Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of the two quantitative research studies listed below.
Must use the following “Research Critique Guidelines” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide rationale, include examples, and reference content from the studies in your responses.
Use your practice problem and the two quantitative peer-reviewed research articles you choose.
***Practice Problem that needs to be included*** PICOT: In mental health patients with substance use dis s (P), does treatment, (I) as compared to non-treatment, (C), reduce readmissions, (O) within 90 days? (T).
In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize the two quantitative studies, using the nursing research guide template and explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study. APA format.
Research Critique Guidelines – Part II
Use this document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the studies in your responses.
Quantitative Studies
Background
1. Summary of studies. Include problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research question.
How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?
1. Discuss how these two articles will be used to answer your PICOT question.
2. Describe how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in your PICOT question.
Method of Study:
1. State the methods of the two articles you are comparing and describe how they are different.
2. Consider the methods you identified in your chosen articles and state one benefit and one limitation of each method.
Results of Study
1. Summarize the key findings of each study in one or two comprehensive paragraphs.
2. What are the implications of the two studies you chose in nursing practice?
Outcomes Comparison
1. What are the anticipated outcomes for your PICOT question?
2. How do the outcomes of your chosen articles compare to your anticipated outcomes?
Reducing Behavioral Inpatient Readmissions for People with Substance Use Dis s: Do Follow-up Services Matter?
Sharon Reif, Ph.D.a, Andrea Acevedo, Ph.D.a, Deborah W. Garnick, Sc.D.a, and Catherine Fullerton, M.D., M.P.H.b
aInstitute for Behavioral Health; Heller School for Social Policy and Management; Brandeis University; 415 South Street, MS 035; Waltham, MA 02453 USA
bTruven Health Analytics Inc.; 150 Cambridgepark Drive, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA
Abstract
Objective—Individuals with substance use dis s are at high risk for hospital readmission. This study examined whether targeted follow-up services received within 14 days postdischarge
from an inpatient hospital stay or residential detoxification reduced readmissions within 90 days,
among Medicaid beneficiaries who had an index substance use dis diagnosis.
Methods—Claims data were analyzed for Medicaid beneficiaries aged 18–64 years with a substance use dis diagnosis coded as part of an inpatient hospital stay or residential
detoxification in 2008 (N=30,439). Follow-up behavioral health services included residential,
intensive outpatient, or outpatient treatment, and/or medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
Analyses included 10 states or fewer based on a minimum number of index admissions and
prevalence of follow-up services or MAT. Survival analyses with time-varying independent
variables were used to test the association of follow-up services and MAT with behavioral health
readmissions.
Results—Two-thirds of individuals with an index admission had no follow-up services within 14 days. Behavioral health admissions 90 days postdischarge were present for 29% of individuals
with an index admission. Survival analyses showed that MAT and residential treatment were
associated with reduced risk of behavioral health admission in the 90 days postdischarge.
However, outpatient was associated with increased risk of readmission, as was intensive outpatient
in one model.
Conclusions—Provision of MAT or residential treatment for substance use dis s after an inpatient or detoxification stay may help prevent future readmissions. Medicaid programs should
be encouraged to reduce barriers to MAT and residential treatment to prevent future behavioral
health admissions.
INTRODUCTION
Reducing hospital readmissions is an increasing focus of health care quality improvement
and cost-reduction strategies.1 Readmission rates for individuals with substance use
dis s are relatively high (18–26%).2 Having a substance use dis is linked to greater
complexity of care and hospital-related complications, longer lengths of stay, and greater
likelihood of readmissions even when addiction treatment is not the reason for
HHS Public Access Author manuscript Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
Published in final edited form as: Psychiatr Serv. 2017 August 01; 68(8): 810–818. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201600339.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
hospitalization.3–8 Further, they are associated with other health consequences and higher
health services costs.3,9,10 Among Medicaid beneficiaries, alcohol and drug use dis s
were among the top ten conditions with the most all-cause 30-day readmissions.2 For
Medicaid beneficiaries with a mental dis , a comorbid substance use diagnosis is a
major predictor of readmissions.11–14
Medicaid patients and providers have identified inadequate planning and unsuccessful
follow-up care as root causes of high readmission rates.10,15 For individuals with a substance
use dis , prompt receipt of follow-up treatment services or medication-assisted treatment
(MAT) after an inpatient hospital discharge or a detoxification stay could be expected to
reduce readmission rates. Residential, intensive outpatient and outpatient addiction treatment
services are effective in reducing substance use and its consequences.16–19 Less is known
about their impact on readmissions.
