Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Using the INTERMED complexity instrument for a retrospective analysis of patients presenting with medical illness, substance use disorder, and other psychiatric illnesses.

BACKGROUND: The financial and treatment challenges of complex patients must be addressed with adequate assessment and evaluation. The INTERMED complexity instrument (INTERMED) has been developed for this purpose, but to date has not been used retrospectively. The current study represents a retrospective validity investigation of INTERMED with patients with substance use disorder comorbid with other psychiatric and medical conditions (triple diagnoses). Such patients were expected to generate high complexity scores on the INTERMED instrument. METHODS: Information on 66 patients with triple diagnoses was submitted to the INTERMED complexity grid. These data were subjected to cluster analysis and other analytic procedures. RESULTS: Total INTERMED scores reflected elevated complexity for patients with triple diagnoses. As a group, they represented a single cluster of complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of the INTERMED complexity assessment was corroborated in relation to retrospective data. In addition to elevations in the biological domain that hospital personnel typically confront, findings related to coping deficiencies and problems in living conditions were noteworthy in requiring comprehensive interventions.

Fostering sustainable, integrated medical and behavioral health services in medical settings.

The integration of behavioral health (BH) and primary care services has been the subject of considerable attention for almost a decade. Such work has been motivated by the prevalence of chronic health problems in persons with BH conditions and correspondingly high rates of early death. Service integration efforts typically included cross-referral or bidirectional efforts to add some features of primary care to specialty BH settings or the reverse. This article proposes a third approach based on full service and financial integration and shows how it differs substantially from the other 2 models. This new model has the potential to bring much-needed BH services to persons served in primary care settings who have these conditions, while fostering integrated services in specialty settings for those with the most severe mental or substance use conditions. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could provide a valuable opportunity to implement this third model.

Value-based financially sustainable behavioral health components in patient-centered medical homes.

Because a high percentage of primary care patients have behavioral problems, patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) that wish to attain true comprehensive whole-person care will find ways to integrate behavioral health services into their structure. Yet in today's health care environment, the incorporation of behavioral services into primary care is exceptional rather than usual practice. In this article, we discuss the components considered necessary to provide sustainable, value-added integrated behavioral health care in the PCMH. These components are to: (1) combine medical and behavioral benefits into one payment pool; (2) target complex patients for priority behavioral health care; (3) use proactive onsite behavioral "teams;" (4) match behavioral professional expertise to the need for treatment escalation inherent in stepped care; (5) define, measure, and systematically pursue desired outcomes; (6) apply evidence-based behavioral treatments; and (7) use cross-disciplinary care managers in assisting the most complicated and vulnerable. By adopting these 7 components, PCHMs will augment their ability to achieve improved health in their patients at lower cost in a setting that enhances ease of access to commonly needed services.

What is integrated care?

Increasing awareness of mental illness's impact on medical and psychiatric health has accelerated global efforts to integrate medical and behavioural health services. As the field of integration has advanced, numerous integrated programmes have been implemented. In examining the impact of these programmes, it is important to maintain a standardized vocabulary to describe the various components of their integration. Additionally important is examination of how these programmes impact elements of patient care and the healthcare system. Specifically, what value do they bring? This article will discuss the importance of carefully assessing the value integrated services bring to patients, and questioning whether they do so in ways in which today's segregated world of medical and behavioural health cannot. This article will also explore the various settings in which medical and behavioural integration can bring added value.

Value-Based Integrated Case Management at Payor Level: Implementation and Impact.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: Case management is an ideal service for patients with health complexity. However, most case management models do not integrate medical and behavioral health training and interventions, and there are little data evaluating these models in privately insured populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate impact of an integrated case management (ICM) service at the payor level. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: Health care insurance company. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A multimethod observational study was conducted at a health care insurance company in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. We conducted focus groups of case managers, leaders, and administrators and statistical analyses of outcomes data. Measures included care quality data (discharge follow-up appointment, cost per case, depression and anxiety measures, customer experience and satisfaction, and audit scores) of members receiving ICM services and employee focus group data (acceptability, adoption, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, and sustainability) related to the practice of ICM. RESULTS: Care quality data suggest ICM reduces mental health symptoms and increases discharge follow-up appointments for members. Implementation challenges include new employee orientation to ICM model, traditional views of case management, performance evaluation, documentation, and information technology. Facilitators of implementation include training, autonomy, and leadership support. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Organizations should be aware both of the benefits and challenges related to implementing ICM. Open communication between case managers and leadership and an improvement-focused culture appear to be important elements of implementation success. Future research should examine the perspective of members receiving ICM services and the implementation of ICM into health care delivery systems.

