Heller-Harvard partnership gets $3.6 million grant for substance abuse studies
The American health care system has continued to change dramatically in the wake of 2010’s Affordable Care Act, but according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, just 11 percent of the nearly 23 million Americans who suffer from substance use disorders currently receive treatment. Now, a long-standing partnership between the Heller School and Harvard University Medical School has been reestablished to research the best ways to provide effective and inexpensive care to those suffering from SUDs.
The Brandeis/Harvard Center to Improve System Performance of Substance Use Disorder Treatment launched its third “iteration” in December, according to the center’s website. Called the NIDA Center in reference to its financial backers — the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which provided a $3.6 million grant — it is made up of 12 researchers from Brandeis and Harvard and is based out of Heller’s Institute for Behavioral Health.
The two previous “iterations” of the NIDA Center researched how well “managed care” structures were providing and financing drug abuse treatment from 1995 to 2003, and researched what organizational and financial elements make effective drug abuse service delivery from 2005 to 2013, according to the NIDA Center’s website. “Managed care” techniques are ways of organizing healthcare delivery that aim to reduce unnecessary costs by having patients only visit certain doctors and hospitals and having a managing company monitor the cost of treatment.
The Center’s current research will examine whether new health care payment methods, created by health care reform in the US, impact care quality for those suffering substance use disorders. “Substance use disorder” is a blanket term for any physiological, behavioral or social problem stemming from drug use.
The NIDA Center builds its research on a framework that examines the relationships between not just patient, payer and clinician, but also includes the healthcare provider organization. The NIDA Center’s website states that the Center uses this model because “in an era of new health care system delivery and financing approaches, including risk-based [Accountable Care Organizations, groups of physicians who volunteer to coordinate closely] and value-based purchasing strategies, provider organizations are increasingly the locus of accountability.”
The Center’s research is mostly focused on the delivery system, specifically the relationships between payer, provider organization and clinician.
“We want to make sure that treatment for people with substance use disorders has a place at the table and is part of the innovation that’s happening during this transformative time,” Prof. Constance Morgan (HS) said in a Dec. 21 Heller News article. “We need to build the research portfolio that supports these new delivery system approaches to improve quality of care, and we want to help clinical findings get into the real world where they’re paid for and implemented so that they’re making a difference.”
Additionally, the NIDA Center hopes to serve as a national resource for information on payment and delivery systems and has a three-part plan for doing so.
First, according to the center’s website, the Center leaders plan on extending research in the field by both creating their own questions to answer and working closely with states on specific issues that need to be resolved in the field.
Next, the NIDA Center will work to train junior investigators and students and help them pursue their own concept papers and studies. Finally, the Center plans to share its research with the world by disseminating its findings and also working closely with individual states.
Currently, the NIDA Center is investigating three core questions through the model: “What are the key elements that drive payment and delivery system performance (e.g. characteristics of interventions and settings)?” “Which are the best targets for specific elements of reform to be implemented (e.g. payer, provider organization, clinician) and are multiple targets better?” and “Which contextual factors (e.g. market share) influence the outcome of reforms?”
Morgan could not be reached for comment by press time.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.