Medicaid beneficiaries with comorbid mental and substance use dis s had a reduced
likelihood of readmission in hospitals where a higher proportion of patients received
outpatient mental health treatment within 7 days after hospital discharge.12 Receiving
addiction treatment soon after discharge is associated with reduced detoxification
readmission,20,21 with stronger findings for residential than outpatient.21
This study examined whether Medicaid beneficiaries with a substance use dis diagnosis
who received targeted follow-up services (outpatient, intensive outpatient, or residential
treatment) or MAT after an index hospital inpatient stay or residential detoxification had a
lower likelihood of postdischarge behavioral health hospital or detoxification admission
within 90 days than individuals who did not receive follow-up services. Findings from this
study should be valuable as decisions are made about which services Medicaid and other
payers should cover and how to improve care for their enrollees.
METHODS
Data
Data were from four component files of the 2008 Medicaid Analytic eXtract data set:22
personal summary (PS) for beneficiary characteristics and enrollment status, inpatient (IP) for hospital services, other therapy (OT) for detoxification and follow-up services, and prescription (RX), linked by a unique beneficiary identifier by state. Although data were from 2008, the relationship between follow-up services and postdischarge behavioral health
readmissions is not expected to change over time. Analyses used de-identified data, thus
were exempt from IRB review.
Sample
The first (index) inpatient hospital admission with a substance use dis diagnosis or
residential detoxification admission, between 4/1/2008 and 9/1/2008, was included for
individuals aged 18–64 years (N=30,439). Presence of a substance use dis was
determined by an ICD-9 diagnostic code for substance abuse or dependence in any position
for an inpatient hospital admission or by a residential detoxification. All diagnoses (not just
primary) were considered because with serious co-occurring dis s, it is not always clear
Reif et al. Page 2
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
which would be designated as primary; further, stigma may lead to a decision not to put
substance use dis diagnoses as primary. If substance use dis is noted at all, it is
important given common medical complications, as well as the need for addiction treatment
services. Of the 30,439 admissions in the sample, 30.8% had a substance use dis as the
primary diagnosis.
Excluded were individuals enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare or enrolled in managed
care plans (because of likely incomplete claims data). Also excluded were individuals not
continuously enrolled in Medicaid 90 days before and after their index admission, and who
only had substance use dis diagnoses of nicotine/tobacco use dis , marijuana abuse,
or hallucinogen abuse.
Data were included from 10 states based on a minimum number of index admissions and
prevalence of follow-up services or MAT: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, North Carolina, New York, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Vermont. Thirty-seven
states were excluded that had fewer than 650 index admissions, indicating no or few fee-for-
service claims; 3 states were excluded in which none of the follow-up services were received
by at least 5% of index admissions. In the 10 states that remained, an average of 82%
Medicaid enrollees were excluded due to their dual Medicaid/Medicare eligibility or
participation in managed care plans23 (see Appendix for details by state).
Variables
The outcome was time to a behavioral health admission in the 90 days following discharge
from the index admission. For all follow-up services, eligible diagnoses were broadened to
include both substance use and mental dis s, given overlap in clinical needs and
treatment approaches. A postdischarge behavioral health admission was thus defined as an
inpatient admission with a primary diagnosis of a substance use or mental dis or a
residential detoxification admission. For readmission, only primary diagnosis was used, to
emphasize a behavioral health admission and better indicate the effect of follow-up services
on the substance use dis itself.
Four key independent variables were created, each within 14 days of discharge from the
index admission; a 14-day period indicates good clinical care by minimizing time outside of
treatment.21 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System (HCPCS) codes, place of service, and primary substance use or mental
dis diagnosis were used to identify residential behavioral health treatment (RES),
excluding detoxification; partial hospital or intensive outpatient program (IOP); outpatient
behavioral health services (OP); and MAT, defined as a prescription fill of buprenorphine,
disulfiram, acamprosate, or naltrexone or a HCPCS service code for methadone,
buprenorphine, or naltrexone.
