ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2017
Design and impact of bundled payment for detox and follow-up care.
Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective payment system transformation (2000-2024): temporal trends, payment architecture, and cross-national variation.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Behavioral responses of healthcare providers to prospective payment systems: a systematic review using the WHO framework (2000-2024).Health economics review · 2026Review
- Correlates of residential detoxification completers and non-completers in Alberta.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Article
- Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2022Review
- It's not just the money: The role of treatment ideology in publicly funded substance use disorder treatment.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2021Article
- Evaluating the feasibility and impact of case rate payment for recovery support navigator services: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Opioid overdose and inpatient care for substance use disorder care in Massachusetts.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2020Article
- Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Detoxification for Management of Perinatal Opioid Use Disorder: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- Association of Mental Health Disorders With Health Care Utilization and Costs Among Adults With Chronic Disease.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Complexity of Patients Seen by Different Medical Subspecialists in a Universal Health Care System.JAMA network open · 2018Article
- National trends and characteristics of inpatient detoxification for drug use disorders in the United States.BMC public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecent payment reforms promote movement from fee-for-service to alternative payment models that shift financial risk from payers to providers, incentivizing providers to manage patients' utilization. Bundled payment, an episode-based fixed payment that includes the prices of a group of services that would typically treat an episode of care, is expanding in the United States. Bundled payment has been recommended as a way to pay for comprehensive SUD treatment and has the potential to improve treatment engagement after detox, which could reduce detox readmissions, improve health outcomes, and reduce medical care costs. However, if moving to bundled payment creates large losses for some providers, it may not be sustainable. The objective of this study was to design the first bundled payment for detox and follow-up care and to estimate its impact on provider revenues.
methodsMassachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries' behavioral health, medical, and pharmacy claims from July 2010-April 2013 were used to build and test a detox bundled payment for continuously enrolled adults (N=5521). A risk adjustment model was developed using general linear modeling to predict beneficiaries' episode costs. The projected payments to each provider from the risk adjustment analysis were compared to the observed baseline costs to determine the potential impact of a detox bundled payment reform on organizational revenues. This was modeled in two ways: first assuming no change in behavior and then assuming a supply-side cost sharing behavioral response of a 10% reduction in detox readmissions and an increase of one individual counseling and one group counseling session.
resultsThe mean total 90-day detox episode cost was $3743. Nearly 70% of the total mean cost consists of the index detox, psychiatric inpatient care, and short-term residential care. Risk mitigation, including risk adjustment, substantially reduced the variation of the mean episode cost. There are opportunities for organizations to gain revenue under this bundled payment design, but many providers will lose money under a bundled payment designed using historic payment and costs.
conclusionsDesigning a bundled payment for detox and follow-up care is feasible, but low case volume and the adequacy of the payment are concerns. Thus, a detox episode-based payment will likely be more challenging for smaller, independent SUD treatment providers. These providers are experiencing many changes as financing shifts away from block grant funding toward Medicaid funding. A detox bundled payment in practice would need to consider different risk mitigation strategies, provider pooling, and costs based on episodes of care meeting quality standards, but could incentivize care coordination, which is important to reducing detox readmissions and engaging patients in care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.