Table 1.

Characteristics of case examples for evidence-based practice financing strategies

Characteristic	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Financing strategies used	Pay-for-Success	Alternative payment models: case management payment, pay-for-performance	Fiscal mapping process (i.e., tailoring of strategies)
Service sector	Behavioral health	Medical/hospital	Primary care
Clinical problem	Serious behavior problems (e.g., conduct disorder)	Cancer	Opioid use disorder
Evidence-based practice(s)	Multisystemic therapy (MST)	24/7 clinician access, patient navigation, comprehensive care plan, guideline-consistent treatment	Integrating Support Persons In Recovery (adapted Community Reinforcement and Family Training)
Service modality	Family- and community-based psychotherapy	Bundle of care coordination and treatment services	Group intervention for support persons; in-person and telehealth versions
Other implementation strategies used	Required readiness, training/consultation, and quality assurance activities	Audit-and-feedback, continuous quality improvement, updated health record systems	Training and ongoing supervision
Evidence base	Extensive clinical and economic effectiveness data	Extensive clinical data and more limited (but still promising) economic data	Original intervention has shown clinical efficacy; adaptation is being evaluated in a pragmatic trial
Stakeholders involved in financing decisions	Colorado Governor’s office; social impact investor companies; MST intermediary	Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, based on diverse stakeholder input	Bottom-up decision-making: intervention developer conducts fiscal mapping with input from health system and funding agency partners
Role of economic evaluation in financing decisions	Projected cost-savings were the basis of selecting MST for implementation	A simulation budget impact analysis was conducted for the new payment models based on prior studies	Cost data are being collected and evaluated during the pragmatic trial