The number of days to the first follow-up service received within 14-days postdischarge was
calculated. Service receipt could begin on the day of discharge (day 0). Because follow-up
services could occur at any point in the 14-day window, the opportunity to observe a
postdischarge behavioral health readmission varied. To address this, each follow-up service
was coded as a series of time-varying independent variables from day 0 to day 14 for the
Reif et al. Page 3
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
survival analysis models. Once a follow-up service was received, the remainder of the 14
days was coded as having received that service. For the few who received 2 or 3 follow-up
service types (excluding MAT), an episode approach coded only the most intensive service
(RES then IOP then OP), starting on the first day of any services received.
Covariates were basis of Medicaid eligibility (disability vs. other), demographics (age, sex,
race/ethnicity), mental or physical comorbidities at index admission, type of substance use
dis (alcohol only, any opioid use dis ), index admission length of stay (days), and
use of behavioral health services or MAT in the 90 days prior to index admission.
Analyses
Available follow-up services varied by state, depending on Medicaid coverage in that state.
Three models were run to account for each pattern of services: Model 1 – OP and MAT in all
10 states; Model 2 – OP, MAT and IOP in Indiana, Missouri, Connecticut, Vermont, and
Minnesota only; and Model 3 – OP, MAT, IOP and RES in Connecticut, Vermont, and
Minnesota only. Index admission was the unit of analysis.
Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the effect of follow-up
services and MAT on time to a behavioral health admission after discharge, with censoring
at 90 days. Hazard ratios (HRs) are interpreted similarly to odds ratios, showing at any point
in time in the 90 days after discharge whether an individual receiving the follow-up service
within 14 days was more (HR >1) or less (HR < 1) likely to have a behavioral health
admission than an individual not receiving the service within 14 days. Models included all
covariates. State was included as a fixed effect, to account for differences in population,
Medicaid eligibility, other Medicaid covered services, and other unobserved variations.
Analyses were conducted in SAS v9.3.
RESULTS
Characteristics of Sample and Index Admissions
Table 1 describes the sample and highlights the often-wide variations across states as
indicated by the minimum and maximum percentages by state (see Appendix for by-state
findings). Comorbid mental dis s were prevalent in about half of admissions and
physical comorbidities in about two-thirds. Medicaid eligibility was usually due to a
disability (66.6%) overall, but this varied widely across states (24.5% to 97.5%). A
substantial minority of index admissions (21.1%) had only an alcohol use dis coded
without any drug use dis , and 27.3% had an opioid use dis coded, regardless of
other substance use dis diagnoses. Behavioral health service use 90 days prior to the
index admission was fairly uncommon for MAT (5.1%) and inpatient (13.1%); however,
over a quarter used outpatient in that time period. The mean index admission length of stay
was 6.0 days (not shown).
Follow-up Services Within 14 Days of Discharge
Three-quarters of individuals with an index admission had no RES, IOP or OP service in the
14 days postdischarge (Table 2), but this varied by state (49.9% to 83.4%). Few individuals
Reif et al. Page 4
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
received postdischarge RES (8.3%) or IOP services (5.5%) in the states that offered them;
OP services were received by 22.8% of individuals and MAT by 10.4%. The proportions
receiving specific services also ranged across states. When including receipt of MAT, two
thirds of individuals with an index admission did not have either a follow-up service or MAT
within the 14-day window. See Appendix for by-state findings.
Of those who received a service, it most frequently started on the day of discharge or the two
days following, with frequency of first service use declining each day thereafter. Figure 1
illustrates the time to first behavioral health follow-up service, overall (dotted line) and by
state. The most variation by state occurs in the first 2 days postdischarge.
Inpatient Readmissions Within 90 Days of Discharge
Hospital readmissions for any cause were common (48.3%) in the 90-day postdischarge
period (Table 2) as were readmission rates when considering only readmissions with a
primary behavioral health diagnosis (29.3%). Postdischarge readmissions occurred
throughout the 90-day period, though were most likely within the first week postdischarge.
As shown in Figure 2, in several states a substantial proportion of individuals had behavioral
health readmissions within the first 7 days, whereas in other states behavioral health
readmissions occurred more evenly throughout the time period studied. About 70% of
individuals overall had no behavioral health readmission in the 90 days postdischarge.
