 6,000 OSAT facilities throughout the

50 States, thereby obviating the need to generalize from a sample.

BACKGROUND

MANAGED CARE

The prevalence of managed care in the general medical sector has grown substantially during recent years. Its growth has been documented in SAT as well.' MC aims to contain costs and to establish quality controls. Costs are controlled

(3)

through a variety of mechanisms, including pricing, incentive based contracting, selective contracting, and utilization review. MC can affect quality through utilization review, staffing and service requirements, and other administrative controls and requirements. In addition, selective contracting allows MC organizations (MCOs) to choose only those facilities that meet their standards. Both quality controls and cost containment mechanisms may affect the services offered in a medical facility.

A contractual relationship between a facility and a managed care organization is the outcome of a dual decision: (1) the MCO must be interested in the facility, and (2) the facility must be willing to meet the price and review, reporting, and other administrative and services requirements of the MCO. The existence of an MC contract could mean that the facility has changed its prices and procedures to meet the requirements of the MCO, or it could mean that a SAT facility was attracted to the MC contract because it already had the appropriate characteristics. In the latter case of selective contracting, only a matching has occurred - no real change. In the former case, MC has resulted in changes. Studies of the impact of MC on SAT facilities must be careful to distinguish between a pure match and a causal change. Determination of a causal effect is a focus of our study and one means by which our study advances the field.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAT AND THE GENERAL MEDICAL SECTOR

There is a large body of literature on the impact of MC on services and costs in the general medical sector (see for instance, Glied, 2000; Dranove & Satterthwaite, 2000; Miller & Luft, 2002). However, findings from the general medical sector do not necessarily apply to the substance abuse treatment sector due to a variety of differences between the two sectors. One important difference is the financing of treatment. In SAT, employment-based financing plays a relatively small role because much of the funding comes from public financing, including block grants. Also, in the general medical sector, there is a concern that medical care will be overused or misused because insurance pays for a large part of the expense. In SAT, there is less concern with moral hazard due to the large positive externalities associated with reduced drug abuse (Jofre-Bonet & Sindelar, 2001). In fact, many individuals who need treatment do not seek treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2003).

Another important difference is that many of those who need SAT have other medical, economic, and social problems in addition to the addiction itself (e.g., infectious diseases, welfare dependence, criminal activities). Given the multiple needs of SAT clients, it is not surprising that the provision of a broad array of services - including social, psychiatric, legal, housing assistance, and others - has been shown to increase the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment (McLellan et

(4)

al., 1993; Milby et al., 1996; McLellan et al., 1997; McLellan et al., 1998; Gould et al., 2000; Marsh et al., 2000; Smith & Marsh, 2002). Thus, there are many reasons why lessons learned from the general medical sector do not necessarily apply to

SAT services and that the impact of MC on SAT must be examined separately.

LITERATURE ON MC AND SAT

There is a small but growing body of literature on the impact of MC on SAT. In an earlier study using the NSSATS data set, Olmstead et al. (2004) examine the availability of a broad array of services and find that (1) managed care causes SAT facilities to offer fewer services overall, and (2) this effect is concentrated primarily in tests for infectious diseases (i.e., tests for TB, HIV/AIDs, and STDs). This raises policy concerns that managed care may reduce treatment effectiveness by limiting the range of services offered to meet patient needs. Further, reduced onsite medical testing may contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, which poses important public health concerns. MC, as might be expected due to utilization review, also tends to increase the likelihood of offering assessments and a few other services. These findings are based on a study of all facilities taken together (i.e., inpatient, residential, and outpatient: MM and DF). In the current study, we seek to understand how MC affects outpatient service offerings, differentiating between the MM and DF modalities.

In two county-based surveys, McNeese-Smith (1998) reports that 38% of surveyed SAT program directors in Los Angeles County eliminated some services in response to managed care, and Rivers (1998) reports that 20% of surveyed SAT program directors in Miami-Dade County claim MC caused reduced availability and accessibility of SAT services.

Lemak & Alexander (2001) find that MC is associated with (as opposed to causes) shorter treatment durations and fewer individual and group therapy sessions in OSAT. They use a data set of about 600 facilities, and their sample is drawn from a national database that is similar to the one that we use. They collect additional data not found in the national sample and are thus better able to measure specifics of managed care, including MC behaviors such as authorized visits and other utilization controls. In related OSAT studies, Alexander and Lemak (1 997a, 1997b) find that (1) MC results in additional administrative burdens due to compliance with utilization review, and (2) MC is most likely to be found in hospital-based care.

METHADONE MAINTENANCE VS. DRUG-FREE TREATMENT

The MM and DF modalities differ along a number of important dimensions, including their approach to treating addiction, financing, prevailing profit status, and locational demographics. For example, MM primarily treats opiate abusers

(5)

while DF treats a variety of other addictions. The recommended length of stay in MM exceeds one year while the length of stay in DF is often measured in weeks. MM facilities are more likely than their DF counterparts to be for profit, located in metropolitan areas, and to accept Medicaid, but less likely to accept private health insurance. In addition, medical testing to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDS, STDs, TB) is more of a concern in MM due to the greater incidence of intravenous injections associated with opiate abuse. These differences suggest that the impact of managed care may vary by modality and thus MM and DF facilities should be examined separately in empirical analyses of the impact of MC on OSAT service offerings.

