|
Tap 16 — TAPs <<<Documents<<<Home
This page contains links to external Web sites. The Treatment Improvement Exchange has no control over their content or availability.
Chapter 2 of TAP 16: Purchasing Managed Care Services for
Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment: Essential Issues and Policy Issues
Chapter 2Access to Treatment
Maintaining and improving overall "access" to the treatment system
is arguably the most important issue to monitor when first implementing managed
care into public treatment systems. Access generally refers to the capacity of a
treatment system to facilitate entry into the appropriate treatment, as well as
the continuance of that treatment, for all individuals who need it.
The extent of access to appropriate treatment in a managed care system
depends on the amount of resources devoted to alcohol and other drug (AOD)
treatment services. To understand how much access can be implemented for AOD
clients, a key variable will be the resources that are made available.
Most treatment systems have access problems that influence whether or not an
individual can obtain and continue to utilize treatment services. Uninsured and
publicly insured individuals often lack the resources and the knowledge to
negotiate their way through overly bureaucratic systems. Every effort must be
made to facilitate their entry into the treatment system. Potential barriers to
treatment must be carefully analyzed and steps taken to lessen or eliminate
these barriers.
In a managed care environment, access to treatment can be hindered in a
variety of overt and covert ways. It is imperative that key measures of access
be closely monitored to ensure that access is not intentionally or inadvertently
restricted.
Access in AOD treatment refers to a variety of diverse factors. Some of the
most important factors include:
- Understanding of AOD problems by gatekeepers
- Structured outreach activities
- Timeliness of the first face-to-face meeting after an initial contact
- Geographic proximity to appropriate services
- User-friendliness of the intake and referral systems
- Absence of financial barriers
- Cultural, ethnic, and gender-sensitive treatment
- Adequacy of AOD treatment funding and resources
Understanding of AOD Problems by Gatekeepers
All too often, gatekeepers into treatment are not sufficiently trained or
experienced to assess needs effectively and to triage individuals into
appropriate AOD treatment. It is crucial that such gatekeepers (e.g.,
clinicians, primary care physicians) be well-trained, sensitive to the
bio-psychological aspects of addiction, and monitored regularly.
Structured Outreach Activities
Structured outreach activities maximize access to a treatment system by
providing systematic efforts to identify individuals in need of AOD treatment.
Such outreach activities might be directed to pregnant addicted women, homeless
AOD abusers, injection drug users, or others whose impact on society is high and
who are less likely to seek out treatment on their own.
Timeliness of Treatment
Immediate and convenient initial access to qualified providers is a hallmark
of any quality treatment system. A key component of high-quality treatment is
how efficiently a person in need can obtain appropriate AOD treatment. The
motivation to address AOD problems is often fleeting, and a delay in access can
easily result in a crucial missed opportunity to initiate treatment. Contracts
with managed care organizations (MCOs) should ensure rapid access to all levels
of treatment.
Detoxification should be understood as an emergency care service.
Individuals should have very easy access (i.e., same day or the next morning) to
detoxification evaluation and treatment services 7 days a week.
While screening can occur over the telephone, evaluations should be face to
face. Standards should assure 24-hour telephone intake, immediate referral
capacity, and rapid access to appropriate treatment. Noncrisis treatment should
generally be available in 1 to 3 days (Zwick and Berman 1992). It may be decided
that some subpopulations (e.g., pregnant women, injection drug users) should
receive higher priority or more immediate access within the system.
Geographic Proximity
Appropriate treatment services must be within reasonable distance for the
population served. The maximum distance in time or miles should be determined
for each level of care. Since most publicly insured recipients do not have
reliable transportation, services should be accessible via public transportation
whenever possible. Special plans may be required in rural areas, including the
use of volunteers or members of self-help groups to provide transportation. Any
outpatient services should be especially easy to access.
"User-Friendliness" of Systems
The "user-friendliness" of a system describes the overall ease
with which an individual can negotiate the various steps of a treatment system.
To assure access, when policies and procedures are being developed for an MCO
plan, it is essential that ease of use should assume the highest priority. Those
who utilize the services offered are in an excellent position to rate their
access to that service. For example, information regarding the time to first
appointment, ease of telephone access, ease of understanding how to use the
system, clarity of written materials, and staff attributes can easily be
incorporated into standardized client satisfaction surveys, program/MCO records,
and ongoing focus groups.