Hazard of Behavioral Health Admission Within 90 Days of Discharge
Table 3 reports the hazard of a behavioral health admission within 90 days of discharge.
Model 1 includes all 10 states and only OP and MAT services. OP receipt in the 14 days
postdischarge is associated with a higher hazard of readmission in the 90 days postdischarge
(HR=1.40, p<.001). MAT is associated with a lower hazard of readmission (HR=.61, p<.
001). As expected, states were significant predictors of a behavioral health admission 90
days postdischarge. Most covariates were significant, with the exception of Medicaid
eligibility and race/ethnicity is Hispanic, other or unknown.
Model 2 adds IOP, covered only by 5 states. OP and MAT services remain significant as in
Model 1, but IOP is not a significant predictor of behavioral health admission in the 90 days
postdischarge. State and covariate effects were similar to Model 1.
Model 3 includes all four services (OP, MAT, IOP, RES), covered only by 3 states. OP and
MAT services remain significant as in Models 1 and 2. IOP is significantly related to higher
risk of readmission (HR=1.45, p<.05). RES is significantly related to lower risk of
readmission (HR=.50, p<.001). As before, most covariates are significant.
To determine if the patterns held when the included states were constant across models,
sensitivity analyses examined Models 1 and 2 using only the same 3 states as in Model 3.
With fewer states, IOP was significantly associated with higher risk or readmission in Model
2 as well as Model 3 (not shown).
Reif et al. Page 5
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
DISCUSSION
This analysis found strong support for the value of rapid follow-up with MAT or residential
treatment services to reduce risk of a behavioral health admission in the 90 days
postdischarge from an index admission. These results are consistent with studies showing an
association between MAT and residential services and improved outcomes.16,18,19 Most
behavioral health admissions, however, had no follow-up service in the 14 days
postdischarge.
Surprisingly, outpatient treatment services (and in one model, intensive outpatient) were
associated with an increased risk of readmission. On the surface this seems contradictory to
expectations, but possible explanations arise. Patients’ discharge plans may refer to an
inappropriate level of care – that is, outpatient treatment may be insufficient to meet
addiction needs yet residential treatment might not be recommended by the discharge team,
readily available, or covered under Medicaid. Studies have shown that poor treatment
matching leads to poorer substance use outcomes,24–26 thus readmission is more likely.
These findings suggest that no outpatient care is better than outpatient care (controlling for
other services). Perhaps presence of a referral to follow-up care or return to pre-existing
treatment for substance use or mental dis s indicates a greater need for services
following discharge. Further, with residential services sometimes scarce, people who would
have been appropriate for residential might go to outpatient or IOP in to receive any
care. This study could not test these scenarios; claims data do not include nuanced measures
of severity or needed level of care.
The concept of follow-up services following discharge has clear face validity, but it may be
difficult to show the benefit empirically. Challenges discussed below include access to
postdischarge services, range in quality and coordination of inpatient and postdischarge
services, and data concerns.
First, difficulties accessing behavioral health treatment arise for a variety of reasons.27
Geographic and financial barriers are common, especially for more intensive levels of care.
Fourteen days may be insufficient if individuals who are referred to care and intend to use it
are unable to obtain appointments within this short window.28,29 Medicaid clients had a 16–
22% increase in likelihood of follow-up treatment in a licensed mental health clinic when 30
days were allowed rather than 7 days postdischarge from a mental hospitalization.30
However, a longer follow-up window also allows more time in which relapse might happen.
Second, quality and coordination of postdischarge treatment may vary widely. For example,
inpatient providers in one state, prior to a Medicaid quality improvement effort, had low
rates of communication with outpatient providers, arranging for follow-up behavioral health
care, and referring individuals for physical health care.30 Claims data cannot capture
whether communication occurs between inpatient and postdischarge clinicians, level of
attention paid to substance use dis s during the inpatient stay, or whether the substance
use dis was addressed adequately or at all. If the major reason for hospitalization was a
general medical condition, addiction may have been a side issue. Postdischarge services
Reif et al. Page 6
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
might not mitigate an initial lack of attention or adequate attention to the individual’s
substance use issues.