METHODS

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Our aim is to estimate the causal effect of MC on OSAT service offerings. We have data that allow us to examine empirically the relationship between MC and service offerings. However, if we merely regress services on MC we will obtain an association, but not necessarily a causal relationship. This is because both MC and service offerings are likely to be correlated with other factors that affect both variables. For instance, if MCO's prefer to contract with facilities that are capable of responding to requests for utilization review, providing care of sufficient quality and providing a range of services to covered MC patients, then those facilities that are found to have MC contracts are also likely to provide a broad set of services. In this scenario, a regression could reveal a positive association between MC and service offerings, but not a causal relationship. Controlling for additional factors could help to alleviate the problem. Thus, we control for those relevant factors for which we have data. Nonetheless, there are likely to be unobserved factors that would produce a spurious correlation. Administrative sophistication, for example, is unobserved in our dataset and likely to be positively correlated with services offered

and MC, thus creating a spurious correlation between MC and services.

To overcome the potential problem of spurious correlation, we use an econometric approach called the instrumental variables (IV) approach.2 The IV approach is used frequently in economic applications and is becoming increasingly common in healthcare evaluation (McClellan & Newhouse, 2000). We use the IV approach to account for possible endogeneity (or spurious correlation) between a facility's involvement in MC and its service offerings. The instrument is a variable or set of variables selected to be highly correlated with MC and uncorrelated with service offerings. With valid instruments, the IV approach accounts for endogeneity and produces consistent estimates of the causal effect of managed care on service

(6)

offerings (Davidson & MacKinnon, 1993). We use the following two-equation model:

(1) S = PX+ yMC + E

(2) MC =caX + KZ + t

where S is the outcome variable "services offered" (i.e., either total number of services at the facility or the presence of a specific service), MC is a dummy variable indicating the presence of managed care at the facility, X is a vector of facility and environmental characteristics, F is the error term for equation (1) that captures unobserved determinants of S, Z is a vector of instruments that influence the presence of managed care but are uncorrelated with E, and tt is the error term for equation (2).

We use two types of outcome variables to measure service offerings at a facility: the total number of services offered at the facility and the presence of a specific service at the facility. When the outcome variable in (1) is total number of services, the two-equation system is estimated using a full-maximum-likelihood "treatment effects" model (Maddala, 1983) that considers the effect of an endogenously chosen binary treatment (managed care) on another endogenous, fully-observed, continuous variable (number of offered services). When the outcome variable in (1) is the presence of a specific service (a binary indicator), the two-equation system is estimated using a maximum likelihood bivariate probit model (Maddala, 1983). In both models, facilities are clustered by county to account for possible spatial correlation amongst facilities operating in the same geographic area.

We estimate the system of equations separately for the methadone maintenance (MM) and drug-free (DF) modalities. We estimate separate models because we think that the independent variables are likely to differ by modality in their impact on service offerings.

The WV approach requires finding one or more variables to be used as instruments, Z, that substantially affect MC but have no direct impact on S. We use two different county-specific instruments in our model: number of Medicare MC enrollees and number of HMO enrollees. Given that we control for county population and density, the number of Medicare MC (or HMO) enrollees is, in essence, a percentage.

Both instruments plausibly satisfy the first correlation condition inasmuch as OSAT facilities in counties with a large number ("percentage") of Medicare MC (or HMO) enrollees are more likely to have agreements or contracts with managed care than their counterparts in counties with relatively few Medicare MC (or HMO) enrollees. Similar county-specific environmental factors (e.g., local tastes, state/ local laws, demographics) could cause this correlation. Spillover effects of many

(7)

kinds could increase the favorable climate for managed care in OSAT. As for the second condition, it seems plausible that the number of Medicare MC enrollees in a given county is unlikely to directly influence the service-offering decisions at OSAT facilities in that county. Medicare covers primarily those 65 or older and OSAT facilities treat very few elderly (approximately 1.5% of OSAT clients are 65 or older). Similarly, there is likely to be relatively little overlap between HMO enrollees and OSAT clients (about 11% of the total population in the U.S. is drug dependent and only a fraction of them seek substance abuse treatment). We assess formally the validity of our instruments by testing for the presence of bias due to weak instruments and conducting a standard test of overidentification.

DATA

We use the 2000 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS), which is designed to collect data on the characteristics of all SAT facilities and services in the U.S. (United States Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2002b).3 Of the original census of 14,622 SAT facilities, 13,749 (94%) completed the survey. Of these, we select only outpatient SAT facilities whose primary focus is either substance abuse or "substance abuse and mental health" (n = 7,498). We exclude facilities located in other U.S. jurisdictions such as American

Samoa and Guam (n = 16), owned by federal or tribal governments (n = 38), or offering detoxification services only (n = 3). An additional 1,428 facilities are excluded due to missing data, resulting in a final study sample comprising 6,013 OSAT facilities (610 are MM and 5,403 are DF). We supplement the facility-level 2000 NSSATS data with county-specific data from the 2002 Area Resource File (USDHHS, 2002a), a database containing information on population and managed care activity in the U.S.

