Payment and billing strategies to support methadone take-home medication: Perspectives of financial leaders of opioid treatment program organizations in New York State.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent federal regulatory changes governing the delivery of methadone treatment for opioid use disorder at Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) support continued practice changes towards greater and flexible methadone take-home medication. Existing payment models for OTPs were closely tied with onsite medication administration and thus misaligned with the need to conduct more and flexible take-homes. This study aims to understand OTP organizations' experience with the newly created OTP bundled payment model in New York State as an alternative to the pre-existing per-service payment model during 2020-2023 to inform financing strategies to support and sustain practice changes. METHODS: The study conducted semi-structured interviews with financial leaders and staff from OTP organizations in New York State. Snowball sampling supplemented purposeful sampling of OTP organizations based on their billing practices by. Qualitative data from 12 interviews (with 11 OTP organizations and 1 trade organization) were analyzed with an integrated (inductive and deductive) approach to derive themes. RESULTS: Study informants recognized that the bundled payment model served to protect revenue in a time when OTPs had to pivot quickly to increase take-home medication to patients. Informants described a wide spectrum of practices to operationalize billing in the alternative payment systems, revealing confusion with the billing rules and significant logistical and technical challenges. Informants expressed concerns regarding the substantial difference between the full bundled rate, paid in weeks with one or more qualifying services, and the medication-only rate, reporting that extended (2 weeks or more) take-homes might not be sustainable under the two-tiered model with the low medication-only rate and advocating for a single bundled rate. Informants believed that increased take-home medication and federal regulatory changes had profound implications for the delivery of counseling services, the counselor workforce, and financial viability for OTPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of OTP organization experience in New York State provided data on OTP organization perspectives regarding the potential revenue-protecting effects of bundled payments and generated insights to inform future research and policy experimentation to support flexible take-home medication. Future implementation studies are needed to better understand the roles of financing strategies at large in supporting clinical practice changes in substance use disorder treatment.