Third, the necessary omission of states with managed care, which likely carved out
behavioral health services resulting in omitted data, means that the states analyzed may not
be representative. Replication that includes managed care and carve-out data would give
fuller confidence in these findings. Yet, there might be reasons that managed care
organizations would have different service arrays and procedures for preventing
readmissions than the relatively unmanaged fee-for-service population, which might lead to
different patterns of findings. In addition, although the states in this study had the strongest
data, few beneficiaries received any follow-up services. Individuals may have received
services in settings that have block grant funding or larger residential treatment programs
that were ineligible for Medicaid payment based on the IMD exclusion,31 thus are not in
Medicaid claims. Even if a state offers a service, it may limit which enrollees may access it
(e.g., pregnant women or people with serious mental illness).32 The relatively few
individuals meeting inclusion criteria may also reflect under-identification of people with
substance use dis s within claims data.33
Medicaid is an increasingly larger payer of behavioral health services,34 particularly under
health care reform.31 However, states vary by Medicaid eligibility, behavioral health services
covered, spending on behavioral health services,31,35,36 and contracting with specialty
managed care organizations for behavioral health benefits. A true national study would have
been ideal, but the vast variability amongst states in services available and financing
approaches made this prohibitive.
Successful recovery from any diagnosis depends on many factors: quality of care in the
index admission, overall health status, demographics, ability to purchase medications, etc.
Similarly, a complex variety of factors are associated with readmissions.37 Systematic
reviews of interventions to reduce 30-day medical rehospitalization report that no single
intervention was regularly associated with reduced risk38 and effective interventions are
complex and seek to enhance patient capacity to reliably access and enact postdischarge
care.39 A recent project reduced 30-day readmission rates and increased MAT for patients
admitted for alcohol dependence by implementing a discharge planning protocol.40
These analyses relied on Medicaid claims data. One cannot tell, for instance, if referrals
were made at the time of discharge, or if an individual had difficulties accessing services
postdischarge. Individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare were excluded, which
may omit some individuals with severe mental illness. Some services or populations are
excluded by states, thus resource availability may play a role in these findings. Services
could be obtained with other funding such as block grants, so follow-up service receipt may
be underestimated. Findings apply to those who sought Medicaid-funded care. We
controlled for disability as the basis of admission, but the definition of disability varies
across states. The original admission allowed a behavioral health diagnosis in any position,
but the readmissions variable required a primary diagnosis. This omitted some readmissions,
but allowed a focus on the impact of behavioral health services on a clearly defined
behavioral health readmission. However, this may lead to an underestimate of readmissions
Reif et al. Page 7
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
that are ultimately related to behavioral health, as this is often not the primary diagnosis but
may still be a key factor in an admission. This analysis did not examine the number of
services or other aspects of the follow-up care episode, if received.
The generalizability of these findings may be limited. The exclusion criteria reduced the
analytic sample to only 10 states. Further, in those 10 states, due to omission of enrollees
who were dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare and those in managed care plans, on
average only 18% of Medicaid enrollees were represented in the data. The findings thus are
most applicable to people who are in fee-for-service or other plans that have low use of
treatment management approaches, or conversely, low use of additional supports to reduce
readmissions. As a Medicaid sample, the findings are likely most applicable to people who
are low-income or otherwise Medicaid-eligible.
Future research could use alternative methods to delve into open questions raised by these
limitations and discussed above as challenges. In particular, research is needed to confirm,
and if confirmed, disentangle the perplexing outpatient finding. The discussion above
suggests potential pathways to understanding the results, but careful study would be
necessary to thoroughly analyze the relationship. Further, it would be important to expand
the populations for whom these findings hold, by testing the hypotheses in Medicaid
managed care populations, where data are available, as well as privately insured populations.
CONCLUSIONS
In a time of change in the health care system, the question of how to reduce readmissions is
potent. A high proportion of patients readmitted to hospitals within a short time frame may
indicate inadequate quality of hospital care or lack of appropriate coordination of
postdischarge care. Under the ACA, financial penalties have been established for hospitals
with excessive Medicare readmissions within 30 days after acute care hospitalizations for
several diagnoses.1,41 Other payers likely will follow suit. However, concerns have risen
about holding hospitals accountable when they cannot exert control over patient behavior
and provider performance after acute care.