Tables I and 2 provide definitions and summary statistics for the variables used in our study. Statistics are presented for the full sample, as well as separately by modality (MM and DF) for facilities with and without relationships with managed care.

The outcome variables (Table 1) include the total number of services offered at OSAT facilities as well as binary indicators of each specific service. The 26 individual services are grouped by NSSATS into five categories: assessment, therapy/counseling, medical testing, transitional, and other.

The regressors (Table 2) fall into two categories: facility characteristics and county-specific characteristics. Our measure of managed care is whether or not the facility has a relationship with a managed care company, MC, set equal to 1 if a facility has at least one agreement or contract with a managed care organization to provide substance abuse treatment services, and 0 otherwise. Other facility characteristics include organizational control, setting, size, accreditation, and

(8)

CY a- OSOO 0%

~~C~~)%~

,C0%0%00 w so,% 0%0% %3 000r.oPw "0r 00-0ý .liN qN -

~

~

o 6 d

~

o OO

~

00 0 O

~

6

~

6 o c o o .,-.% 6 S 00666% ac SOe= 0% c) CDe<>eo CI C5 = 0). 40 0 0 .0 0-0-0% 0000%00%(N00(N(N0N00 0%4 000%(N0%00(N od 6ooooood6d "•E E E E E E 0 4- 6 C CIL z o 0 z( 7-c-4 (N (z I 0 '4 0) - 0. 0 2 0 0 0) 2 4040 '4 '4 040 >. >% 0 0 .2- '4 0 '4 =0 0. 0. *-' '4 4) 0 0 - '4 0 40. 0 0 0'4 0. -2 0 00 -.0 E oo 0 .0 0 0.0 03 0 .0 00) 0) 04) ' 0 0.0) .2 8 0 .0 *E 0 0) CO - '4 0) 25 0. 0 . 0 0) 0) 0 00)0)0 - 0 0).0 COO ..- 1-COO 0 2 3 '4 CO4)3 , .oLS. 0 5 0. 0 4 0 0 F-. 4 F-. (N.: C> C, - d w Ci r- O 0 . . . .. .. . . . Z W:E 0 ( S0 C)0 C> %00 C> 0N 0 %0 C, So- dooo o •o)- o•o2 z2 01 0). 00* (N. 5( Lu0 -J U co0 -L) 0 0 0 I0 CO .0 CO CO0

(9)

F--00 .0 z 00 o 4 SII -z Cii U i .0 z u .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LI LI LI- I • .0 1 0 > .. >. > •.>,€ >,

~

-¢>

~

ý >,' .- - - -.E E E-E E-E E w E E-E) E 0 0.0 =,, .o 6 6 5-00 0• aJ 0 0 a 0 - 0 a 0 c. 00 0) 2 0) .C 0 a ao 0) Cu 9 0) _ a E

a

* 0 I B 2 . O9 W a - o - B U 9 0 i- < 0 2005 a *0 0 In m0 't .- . . .0e 0, 0 04 M Q 00 0 6 6 6000000R n 00 c, 0' 000 Z 0000 0 a In 10 1ý 0 14 enM IT n 113 "!e I 66 0 6 c0 60 0000< 0 t '0 0N0e 0! r en Il

'0 c-- ene '0-0 -In rq -nIN r

It li 6666 en sc>N en5 en 00 ý S= 0 SN0 c, a I 0 0 0 9 a .0 a a 0 w z F-z 0 i.) .. J

(10)

I---o,G a ýw ý"6 7 l .G,; I -- I ="- T T l os --S l-t"t oo-1'1 6: ! c,O SOSt*a'N N

SelN

N 9 V P : CD a

0 so N C>e >aC a0S- lS

a' OON0OflONNNflN 6 66666666600e a' a' 00 0- ' N N 00 N N '0 0 N '0 -o N 0 N 0 N a' - N a' N a' - a' N N o666d6oooOdd6O .0 '2. O 0) 0 -- 0 . a. a. 0. o 0)-0.- 4) .0 0 00 II 0) II 0 0 .0 *.0*- a >0>... E Eu E E 0-04)0 * 00 o 0.0.-> > 0 CL CL. CL 0 .0 -u U. x u 00 0 U, U) w UJ w

~UJ

C- L 0) Cl) I

(11)

41 S z, C 0 44) .0 it z :2 orr . .~ .~4 ., 1 000000~~ 00 00 00 0i 0 e I~C40'C'1Cfl0C0S l 4ýfl q"~ qalO r

~.

