Policymakers have increasingly promoted health services integration to improve quality and efficiency. The US health care safety net, which comprises providers of health care to uninsured, Medicaid, and other vulnerable patients, remains a largely fragmented collection of providers. We interviewed leadership from safety net hospitals and community health centers in 5 US cities (Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Minneapolis, MN; and San Francisco, CA) throughout 2013 on their experiences with service integration. We identify conflicts in organizational mission, identity, and consumer orientation that have fostered reluctance to enter into collaborative arrangements. We describe how smaller scale initiatives, such as capitated model for targeted populations, health information exchange, and quality improvements led by health plans, can help bridge cultural differences to lay the groundwork for developing integrated care programs.

With the expansion of coverage as a result of federal health care reform, safety net providers are confronting a challenge to care for the underserved while also competing as a provider of choice for the newly insured. Safety net institutions may be able to achieve these goals by pursuing greater delivery system integration. We interviewed safety net hospital and community health center (CHCs) leaders in five US cities to determine what strategies these organizations are employing to promote care integration in the safety net. Although there is some experimentation with payment reform and health information exchange, safety net providers identify significant policy and structural barriers to integrating service delivery. The enhanced Medicaid payments for CHCs and the federal requirement that CHCs retain independent boards discourage these organizations from integrating with other safety net providers. Current policies are not mobilizing safety net providers to pursue integration as a way to deliver more efficient and effective care. Medicaid and other policies at the federal and state level could be revised to overcome known fragmentation in the health care safety net. This includes addressing the conflicts in financing and governance arrangements that are encouraging providers to resist integration to preserve their independence.

Background

Improvement in quality of life (QOL) is a long term goal of drug treatment. Although some brief interventions have been found to reduce illicit drug use, no trial among adult risky (moderate non-dependent) drug users has tested effects on health-related quality of life.

Methods

A single-blind randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from February 2011 to November 2012 was conducted in waiting rooms of five federally qualified health centers. 413 adult primary care patients were identified as risky drug users using the WHO-ASSIST and 334 (81% response; 171 intervention, 163 control) consented to participate in the trial. Three-month follow-ups were completed by 261 patients (78%). Intervention patients received the QUIT intervention of brief clinician advice and up to two drug-use health telephone sessions. The control group received usual care and information on cancer screening. Outcomes were three-month changes in the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental health component summary score (MCS) and physical health component summary score (PCS).

Results

The average treatment effect (ATE) was non-significant for MCS (0.2 points, p-value=0.87) and marginally significant for PCS (1.7 points, p-value=0.08). The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) was 0.1 (p-value=0.93) for MCS and 1.9 (p-value=0.056) for PCS. The effect on PCS was stronger at higher (above median) baseline number of drug use days: ATE=2.7, p-value=0.04; ATT=3.21, p-value=0.02.

Conclusions

The trial found a marginally significant effect on improvement in PCS, and significant and stronger effect on the SF-12 physical component among patients with greater frequency of initial drug use.

BACKGROUND: Given the increased use of psychoactive substances on the United States-Mexico border, a binational study (Tijuana, Mexico-Los Angeles, USA) was conducted to identify the prevalence of substance use in primary care settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and characteristics of patients at risk for substance use disorders in Tijuana and East Los Angeles (LA) community clinics with special attention paid to drug use. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional, analytical study, comparing substance use screening results from patients in Tijuana and LA. The settings were 2 community clinics in LA and 6 in Tijuana. Participants were 2,507 adult patients in LA and 2,890 in Tijuana eligible for WHO Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) screening during March-October 2013. Patients anonymously self-administered the WHO ASSIST on a tablet PC in the clinic waiting rooms. RESULTS: Of eligible patients, 96.4% completed the ASSIST in Tijuana and 88.7% in LA (mean 1.34 minutes and 4.20 minutes, respectively). The prevalence of patients with moderate-to-high substance use was higher in LA than Tijuana for each substance: drugs 19.4% vs. 5.7%, alcohol 15.2% vs. 6.5%, tobacco 20.4% vs. 16.2%. LA patients born in Mexico had 2x the odds and LA patients born in the United States had 6x the odds of being a moderate-to-high drug user compared to Tijuana patients born in Mexico. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-to-high drug use is higher in LA than in Tijuana but rates are sufficiently high in both to suggest that screening for drug use (along with alcohol and tobacco use) should be integrated into routine primary care of community clinics in both cities.

Aims

To assess the effect of a multi-component primary care delivered brief intervention for reducing risky psychoactive drug use (RDU) among patients identified by screening.

Design

Multicenter single-blind two-arm randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from February 2011 to November 2012 with 3-month follow-up. Randomization and allocation to trial group were computer-generated.

Setting

Primary care waiting rooms of five federally qualified health centers in Los Angeles County (LAC), USA.

Participants

A total of 334 adult primary care patients (171 intervention; 163 control) with RDU scores (4-26) on the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) self-administered on tablet computers. 261 (78%) completed follow-up. Mean age was 41.7 years; 62.9% were male; 37.7% were Caucasian.

Intervention(s) and measurement

Intervention patients received brief (typically 3-4 minutes) clinician advice to quit/reduce their drug use reinforced by a video doctor message, health education booklet and up to two 20-30-minute follow-up telephone drug use coaching sessions. Controls received usual care and cancer screening information. Primary outcome was patient self-reported use of highest scoring drug (HSD) at follow-up.

Findings

Intervention and control patients reported equivalent baseline HSD use at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment for covariates, in the complete sample linear regression model, intervention patients used their HSD on 3.5 fewer days in the previous month relative to controls (P<0.001), and in the completed sample model, intervention patients used their HSD 2.2 fewer days than controls (P < 0.005). No compensatory increases in use of other measured substances were found.

Conclusions

A primary-care based, clinician-delivered brief intervention with follow-up coaching calls may decrease risky psychoactive drug use.