It is important to continue to delve into readmissions and follow-up after treatment, given
the heightened understanding of how substance use and mental dis s affect health and
recovery, the likelihood of readmission, and the high stakes related to health care in this
population. Future research should further investigate how MAT and residential treatment
may be useful in improving outcomes after an inpatient stay and the counterintuitive
outpatient results.
These findings highlight several policy implications. Most individuals had no follow-up
services within the 14-day window; if services are not received, they cannot improve
outcomes. Policies implemented after the time period of these admissions, including the
ACA and federal parity, should increase access to behavioral health services under
Medicaid. Further, Medicaid programs should be encouraged to ensure that a range of
substance use dis treatment benefits are offered to all Medicaid beneficiaries. This may
require a renewed focus on how to best allocate scarce resources, especially for more
Reif et al. Page 8
Psychiatr Serv. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 August 01.
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
A uthor M
anuscript A
uthor M anuscript
expensive services such as residential treatment. States should ensure that barriers to use of
MAT are reduced, for example by omitting prior authorization requirements, or by
developing models such as hub-and-spoke to increase access to MAT in the community, or
by specifically encouraging training for and adoption of MAT among Medicaid providers.
Efforts are needed such as focused discharge planning, follow-up phone calls, coordination
with primary care providers, use of performance measures (e.g., follow-up after
hospitalization for mental illness42), and better linkages between hospitals and specialty
addiction treatment providers. Solutions that focus on benefit design should be combined
with efforts targeted at referral processes to ensure that more individuals who are discharged
from inpatient treatment receive appropriate and timely follow-up services.
Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.
References
1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [Accessed June 22, 2015] Readmissions Reduction Program. n.d. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program.html
2. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. [Accessed June 22, 2015] Conditions with the Largest Number of Adult Hospital Readmissions by Payer, 2011. 2014. http://www.hcup- us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb172-Conditions-Readmissions-Payer.pdf
3. Clark RE, Samnaliev M, McGovern MP. Impact of substance dis s on medical expenditures for Medicaid beneficiaries with behavioral health dis s. Psychiat Serv. 2009; 60(1):35–42.
4. Ries, RK.Fiellin, DA.Miller, SC., Saitz, R., editors. The ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine. 5. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.
5. Sterling S, Chi F, Hinman A. Integrating care for people with co-occurring alcohol and other drug, medical, and mental health conditions. Alcohol Res Health. 2011; 33(4):338–349. [PubMed: 23580018]
6. Wancata J, Benda N, Windhaber J, Nowotny M. Does psychiatric comorbidity increase the length of stay in general hospitals? Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2001; 23(1):8–14. [PubMed: 11226551]
7. Ahmedani BK, Solberg LI, Copeland LA, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity and 30-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure, AMI, and pneumonia. Psychiat Serv. 2015; 66(2):134–140.
8. Becker MA, Boaz TL, Andel R, Hafner S. Risk of early rehospitalization for non-behavioral health conditions among adult Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental illness or substance use dis s. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016
9. Rockett IR, Putnam SL, Jia H, Chang CF, Smith GS. Unmet substance abuse treatment need, health services utilization, and cost: A population-based emergency department study. Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 45(2):118–127. [PubMed: 15671966]
10. Raven MC, Billings JC, Goldfrank LR, Manheimer ED, Gourevitch MN. Medicaid patients at high risk for frequent hospital admission: Real-time identification and remediable risks. J Urban Health. 2009; 86(2):230–241. [PubMed: 19082899]
11. Fontanella CA. The influence of clinical, treatment, and healthcare system characteristics on psychiatric readmission of adolescents. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2008; 78(2):187–198. [PubMed: 18954182]
12. Mark TL, Tomic KS, Kowlessar N, Chu BC, Vandivort-Warren R, Smith S. Hospital readmission among Medicaid patients with an index hospitalization for mental and/or substance use dis . J Behav Health Serv Res. 2013; 40(2):207–221. [PubMed: 23430287]
13. Prince JD, Akincigil A, Hoover DR, Walkup JT, Bilder S, Crystal S. Substance abuse and hospitalization for mood dis among Medicaid beneficiaries. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99(1): 160–167. [PubMed: 19008505]
Reif et al. Page 9
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more