IIo e V: 00 Oo m00 000-000 .... ýe .Q . e 6-• ,vr-.v-r tv son r..n,, ++ +++ + r)0. '9t-)-n.4++ m• r-0%'4)000%o 0100 fl4 flN)N On 4flC'4 flrfl -O0r,O0s 5N5n 'C 00r5 N4nC) 4n 4'n N-n 445 .0 000000 00 00 0000 00 00 0000N45504' 4) E . 0. E

4)-

E 'a

+4)...0°

E' a ++ +.a = II I I• '0.0 4).4 .

* 2

O 4) 4) S=• -, =• 0 0: , • -'+ i + ++ + '+ =='• + °= 04) + ++ + •+ + + -+ ? = 00.

+ ++

7 + +

5-0

I

+ + + +: + .•'a +

t

4) 4 p 0

l+o

rii z z 0 I-.,=_

(12)

sources of revenue. NSSATS does not collect data on client characteristics, thus

we cannot directly measure client mix. However, we control for types of payment accepted and ownership status, both of which proxy for client mix to some degree. County-specific characteristics include population size, metropolitan area, region, competition among facilities, and managed care activity.

RESULTS

NUMBER OF SERVICES

The raw data displayed in Table 1 show that, for each modality, facilities with MC offer more total services on average. Specifically, MC is associated with 2.7 more services in MMs and 1.5 more services in DFs. However, as shown in Table 2, facilities with and without MC differ systematically within each modality in other important ways as well. For example, for both MM and DF facilities, those with MC are more likely than their non-MC counterparts to be private and nonprofit, focus on both SAT and mental health, and be accredited. These factors could be associated with the availability of more services thus explaining the positive correlation between MC and services. This indicates a need to control for relevant covariates when estimating the impact of MC on service offerings. Moreover, MC is likely to be endogenously determined; that is, there may be unobserved factors (e.g., administrative sophistication) that affect both the availability of services and the presence of MC contracts. Thus, we turn to the IV models.

When we control for observed covariates and use IVs to account for possible endogeneity, we find that MC results in, on average, 4.2 additional services offered at MMs and 2.2 fewer services offered at DFs. Both effects are significant. Tables 3 and 4 show these results. Thus, it appears that the impact of MC on OSAT service offerings depends importantly on modality. F-statistics for both models are above 10.0, indicating that there is unlikely to be any bias due to weak instruments in these models (Staiger & Stock, 1997). Moreover, both models pass the standard test of overidentification (Davidson & MacKinnon, 1993; Kennedy, 1998; Greene, 2003), adding reassurance that equation (1) is specified correctly and that both instruments are valid.4

SPECIFIC SERVICES

Raw data comparisons in Table 1 show that facilities with MC are more likely to offer each specific service in the vast majority of cases. This is true for each modality. However, as noted previously, facilities with and without MC differ systematically within each modality on important covariates that probably affect service offerings, and MC is likely to be endogenously determined. Thus, we turn again to the IV models. Table 5 displays the results for the IV models corresponding

(13)

TABLE 3

TOTAL SERVICES: STRUCTURAL EQUATION RESULTS (EQUATION #1)

Variable Name Managed care

Control: Private & nonprofit* Control: Public*

Focus: substance abuset Hospital Solo practice Halfway house Regfda Accredited Licensed by state Admissions (log)

Accepts cash or self-payment Accepts private health insurance Accepts Medicaid

Accepts Medicare

Accepts state-financed health insurance Receives public funds (not Medicare, Medicaid) Offers payment assistance

Region: South** Region: Midwest** Region: West** Metropolitan area

Population density - county (log) Population - county (log) Competition - county Constant Drug Free N = 5,402 Coef p value -2.223 0.014 0.397 0.037 0.847 0.014 -0.922 0.000 0.401 0.131 -0.830 0.001 1.062 0.001 Methadone N=610 Coef p value 4.188 0.036 1.765 0.003 2.811 0.000 -1.459 0.074 0.296 0.700 -0.887 0.235 -0.525 0.744 1.588 0.201 0.046 0.908 0.947 0.403 0.405 0.009 -2.675 0.002 0.692 0.165 -1.540 0.014 1.261 0.009 -0.429 0.536 0.004 0.993 0.643 0.161 -0.359 0.555 -0.018 0.978 -0.512 0.604 -0.912 0.331 0.228 0.226 -0.069 0.786 -0.194 0.912 12.986 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.183 0.000 0.411 0.005 0.000 0.724 0.845 0.000 F-statistic for instruments (statistic, p_value)

Test of overidentification (statistic, p_value)

"excluded

category is "private & for profit"

texcluded category is "mental health & substance abuse"

".excluded

category is "Northeast"

16.2 0.000 24.6 0.000

1.24 0.265 2.00 0.157

to each modality. We report only the coefficients on MC and suppress the coefficients on the control variables to focus on the key results.

