Purchased Behavioral Health Care Received by Military Health System Beneficiaries in Civilian Medical Facilities, 2000-2014.

Introduction: Behavioral health conditions are a significant concern for the U.S. military and the Military Health System (MHS) because of decreased military readiness and increased health care utilization. Although MHS beneficiaries receive direct care in military treatment facilities, a disproportionate majority of behavioral health treatment is purchased care received in civilian facilities. Yet, limited evidence exists about purchased behavioral health care received by MHS beneficiaries. This longitudinal study (1) estimated the prevalence of purchased behavioral health care and (2) identified patient and visit characteristics predicting receipt of purchased behavioral health care in acute care facilities from 2000 to 2014. Materials and Methods: Medical claims with Major Diagnostic Code 19 (mental disorders/diseases) or 20 (alcohol/drug disorders) as primary diagnoses and TRICARE as the primary/secondary payer were analyzed for MHS beneficiaries (n = 17,943) receiving behavioral health care in civilian acute care facilities from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014. The primary dependent variable, receipt of purchased behavioral health care, was modeled for select mental health and substance use disorders from 2000 to 2014 using generalized estimating equations. Patient characteristics included time, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Visit types included inpatient hospitalization and emergency department (ED). Time was measured in days and visits were assumed to be correlated over time. Behavioral health care was described by both frequency of patients and visit type. The University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board approved this study. Results: From 2000 to 2014, purchased care visits increased significantly for post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment, anxiety, mood, bipolar, tobacco use, opioid/combination opioid dependence, nondependent cocaine abuse, psychosocial problems, and suicidal ideation among MHS beneficiaries. The majority of care was received for mental health disorders (78.8%) and care was most often received in EDs (56%). Most commonly treated diagnoses included mood, tobacco use, and alcohol use disorders. ED visits were associated with being treated for anxiety (excluding post-traumatic stress disorder; Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 9.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.26, 10.12]), alcohol use disorders (AOR = 1.67 [95% CI: 1.53, 1.83]), tobacco use (AOR = 1.16 [95% CI: 1.06, 1.26]), nondependent cocaine abuse (AOR = 5.47 [95% CI: 3.28, 9.12]), nondependent mixed/unspecified drug abuse (AOR = 7.30 [95% CI: 5.11, 10.44]), and psychosis (AOR = 1.38 [95% CI: 1.20, 1.58]). Compared with adults age 60 yr and older, adolescents (ages 12-17 yr), and adults under age 60 yr were more likely to be treated for suicidal ideation, adjustment, mood, bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, nondependent cocaine, and mixed/unspecified drug abuse. Adults under age 60 yr also had increased odds of being treated for tobacco use disorders, alcohol use disorders, and opioid/combination opioid dependence compared with adults age 60 yr and older. Conclusions: Over the past 15 yr, purchased behavioral health care received by MHS beneficiaries in acute care facilities increased significantly. MHS beneficiaries received the majority of purchased behavioral health care for mental health disorders and were treated most often in the ED. Receiving behavioral health care in civilian EDs raises questions about access to outpatient behavioral health care and patient-centered care coordination between civilian and military facilities. Given the influx of new Veterans Health Administration users from the MHS, findings have implications for military, veteran, and civilian facilities providing behavioral health care to military and veteran populations.

Perceptions of U.S. Veterans Affairs and community healthcare providers regarding cross-system care for heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores perceptions of US Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA healthcare providers caring for Veterans with heart failure (HF) regarding Veteran knowledge and motivations for dual use, provider roles in recommending and coordinating dual use, systems barriers and facilitators, and suggestions for improving cross-system care. METHODS: Twenty VA and 11 non-VA providers participated in semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using parallel qualitative content and discourse analysis. RESULTS: VA and non-VA providers described variable HF knowledge and self-management among Veterans, and both groups described the need for improved education addressing medication adherence, self-care, and management of acute symptoms. Both groups described highly limited roles for providers in shaping choices surrounding dual use. VA and non-VA providers had significantly different perceptions regarding the availability, quality, and effectiveness of VA HF services. Multiple non-VA providers expressed frustration with and difficulty in contacting VA providers, accessing records, and making referrals into the VA system. Suggestions for improved care focused on patient education and care coordination. DISCUSSION: Dual healthcare system use for Veterans is increasingly common. Similarities and contrasts in perceptions of VA and non-VA providers are instructive and should be incorporated into future policy and program initiatives.

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

BACKGROUND: Widespread implementation of palliative care treatment plans could reduce suffering in the last days of life by adopting best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care in inpatient settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention strategy to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings. DESIGN: Implementation trial with an intervention staggered across hospitals using a multiple-baseline, stepped wedge design. PARTICIPANTS: Six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). INTERVENTION: Staff training was targeted to all hospital providers and focused on identifying actively dying patients and implementing best practices from home-based hospice care, supported with an electronic order set and paper-based educational tools. MAIN MEASURES: Several processes of care were identified as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from electronic medical records of veterans who died before or after intervention (n = 6,066). Primary endpoints were proportion with an order for opioid pain medication at time of death, do-not-resuscitate order, location of death, nasogastric tube, intravenous line infusing, and physical restraints. Secondary endpoints were administration of opioids, order/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine (for death rattle); sublingual administration; advance directives; palliative care consultations; and pastoral care services. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for longitudinal trends. KEY RESULTS: Significant intervention effects were observed for orders for opioid pain medication (OR: 1.39), antipsychotic medications (OR: 1.98), benzodiazepines (OR: 1.39), death rattle medications (OR: 2.77), sublingual administration (OR: 4.12), nasogastric tubes (OR: 0.71), and advance directives (OR: 1.47). Intervention effects were not significant for location of death, do-not-resuscitate orders, intravenous lines, or restraints. CONCLUSIONS: This broadly targeted intervention strategy led to modest but statistically significant changes in several processes of care, indicating its potential for widespread dissemination to improve end-of-life care for thousands of patients who die each year in inpatient settings.

Smoking as a risk factor for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of 24 prospective cohort studies.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relationship between smoking and adenocarcinoma of the prostate. METHODS: We pooled data from 24 cohort studies enrolling 21 579 prostate cancer case participants for a general variance-based meta-analysis. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated separately for mortality and incidence studies. We tested the robustness of effect measures and evaluated statistical heterogeneity with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the pooled data, current smokers had no increased risk of incident prostate cancer (RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.87, 1.24), but in data stratified by amount smoked they had statistically significant elevated risk (cigarettes per day or years: RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.46; pack years of smoking: RR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.22). Former smokers had an increased risk (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.16). Current smokers had an increased risk of fatal prostate cancer (RR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.06, 1.19). The heaviest smokers had a 24% to 30% greater risk of death from prostate cancer than did nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS: Observational cohort studies show an association of smoking with prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Ill-defined exposure categories in many cohort studies suggest that pooled data underestimate risk.

The Clinical Nurse Leader: impact on practice outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration.

The Clinical Nurse Leader (CNL) role was designed to meet an identified need for expert clinical leadership at the point of care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) became early adopters of the CNL role, foreseeing the value of this pivotal clinical leader at the point of care to meet the complex health care needs of America's veterans and shape health care delivery. Impact data were collected and assimilated from seven Veterans Administration Medical Centers to support how CNLs impact the delivery of quality and safe patient care and how practice changes could be sustained. Data collection and analyses resulted in many lessons learned. The new CNL role was implemented in a variety of settings in the VHA system. Integration of the CNL role in all areas of practice in every care setting has the promise of streamlining coordination of care for veterans across all spectrums in the provision of care.