Adults with serious mental illness and substance use disorders have elevated risk of mortality and higher healthcare costs compared to the general population. As these disparities have been linked to poor management of co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care, the behavioral health setting may be a preferred setting for routine medical screening and treatment. This qualitative study describes early stages of integrating care teams in emerging medical homes based in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Clinicians and staff from ten agencies engaged in the Behavioral Health Home Learning Collaborative participated in qualitative interviews exploring local definitions of "behavioral health home" and initial barriers and facilitators to integration. Facilitators included clear staff roles, flexible scheduling, and interdisciplinary huddles and staff trainings. Challenges included workforce, limited use of electronic health records, and differing professional cultures. Participants advocated for new workflows and payment structures to accommodate scheduling demands and holistic case management.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of an individually-tailored, virtual perspective-taking intervention to reduce race and socioeconomic (SES) disparities in providers' pain treatment decisions. Physician residents and fellows (n=436) were recruited from across the United States for this two-part online study. Providers first completed a bias assessment task in which they made treatment decisions for virtual patients with chronic pain who varied by race (Black/White) and SES (low/high). Providers who demonstrated a treatment bias were randomized to the intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of personalized feedback about their bias, real-time dynamic interactions with virtual patients, and videos depicting how pain impacts the patients' lives. Treatment bias was re-assessed one week later. Compared to the control group, providers who received the tailored intervention had 85% lower odds of demonstrating a treatment bias against Black patients and 76% lower odds of demonstrating a treatment bias against low SES patients at follow-up. Providers who received the intervention for racial bias also showed increased compassion for patients compared to providers in the control condition. Group differences did not emerge for provider comfort in treating patients. Results suggest an online intervention that is tailored to providers according to their individual treatment biases, delivers feedback about these

Background Compared to White and high socioeconomic status (SES) patients, Black and low SES patients receive less adequate pain care. Providers may contribute to these disparities by making biased decisions that are driven, in part, by their attitudes about race and SES. Purpose We examined the effects of patient race and SES on providers’ chronic pain decisions and the extent to which providers’ implicit and explicit attitudes about race and SES were related to these decisions. Methods Physician residents/fellows (n = 436) made pain care decisions for 12 computer-simulated patients with chronic back pain that varied by race (Black/White) and SES (low/high). Physicians also completed measures assessing implicit and explicit attitudes about race and SES. Results There were three significant race-by-SES interactions: (a) For high SES patients, Black (vs. White) patients were rated as having more pain interference; the opposite race difference emerged for low SES patients. (b) For high SES patients, Black (vs. White) patients were rated as being in greater distress; no race difference emerged for low SES patients. (c) For low SES patients, White (vs. Black) patients were more likely to be recommended workplace accommodations; no race difference emerged for high SES patients. Additionally, providers were more likely to recommend opioids to Black (vs. White) and low (vs. high) SES patients, and were more likely to use opioid contracts with low (vs. high) SES patients. Providers’ implicit and explicit attitudes predicted some, but not all, of their pain-related ratings. Conclusion These results highlight the need to further examine the effects of patient race and SES simultaneously in the context of pain care.

In response to the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid use, providers have become more vigilant about assessing patients for risk of opioid-related problems. Little is known about how providers are making these risk assessments. Given previous studies indicating that Black patients are at increased risk for suboptimal pain care, which may be related to stereotypes about drug abuse, the current study examined how patient race and previous opioid misuse behaviors impact providers’ risk assessments for future prescription opioid-related problems. Physician residents and fellows (N = 135) viewed videos and read vignettes about 8 virtual patients with chronic pain who varied by race (Black/White) and history of prescription opioid misuse (absent/present). Providers rated patients’ risk for future prescription opioid-related adverse events, misuse/abuse, addiction, and diversion, and also completed measures of implicit racial attitudes and explicit beliefs about race differences in pain. Two significant interactions emerged indicating that Black patients were perceived to be at greater risk for future adverse events (when previous misuse was absent) and diversion (when previous misuse was present). Significant main effects indicated that Black patients and patients with previous misuse were perceived to be at greater risk for future misuse/abuse of prescription opioids, and that patients with previous misuse were perceived to be at greater risk of addiction. These findings suggest that racial minorities and patients with a history of prescription opioid misuse are particularly vulnerable to any unintended consequences of efforts to stem the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid use.