MM FACILITIES

The large positive effect of managed care on MM service offerings is concentrated primarily in increasing the likelihood of counseling/therapy services (family, group, individual, pharmaco, relapse prevention, and aftercare). The IV bivariate probit coefficients are positive and significant for all of these services except family counseling. MC also increases the likelihood that MM facilities offer blood alcohol tests and drug/urine screens, which is consistent with the idea that MC favors

2005 0.786 0.867 0.462 -1.701 1.516 1.167 0.718 0.981 0.827 1.092 -0.395 -0.994 0.218 -0.652 0.403 0.039 -0.073 6.433

(14)

TABLE 4

TOTAL SERVICES: SELECTION EQUATION RESULTS (EQUATION #2)

Variable Name

Medicare MC enrollments (log) HMO enrollments (log) Control: Private & nonprofit* Control: Public*

Focus: substance abuset Hospital Solo practice Halfway house Regfda Accredited Licensed by state Admissions (log)

Accepts cash or self-payment Accepts private health insurance Accepts Medicaid

Accepts Medicare

Accepts state-financed health insurance Receives public funds (not Medicare, Medicaid) Offers payment assistance

Region: South" Region: Midwest" Region: West" Metropolitan area

Population density - county (log) Population - county (log) Competition - county Constant

"excluded

category is "private & for profit"

texclided category is "mental health & substance abuse"

".excluded

category is "Northeast"

Drug Free N = 5,402 Coef p value 0.044 0.006 0.048 0.002 -0.223 0.001 -0.696 0.000 -0.146 0.004 0.222 0.034 -0.349 0.000 0.347 0.000 Methadone N 610 Coef p value 0.198 0.001 0.246 0.142 -0.282 0.117 -0.658 0.027 -0.530 0.034 -0.580 0.005 -0.767 0.029 1.198 0.024 0.303 0.413 0.229 0.180 -0.665 0.025 -0.013 0.850 -0.356 0.596 0.462 0.002 0.755 0.001 0.233 0.167 0.659 0.000 0.244 0.213 0.217 0.227 -0.182 0.507 -0.127 0.609 -1.155 0.000 -0.755 0.070 -0.103 0.152 -0.622 0.002 -0.987 0.184 5.309 0.001 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.252 0.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.422 0.015 0.311 0.771

monitoring and oversight. MC has no significant effect on the likelihood that MM facilities offer tests for diseases (e.g., hepatitis, HIV, STDs, TB). The impact is mixed on transitional and other services; although MC increases the likelihood that MM facilities offer child care and discharge planning, it decreases the likelihood that MM facilities offer employment training and transportation assistance.

DF FACILITIES

The negative effect of MC on DF service offerings is concentrated primarily in medical tests for diseases. That is, the IV bivariate probit coefficients are negative and significant for all of the tests of diseases in DF facilities (i.e., hepatitis, HIV, STD, and TB). Thus, managed care decreases the likelihood that DF facilities offer

0.279 0.213 0.073 0.357 1.162 0.319 0.088 0.331 -0.074 -0.081 -0.587 -0.367 -0.519 -0.177 -0.022 -0.123 -0.136 -0.160

(15)

TABLE 5

EFFECTS OF MANAGED CARE ON INDIVIDUAL SERVICESt

Methadone Coef Marginal* Assessment

Substance abuse assessment Mental health assessment

Therapy/Counseling Family counseling Group therapy Individual therapy Pharmaco therapy Relapse prevention groups Aftercare counseling Medical Testing

Blood alcohol test Drug/alcohol urine screen Hepatitis HIV test STD test TB screen 0.164 0.015 (0.926) (0.928) 0.880 0.303 (0.062) (0.049) 0.799 0.264 (0.185) (0.196) 1.439 0.374 (<0.001) (0.011) 2.049 0.000 (<0.001) (0.796) 0.745 0.197 (0.058) (0.109) 1.238 0.389 (0.001) (0.004) 1.269 0.420 (<0.001) (<0.001) 1.441 0.522 (0.006) (0.002) 0.997 0.003 (0.028) (0.803) -0.020 -0.006 (0.981) (0.981) -0.807 -0.096 (0.291) (0.375) -0.108 -0.040 (0.860) (0.861) -0.454 -0.032 (0.204) (0.228) Transitional

Assist in obtaining social services -0.137 -0.039 (0.839) (0.837) Discharge planning 1.179 0.316 (0.003) (0.017) Employment training -1.341 -0.496 (0.068) (0.030) Housing assistance -0.581 -0.202 (0.483) (0.496) Referral to other transitional services 0.906 0.207

(0.552) (0.875) Drug Free Coef Marginal* 0.384 0.013 (0.170) (0.220) 0.021 0.008 (0.969) (0.969) 0.189 0.034 (0.566) (0.572) 0.309 0.027 (0.181) (0.237) -0.674 -0.045 (0.025) (0.125) -0.250 -0.078 (0.593) (0.599) 0.307 0.096 (0.373) (0.379) -0.084 -0.019 (0.919) (0.920) -0.307 -0.110 (0.657) (0.660) 0.316 0.081 (0.601) (0.608) -0.540 -0.072 (0.056) (0.114) -1.159 -0.373 (<0.001) (<0.001) -0.755 -0.117 (0.024) (0.082) -1.050 -0.292 (<0.001) (<0.001) -0.776 -0.299 (0.005) (0.004) 0.550 0.166 (0.128) (0.139) 0.088 0.026 (0.824) (0.823) 0.145 0.040 (0.676) (0.674) -0.283 -0.077 (0.349) (0.352)

(16)

TABLE 5 CONTINUED.