Specialty Psychiatric Services in US Emergency Departments and General Hospitals: Results From a Nationwide Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the handling of psychiatric patients in medical hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) as well as hospital characteristics associated with the availability of psychiatric services in these settings. METHODS: From October 1, 2017, to April 1, 2018, a telephone survey regarding the presence and nature of psychiatric services was attempted among all US registered Medicare hospitals. RESULTS: Of the included 4812 US hospitals, 2394 (50%) were surveyed. Of these hospitals, 1108 (46%) have some psychiatric services available, either in medical EDs or through psychiatric consultation on general medical inpatient wards. If medical ED patients with active psychiatric issues need admission, 59% of hospitals transfer the patient to a different hospital and 28% admit the patient to a medical ward. Exploration by logistic regression analysis of the association of selected variables and available psychiatric expertise suggested that larger hospitals, nonprofit services, or hospitals in urban settings were more likely to have psychiatrists on staff or available for consultation. CONCLUSION: Despite the growing number of psychiatric patients seeking help in medical EDs and general hospitals, more than 50% of the EDs and general hospitals lack psychiatric services. These results suggest that accessibility to psychiatric care in medical settings requires improvement.

Psychosomatic medicine and consultation-liaison psychiatry: scope of practice, processes, and competencies for psychiatrists working in the field of CL psychiatry or psychosomatics. [corrected] A consensus statement of the European Association of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (EACLPP) and [corrected] the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM). [corrected]

OBJECTIVE: In 2008, the Board of the European Association of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (EACLPP) [corrected] and the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) Council commissioned the creation of a task force to study consensus-based summaries of core roles, scope of clinical practice, and basic competencies for psychiatrists working in the field of Psychosomatic Medicine (PM) and/or Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (CLP). METHOD: The task force used existing statements of competencies and feedback from EACLPP and APM symposia and workshops to develop a draft document. After review by the EACLPP and APM committees, and the EACLPP Board and APM Council, a period of comment from the field preceded a final draft resubmitted for consideration of the EACLPP Board and APM Council in February 2010. RESULTS: The two organizations completed approval of final publication of the consensus statement on June 11, 2010. This consensus statement is a summary of clinical competencies, scope of clinical effort, and roles considered by the sponsoring organizations to be fundamental to the practice of this subspecialty or special area of expertise, anywhere, of PM or CLP. CONCLUSION: This consensus statement delineates a set of basic competencies and roles of a PM/CLP psychiatrist to serve as an internationally recognized base that may be used by national societies and institutions to formulate their own competencies, scope of practice, and roles or help with guideline formulation.