Absence of Financial Barriers
Uninsured and publicly insured individuals are overwhelmingly poor and
disenfranchised. Any financial barriers (e.g., copayments) can be a barrier to
access and should be avoided.
Cultural/Ethnic/Gender Sensitivities
Treatment that does not meet the cultural, ethnic, and gender needs of
clients is poor treatment and will result in poor outcomes. Such non-responsive
treatment restricts the access of those with cultural, ethnic, and gender needs.
Adequacy of AOD Treatment Funding and Resources
Quality AOD treatment requires a comprehensive continuum of treatment
services. Many State systems do not support such a continuum, because they lack
the resources, commitment, and/or understanding of the value of AOD treatment
within such a framework. Any managed care initiative should include an analysis
of the AOD treatment continuum and the costs associated with needed expansion.
Such information is vital to inform the planning process.
Numerous factors can influence both directly and indirectly
whether or not an individual obtains and continues to utilize necessary AOD
treatment services (see table 3). When poorly implemented, managed care can
dramatically reduce access to services. When well implemented, it can
substantially increase access to care.
Depending on the structure of the contract, MCOs may have strong financial
incentives to create obstacles or to otherwise restrict care. All too often,
MCOs receive set amounts of dollars which are insufficient to maintain the array
of services needed for supporting stability of the patient. When developing
contracts with MCOs, it is essential (1) to guard against incentives to
undertreat these vulnerable populations, and (2) to build strong incentives to
promote access (Frank 1994; Christianson 1989).
Implementing managed care programs in rural or frontier communities requires
careful planning. Such planning needs to address the unique clinical challenges
of rural America.
The Challenges
In rural America, mental health and AOD treatment services have been
rationed for decades because of poor accessibility and the lack of human and
fiscal resources. Access to quality treatment in rural communities and regions
is often limited by a range of challenges. These include:
- Concerns about confidentiality
- Lack of properly trained providers
- Inadequate support services
- A conservative values orientation
Often, the public mental health system is the only provider in rural
communities.
Several factors contribute to the difficulty of developing an effective
managed care system in rural and frontier States. Poverty and unemployment rates
are generally higher. Public transportation is lacking. A disproportionate
number of populations are at risk for behavioral health disorders.
Additionally, managed care initiatives have primarily happened in more urban
centers, which allow a certain economy of scale. The implications of managed
care for rural areas are less clear.
Guidelines for Developing Services
It is important to develop and analyze a baseline inventory of practitioners
who are providing AOD treatment services. If that inventory identifies
shortages, potential MCO providers can be asked to propose strategies to bring
in or recruit professionals in a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
Managed competition models based upon competition among independent provider
groups may not be the most effective model for rural areas. It has been
suggested by some that a "managed cooperation model might more effectively
improve access and quality of care." This model would create a rural "Authority"
that would use subsidies and exclusive franchises to achieve goals. The approach
would be flexible, fostering cooperation where needed and competition in areas
where sufficient diversity exists. Initiatives involving cooperation would
facilitate the development of networks. The managed component would improve the
interface between urban and rural areas, coordinate access to tertiary care, and
assist in recruiting needed professionals.
When managed care is implemented in rural settings, it is likely that the
experience of the company and leadership is more urban than rural in its
perspective. It is essential that any implementation in rural areas actively
utilize local professional and client groups in adapting managed care principles
to rural and frontier settings.
Table 3. Factors Influencing Access to
Treatment| Obstacles to Access |
| Factors Promoting Access |
| Not identifying individuals in need of treatment |  | Effective
screening, assessment, AOD training | | Not reaching
clients in the locations in which they enter the "system" (i.e.,
courts, criminal justice system) |  | Satellite sites,
systematic linkage, training | | Long waiting
periods for appropriate service |  | Services within
72 hours, depending on severity of clinical need | | Multiple
steps, places, and people needed to access services |  | Widely available
and simplified intake processes | | Arbitrary
service limits |  |
Individualized treatment plans | | Automatic
"fail first" policies (e.g., the client must fail a less intense level
of treatment before a more intense level is made available) |  | Individualized
comprehensive assessment used to guide appropriate placement | | Geographic inaccessibility |  | Geographically
well distributed sites located on transportation lines | | Resource-intensie review and appeal procedures |  | Highly
effecient, publicly known utilization review processes |
| Excessive and clinically inappropriate exlusionary
criteria |  | Restricted ability to exclude specified types of hours/day of
operation | | Cultural, gender, and/or ethnic
insensitivities |  | Priority placed
on cultural competence development | | Restrictive
copayments |  | Elimination of copayments |
| Unknown, untimely, or non-objective appeals processes |  | Widely known, timely, objective appeals | | Lack of transportation |  | Transportation
available as needed | | Patient placement criteria
that are nonstandardized, financially driven, and/or subjectively applied |  | Patient
placement criteria that are collaboratively developed, clinically driven,
objective, and standardized |
It is imperative that the managed care industry and the AOD treatment field
develop standard access measures, so that data and findings can be easily
compared. It is impossible to overstate the importance of consistent data and
standardized units of analysis for purchasing, monitoring, and improving care.
