Cited by 16Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHealthcare Policy and Management

Health Care Utilization After Paraprofessional-administered Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment: A Multi-level Cost-offset Analysis

Open access

Abstract

Background: Authorities recommend universal substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for all (ie, universal) adult primary care patients. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine long-term (24-mo) changes in health care utilization and costs associated with receipt of universal substance use SBIRT implemented by paraprofessionals in primary care settings. Research Design: This study used a difference-in-differences design and Medicaid administrative data to assess changes in health care use among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SBIRT. The difference-in-differences estimates were used in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate potential cost-offsets associated with SBIRT. Subjects: The treatment patients were Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a 4-question substance use screen as part of an SBIRT demonstration program between 2006 and 2011. Comparison Medicaid patients were randomly selected from matched clinics in Wisconsin. Measures: The study includes 4 health care utilization measures: outpatient days; inpatient length of stay; inpatient admissions; and emergency department admissions. Each outcome was assigned a unit cost based on mean Wisconsin Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement amounts. Results: We found an annual increase of 1.68 outpatient days (P=0.027) and a nonsignificant annual decrease in inpatient days of 0.67 days (P=0.087) associated with SBIRT. The estimates indicate that the cost of a universal SBIRT program could be offset by reductions in inpatient utilization with an annual net cost savings of $782 per patient. Conclusions: Paraprofessional-delivered universal SBIRT is likely to yield health care cost savings and is a cost-effective mechanism for integrating behavioral health services in primary care settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001162

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sustainable change requires more than time-efficient provider training; it depends on workflow alignment, leadership support, and organizational readiness.

    “However, as shown in the South African Teachable Moment study [13], sustainable change requires more than time-efficient provider training. It depends on workflow alignment, leadership support, and organizational readiness [9,18,20,32].”

    From Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment training for Nigerian primary care physicians: A pilot evaluation of knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and barriers to implementation (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says administrators must identify an effective SBIRT workflow and describes a local champion and interprofessional team as implementation best practices. This supports workflow alignment and aspects of leadership support, but the paper does not establish organizational readiness as a requirement for sustainable change. The preceding statement about time-efficient training is cited to [13], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paltzer, J., Moberg, D. P., Burns, M., & Brown, R. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • ConcertoHealth, Kalamazoo, MI
Corresponding author
Paltzer, Jason
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2019-09
Volume
57
Issue
9
Pages
673-679
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2959163470
Cited by
16
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R03AA025196)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
substance use screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, paraprofessionals, primary care, Medicaid beneficiaries, health care utilization, health care costs, cost reduction, behavioral health integration, outpatient visits, hospitalization, emergency department admission
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Female, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Primary Health Care, Psychotherapy, Brief, Referral and Consultation, Linear Models, Health Care Costs, Substance-Related Disorders, Multilevel Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review