Methadone Drug Free

Coef Marginal* Coef Marginal*

Other services Case management 0.088 0.029 0.069 0.023 (0.877) (0.875) (0.813) (0.813) Child care 1.285 0.253 -0.543 -0.102 (0.022) (0.096) (0.416) (0.478) Domestic violence 0.976 0.226 0.153 0.053 (0.006) (0.026) (0.686) (0.684) HIV/AIDS education 1.159 0.157 -0.995 -0.364 (0.041) (0.372) (<0.001) (<0.001) Outcome follow-up 0.486 0.185 -0.815 -0.314 (0.675) (0.666) (0.012) (0.008) Transportation assist -0.957 -0.366 0.267 0.088 (0.051) (0.037) (0.557) (0.551) Acupuncture -0.377 -0.061 -0.630 -0.053 (0.722) (0.736) (0.312) (0.481)

Boldface entries are statistically significant (p value < 0. 100).

* Marginal effects measure the change in the probability that a given service is offered for a discrete change in MC from 0 to 1. Marginal effects are calculated for a typical methadone OSAT facility comprising the following characteristics: private & nonprofit, primary focus is substance abuse, not affiliated with a hospital, not a solo practice, not a halfway house, not accredited, licensed by the state, accepts cash or self-payment, accepts private insurance, accepts Medicaid, does not accept Medicare, does not accept state-financed health insurance, receives public funds (not Medicaid or Medicare), offers payment assistance, and located in a metropolitan area in the Northeast. Marginal effects are calculated for typical drug-free OSAT facilities comprising characteristics identical to methadone facilities except that they are located in the South.

tests for infectious diseases. In contrast to its effect on counseling services in MM facilities, managed care has no systematic impact on the likelihood that DF facilities offer counseling services. Specifically, half of the counseling services have positive coefficients (the other half have negative coefficients) and only one is significant (individual therapy). It appears that MC has a somewhat negative impact on wraparound services offered by DF facilities, though the results are mixed. Although the IV coefficients for DF facilities are negative and significant for assistance in obtaining social services, HIV/AIDS education, and outcome follow-up, no other wraparound coefficients are significant for DF facilities and several are positive (e.g., employment training, housing assistance).

DISCUSSION

We find that MC has significant and contrasting effects on the number and type of services offered at MM as compared to DF facilities. The finding that managed care increases the availability of counseling/therapy services in MM facilities is consistent with several viewpoints. One is that a role of MC is to ensure the provision of a

(17)

certain standard of care. Methadone maintenance was originally defined to include methadone together with counseling services (Dole & Nyswander, 1965; Institute of Medicine [IOM], 1990), and methadone plus counseling has been shown to be both more effective (Ball & Ross, 1991; McLellan et al., 1993; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment [CSAT], 1995) and more cost-effective (Kraft, Rothbard, Hadley, McLellan, & Asch 1997) than methadone alone. However, counseling resources have been substantially eroded or limited in recent years due to fiscal constraints (IOM, 1990; CSAT, 1995). Thus, through a combination of standards and reimbursements, MC may be both requiring and enabling MM programs to increase their counseling/ therapy service offerings. MC may set standards in other ways as well. For example, to the extent that DFs are more likely than their MM counterparts to offer counseling services, managed care may simply be trying to standardize care across modalities by requiring more counseling in MM programs.

MC's positive impact on blood alcohol and drug/urine screens in MMs is consistent with MC use of utilization review and assessments prior to approval of additional care. It is not surprising, however, that MC does not impact the likelihood of substance abuse assessment inasmuch as this service is already offered by the vast majority of OSAT facilities.

The finding that MC decreases the likelihood that DFs offer tests for diseases is consistent with our previous work (Olmstead et al., 2004). We interpret this as MC being less interested in public health issues such as the spread of disease to others and/or that MC considers tests for diseases to be medical services that should be obtained at facilities that are more strictly medical.' In any case, this finding has potentially important public health implications inasmuch as onsite availability increases the use of medical testing services (Umbrict-Schneiter, Ginn, Pabst, & Bigelow, 1994; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1999; D'Aunno, 1997; Friedmann, D'Aunno, Jin, & Alexander, 2000; Friedmann, Lemon, Stein, Etheridge, & D'Aunno, 2001), which, in turn, could reduce the spread of these infectious diseases.