Introduction:Chronic pain in late adolescence and young adults is understudied and poorly characterized.Objectives:We sought to characterize key variables that may impact pain interference in late adolescents and young adults with chronic pain, including prescription opioid use, marijuana use, psychological symptoms, and obesity.Methods:Retrospective, cross-sectional medical chart review for patients aged 17 to 23 years (N = 283; 61% Females) seeking care at a tertiary care pain clinic. Data on pain characteristics, health behaviors, and mental health distress were examined, in addition to self-reported pain intensity and interference.Results:Overlapping pain conditions were common in this young adult sample (mean ≥ 2 pain conditions). Back pain was the most commonly cited pain condition, and the majority of pain was of unknown etiology. Results revealed high rates for current opioid prescription, overweight or obese status, and mental health problems. Those using prescription opioids were more likely to endorse tobacco use and had greater pain interference. Importantly, the presence of mental health distress and opioid use were predictive of higher levels of pain-related interference.Conclusion:Treatment-seeking adolescents and young adults with chronic pain evidence complex care needs that include pain and mental comorbidities, as well as risky health behaviors. Pain and mental health distress were associated with poorer physical health, opioid prescription and marijuana use, and pain-related interference. Findings underscore the need for additional research on pain, treatment patterns, and health behaviors and their impact on developmental trajectories, as well as the need to develop and apply effective early interventions in this at-risk population.

Background-Health reform programs like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) are intended to improve the Triple Aim. Previous studies on PCMHs have shown mixed effects, but High Value Elements (HVEs) are expected to improve the Triple Aim.

Purpose: To understand how focused versus general practice facilitation can impact goal setting, action planning, and team performance in primary care transformation.Background: Practice transformation in primary care is a crucial part of health reform, but can fatigue teams, leading to variable results. Practice facilitation may reduce primary care fatigue to help teams reach challenging transformation goals, but may require a more focused approach than previous studies suggest.Methods: We performed a 12-month cluster randomized trial, during which 8 primary care clinics received practice facilitation. Four practices in the intervention arm received targeted facilitation to focus quality improvement (QI) goals on high-value elements (HVEs) intended to reduce cost and utilization, whereas 4 control practices received generalized QI facilitation. We investigated the impact of the targeted versus generalized approach on goal selection, action item selection and achievement, HVE attainment, and collaborative practice, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Primary care practice transformation is a cornerstone in health care reform due to its broad population reach and longitudinal focus on patient needs; however, selecting QI goals and developing QI infrastructure to best achieve improved population health, better patient experience of care, and improved efficiency can be challenging and fatiguing for primary care practices.

Introduction: Like most patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models, Oregon’s program, the Patient-Centered Primary Care Home (PCPCH), aims to improve care while reducing costs; however, previous work shows that PCMH models do not uniformly achieve desired outcomes. Our objective was to describe a process for refining PCMH models to identify high value elements (HVEs) that reduce cost and utilization. Methods: We performed a targeted literature review of each PCPCH core attribute. Value-related concepts and their metrics were abstracted, and studies were assessed for relevance and strength of evidence. Focus groups were held with stakeholders and patients, and themes related to each attribute were identified; calculation of HVE attainment versus PCPCH criteria were completed on eight primary care clinics. Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics and criterion validity with stakeholder input. Results: 2,126 abstracts were reviewed; 22 met inclusion criteria. From these articles and focus groups of stakeholders/experts (n = 49; 4 groups) and patients (n = 7; 1 group), 12 HVEs were identified that may reduce cost and utilization. At baseline, clinics achieved, on average, 31.3 percent HVE levels compared to an average of 87.9 percent of the 35 PCMH measures. Discussion: A subset of measures from the PCPCH model were identified as “high value” in reducing cost and utilization. HVE performance was significantly lower than standard measures, and may better calibrate clinic ability to reduce costs. Conclusion: Through literature review and stakeholder engagement, we created a novel set of high value elements for advanced primary care likely to be more related to cost and utilization than other models.