Accurately managing these data is critical to determining the success of any
managed care intervention.
The utilization patterns of various treatment services provide a range of
quantifiable measures of access within a managed care system. Also influenced by
the quality and outcomes of treatment, these utilization data are easily
obtained from medical claims encounter data. They allow systematic comparison of
different plans and the ongoing monitoring of overall access.
A review of the literature (Shadle and Christianson 1989; Levin 1993; Mercer
1990, pp. 1-13) suggests that certain measures represent the current state of
the art and should be standardized across the managed care spectrum. These
state-of-the-art measures include the following:
- Potential purchasers should be aware that AOD treatment often cannot
be separated from mental health treatment in MCOs.
- Contracts should ensure that AOD treatment can be analyzed as a
discrete entity or it will be impossible to accurately measure access,
utilization, quality, or other important variables.
- All levels of care should be separately analyzed, with aggregate
totals compiled as needed.
- The utilization rates of clinical subpopulations (e.g. pregnant women,
ethnic minorities) should be capable of being discretely analyzed as separate
entities.
Recommended annual utilization (unduplicated) profile measures (per level of
care) are shown in table 4. Exhibit 1 provides sample contract language
regarding actions MCOs should take to provide access to treatment.
Table 4. Utilization Rates
(Per Level of Care Per Year)
- Admissions per 1,000 covered lives (unduplicated)
- Total days or units per 1,000 covered lives
- Mean length of stay (LOS) or mean number of treatment units
| EXAMPLE | | | | | | | | | | MCO #1 | | MCO #2 | | 1996 | | | Admissions/1,000 |
| 25 | | 50 | | ? | | | Total Days/1,000 | | 150 | | 150 | | ? | | | Mean LOS | | 6 | | 3 | | ? | | | Mean Cost/Episode | | $750 |
| $450 | | ? | |
Example: You are a State AOD director and you are comparing the
utilization rates of two MCOs that are competing for a contract. In this
example, MCO #1 historically has half the admission rate of MCO #2. However,
MCO #1 allows its clients to stay in treatment twice as long, resulting in both
MCOs averaging the same amount of treatment days per 1,000 clients. MCO #1 pays
an average of $125/day, while MCO #2 pays an average of $150/day. Using these
data as a starting point, you continue to request outcome data, readmission
rates, customer satisfaction results, and continuing care profiles to inform
your decisionmaking.
Exhibit 1. Sample Contract Language Pertaining to Treatment
Access
The MCO hall regularly report on specified utilization data for all
levels of care, including, but not limited to, the number of enrolled members,
unduplicated admissions per 1,000 covered lives, day/units per 1,000 covered
lives, mean length of stay/number of treatment units, and mean cost per case.
The MCO shall provide emergency, urgent, and nonurgent care within
specified, clinically responsive timeframes. Emergent care should be offered
immediately or within 4 to 6 hours, depending on the situation. Urgent care
should be available within 24 hours. Noncrisis treatment should generally be
available in 1 to 3 days (Zwick and Berman 1992).
The MCO shall develop an outreach plan with specified objectives and
regularly report on its success at reaching those goals.
The MCO shall make and report on systematic efforts to identify, or
encoruage the identification of, beneficiaries with AOD problems and refer them
for evaluation and treatment.
The MCO shall ensure systematic screening for AOD disorders in those
settings most likely to deal with individuals at high risk for AOD problems.
These may include standard screening tools as part of initial contact with the
system, during routine physical exams, at initial prenatal contact, when "trigger
conditions" suggest a high possibility of AOD problems, or when there is
evidence of serious overutilization of medical, surgical, trauma, or emergency
services.
Previous |
Table of Contents | Next Top of Page
Last Updated 11-7-02
|