LIMITATIONS

While we believe that we have added to the literature in several ways, including the use of a large data set that contains the universe of OSAT facilities and the ability to estimate causal effects, there are nonetheless several limitations to our study. NSSATS does not collect data on client characteristics, so we cannot control directly for client mix. However, we attempt to mitigate potential omitted variable bias by using several proxies for client mix, including types of payment accepted and ownership status. Another limitation of NSSATS is that it records managed care as a binary variable. Thus, we do not know the intensity, strength, types, and mix of MC mechanisms at each facility. Similarly, we know only if a service is

(18)

offered, but not if the service has been received, who receives it, or anything about the intensity or quality of the service. However, using binary indicators of MC and also of specific services is probably conservative inasmuch as their relatively blunt nature could bias against finding significant results.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides useful insights into the causal effect of MC on service offerings in both methadone maintenance and drug-free OSAT facilities. These findings are consistent with the dual roles of MC: to restrict the growth of costs and to ensure at least a minimum standard of care. We conclude that, on average, MC significantly increases the total number of services offered at OSAT methadone maintenance facilities. In contrast, we find that MC significantly decreases the total number of services offered at OSAT drug-free facilities. These findings are derived using an IV approach in which we control for relevant factors and adjust for potential endogeneity between MC and service offerings. As such, the results can be interpreted as causal (as opposed to associations), subject to the limitations described above.

When we separately examine individual services offered, we find that MC significantly increases the likelihood that MMs offer a variety of counseling/therapy services, including group therapy, pharmaco therapy, relapse prevention groups, and aftercare counseling, as well as tests for drugs and alcohol. In contrast, we find that MC significantly decreases the likelihood that DFs offer tests for diseases, including hepatitis, STD, HIV, and TB.

The contrasting impacts of managed care on DFs as compared to MMs demonstrate the multiple roles that MC may play in affecting service offerings. Further research is needed to understand the effect of these impacts on patient outcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors acknowledge generous support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA RO1 DA14471).

NOTES

I The percentage of substance abuse treatment facilities that report having

contracts or agreements with managed care has risen from 32% in 1995 to 54% in 2000 (SAMHSA, 1997; USHHS, 2002b). See also Alexander, Lemak, and Campbell (2003).

2 See Olmstead et al. (2004) for more details about the IV approach.

3 NSSATS is a self-reported "paper and pencil" survey administered by the

(19)

for the 2000 NSSATS is the Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), a continuously-updated, comprehensive listing of all known substance abuse treatment facilities, both public and private, in the U.S.

4 The test statistic is calculated as N times the uncentered R2 from regressing the

IV residuals on all the instruments, and it is distributed as a chi-square with degrees of freedom equal to the number of instruments in excess of the number of explanatory variables.

5 The fact that MC does not appear to reduce the likelihood that MMs offer

tests for diseases may be due to the greater need for such tests when the client population comprises intravenous drug users.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J.A., & Lemak, C.H.

1997a Managed care penetration in outpatient substance abuse treatment units.

Medical Care Research and Review, 54(4), 490-507.

Alexander, J.A., & Lemak, C.H.

1997b The effects of managed care on administrative burden in outpatient substance abuse treatment units. Medical Care, 35(5), 1060-1068.

Alexander, J.A., Lemak, C.H., & Campbell, C.I.

2003 Changes in managed care activity in outpatient substance abuse treatment

organizations, 1995-2000. Journal ofBehavioral Health Services Research,

30(4), 369-81.

Ball, J.C., & Ross, A.

1991 The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment: Patients programs,

services and outcomes. New York: Springer Verlag.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

1995 Matching treatment to patient needs in opioid substitution therapy: Treatment

improvement protocol (TIP) Series #20. DHHS Publication No. (SMA)

95-3049. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. D'Aunno, T.

1997 Linking substance abuse treatment and primary health care. In J. Egertson,

D. Fox & A. Leshner (Eds.), Treating drug abusers effectively (pp. 311-351). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.

Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J.

1993 Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Dole, V.P., & Nyswander, M.

1965 A medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction: A clinical

trial with methadone hydrochloride. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 193(8), 80-84.

(20)

Dranove, D., & Satterthwaite, M.

2000 The industrial organization of health care markets. In A.J. Culyer & J.P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics Vol. ]A. (pp. 1093-1135). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Friedmann, P., D'Aunno, T., Jin, L., & Alexander, J.

2000 Medical and psychosocial services in drug abuse treatment: Do stronger

linkages promote client utilization? Health Service Research, 35(2), 443-465.

Friedmann, P., Lemon, S., Stein, M., Etheridge, R., & D'Aunno, T.

2001 Linkage to medical services in the drug abuse treatment outcome study.

Medical Care, 39(3), 284-295.

Glied, S.

2000 Managed care. In A.J. Culyer & J.P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health

economics Vol. IA (pp. 705-753). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gould, F., Levine, M., & McLellan, A.T.

2000 Treating the substance-abusing patient in the public sector: "Medical

necessity" versus "social necessity and social responsibility" in the Philadelphia target cities demonstration project. Journal of Substance Abuse

Treatment, 18, 75-77.

Greene, W.

2003 Econometric analysis (5th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Institute of Medicine

1990 Treating drug problems. Volume 1P A study of the evolution, effectiveness,

and financing of public and private drug treatment systems. Washington

DC: National Academy Press. Jofre-Bonet, M., & Sindelar, J.

2001 Treatment as a crime fighting tool? Journal of Mental Health Policy and

Economics, 4, 175-188.

Kennedy, P.

1998 A guide to econometrics (4' ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kraft, M.K., Rothbard, A.B., Hadley, T.R., McLellan, A.T., & Asch, D.A.

1997 Are supplementary services provided during methadone maintenance really

cost effective? American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(9), 1214-1219. Lemak, C.H., & Alexander, J.A.

2001 Managed care and outpatient substance abuse treatment intensity. Journal

of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 28(1), 12-29.

Maddala, G.

1983 Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York:

(21)

Marsh, J., D'Aunno, T., & Smith, B.

2000 Increasing access and providing social services to improve drug abuse

treatment for women with children. Addiction, 95(8), 1237-1247. McClellan, M., & Newhouse, J. (Eds.)

2000 Introduction: Overview of the special supplement issue. Instrumental

variables analysis: Applications in health services research. (A special supplement to HSR). Health Services Research, 35(5), Part II.

McLellan, A.T., Arndt, I., Metzger, D., Woody, G., & O'Brien, C.

1993 The effects of psychosocial services in substance-abuse treatment. Journal

of the American Medical Association, 269(15), 1953-1959.

McLellan, A.T., Grissom, G., Zanis, D., Randall, M., Brill, P., & O'Brien C.

1997 Problem-service 'matching' in addition treatment: A prospective study in

4 programs. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(8), 730-735.

McLellan, A.T., Hagan, T.A., Meyers, K., Levine, M., Gould F., Bencivengo, M., Durell, J., & Jaffe, J.

1998 Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction

treatment. Addiction, 93, 1489-1499. McNeese-Smith, D.K.

1998 Program directors' views of the effect of managed care on substance abuse

programs in Los Angeles County. Psychiatric Services, 49(10), 1323-1329.

Milby, J., Schumacher, J., Raczynski, J., Caldwell, E., Engle, M., Michael, M., & Carr, J.

1996 Sufficient conditions for effective treatment of substance abusing homeless

persons. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 43(1-2), 39-47. Miller, R.H., & Luft, H.S.

2002 HMO plan performance update: An analysis of the literature, 1997-2001.

Health Affairs, 21(4), 63-86.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services

1999 Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research based guide. NIH

Publication No. 99-4180.

Olmstead, T.O., White, W.D., & Sindelar, J.L.

2004 The impact of managed care on substance abuse treatment services. Health

Services Research, 39(2), 319-344.

Rivers, J.E.

1998 Services for substance abusers in a changing health care system. American

(22)

SINDELAR, OLMSTEAD

Smith, B., & Marsh, J.

2002 Client-service matching in substance abuse treatment for women with

children. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 161-168. Staiger, D., & Stock, J.

1997 Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica,

65(3), 557-586.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies

1997 Uniform facility data set (UFDS): Data for 1996 and 1980-1996. DHHS

Publication No. (SMA) 98-3176.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies

2003 Reasons for not receiving substance abuse treatment. The NSDUH Report,

November 7,2003. Retrieved December 15,2003, from http://www.samhsa. gov/oas/2k3/SAnoTX/SAnoTX.cfm

Umbricht-Schneiter, A., Ginn, D., Pabst, K., & Bigelow, G.

1994 Providing medical care to methadone clinic patients: Referral vs. on-site

care. American Journal of Public Health, 84(2), 207-2 10.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis

2002a AREA RESOURCE FILE.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies

2002b National survey of substance abuse treatment services (N-SSATS), 2000 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Arlington, VA: Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

(23)

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Managed Care’s Dual Impact on Outpatient Substance

Abuse Treatment: Methadone Maintenance vs. Drug Free

SOURCE: Journal of Drug Issues 35 no3 Summ 2005

PAGE(S): 507-28

WN: 0519602438008

(c) 2002 Journal of Drug Issues, owned and published by Florida

State University, Tallahassee, FL. To contact the publisher: http://

www2.criminology.fsu.edu/~jdi/

References

Related documents

However, when rats were given to choose between sweetened ethanol and sweetened water, they showed preference for sweetened water, suggesting that the

Essa duração bergsoniana contínua não é algo evanescente, fugaz, pelo contrário, tem um peso ontológico, mesmo uma regularidade, a qual o I Ching, por seu turno –

Arthur Mullaney has vast experience when it comes to navigating the college admissions process. He established the College Impressions Newsletter in 1983. He spent 30 years as a

A3-9: seismic waves allow us to get a 3-D image of Earth's interior.. Seismic tomography uses seismic waves to get a 3-D image of the interior of Earth. Q4-1: Seismic waves that

Included today: -Canal dinner cruise -Bicycle tour of Amsterdam Meals:..

Nonetheless, these measures are of great importance for the integration of young people with a migrant background into the world of work: on the one hand, from a

The results of the pilot study and first subject study made it clear that robot dynam- ics, namely inertia and friction, had a direct impact on the movement smoothness

This paper addresses the misuse of biblical texts that perpetuate gender stereotypes and negative views on women, as well as religiously tinted discourse inspired by