Impact of Behavioral Health Comorbidities on Health Care Costs Among Japanese Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how behavioral health (BH) conditions affect health care costs of patients with cancer in Japan. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the magnitude of general medical claims expenditures for individuals with cancer who use or do not use BH services in Japan. METHODS: The study used a health insurance claims database for more than 3 million enrollees in Japan. All health plan enrollees (18 y or older) who had tumors without metastasis or metastatic solid tumors defined by the Charlson Comorbidity Index were included in the study (n = 20,260). Measurements included total claims expenditures for BH and medical services. RESULTS: The proportion of enrollees using BH services was 12.8%. BH service users accounted for 17.7% of total health service spending. Mean annual cost of total health care services were 1.5 times higher in BH users than those with no BH use, whereas the median was 1.8 times higher. Mean annual medical cost alone for BH users was 1.3 times higher than that for non-BH users, whereas the median was 1.5 times higher. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the importance for the Japanese medical system to address BH needs of patients with cancer and introduce fiscal efficiencies to cancer care. Strategic implementation of effective integrated care services for patients with cancer should be considered in Japan.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Barriers to physical and mental condition integrated service delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess pragmatic challenges faced when implementing, delivering, and sustaining models of integrated mental health intervention in primary care settings. Thirty percent of primary care patients with chronic medical conditions and up to 80% of those with health complexity have mental health comorbidity, yet primary care clinics rarely include onsite mental health professionals and only one in eight patients receive evidence-based mental health treatment. Integrating specialty mental health into primary care improves outcomes for patients with common disorders, such as depression. METHODS: We used key informant interviews documenting barriers to implementation and components that inhibited or enhanced operational success at 11 nationally established integrated physical and mental condition primary care programs. RESULTS: All but one key informant indicated that the greatest barrier to the creation and sustainability of integrated mental condition care in primary care settings was financial challenges introduced by segregated physical and mental health reimbursement practices. For integrated physical and mental health program initiation and outcome changing care to be successful, key components included a clinical and administrative champion-led culture shift, which valued an outcome orientation; cross-disciplinary training and accountability; use of care managers; consolidated clinical record systems; a multidisease, total population focus; and active, respectful coordination of colocated interdisciplinary clinical services. CONCLUSIONS: Correction of disparate physical and mental health reimbursement practices is an important activity in the development of sustainable integrated physical and mental condition care in primary care settings, such as a medical home. Multiple clinical, administrative, and economic factors contribute to operational success.

Physician staffing for the practice of psychosomatic medicine in general hospitals: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of psychiatric illnesses, prevalent in the general hospital, requires broadly trained providers with expertise at the interface of psychiatry and medicine. Since each hospital operates under different economic constraints, it is difficult to establish an appropriate ratio of such providers to patients. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine the current staffing patterns and ratios of Psychosomatic Medicine practitioners in general hospitals, to better align manpower with clinical service and educational requirements on consultation-liaison psychiatry services. METHOD: Program directors of seven academic Psychosomatic Medicine (PM) programs in the Northeast were surveyed to establish current staffing patterns and patient volumes. Survey data were reviewed and analyzed along with data from the literature and The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) fellowship directory. RESULTS: Staffing patterns varied widely, both in terms of the number and disciplines of staff providing care for medical and surgical inpatients. The ratio of initial consultations performed per hospital bed varied from 1.6 to 4.6. CONCLUSION: Although staffing patterns vary, below a minimum staffing level, there is likely to be significant human and financial cost. Efficient sizing of a PM staff must be accomplished in the context of a given institution's patient population, the experience of providers, the presence/absence and needs of trainees, and the financial constraints of the department and institution. National survey data are needed to provide benchmarks for both academic and nonacademic PM services.

General medical claims for behavioral health patients in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the magnitude of general medical claims expenditures (ie, medical service use) for individuals who use and do not use behavioral health (BH) services in the Japanese free-access medical insurance system to determine if BH patients use substantially more health services, as has consistently been reported in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of Japanese occupation-based total health services use for enrollees with and without comorbid BH conditions. METHODS: The study used a health insurance claims database for more than 3 million enrollees in Japan. All health plan enrollees (18 years and older) who had at least 1 diagnosis of a chronic medical condition were included in the study (N = 192,613). Measurements were total claims expenditures for BH and medical services. RESULTS: The proportion of enrollees using BH services was 14.3%. BH service users accounted for 21.1% of total health service spending. Annual total costs of BH service users were 1.6 times higher than those of non-BH users. Annual medical costs of BH users were 1.3 times higher than those of non-BH users. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Japanese cohort study show that patients with concurrent BH conditions and chronic medical illnesses have substantially lower total health care costs than numerous studies have demonstrated in US populations. This is perhaps in part due to the integration of medical and BH claims payment and care delivery in Japan, an approach that the US health system may wish to consider testing.

Psychiatrists for medically complex patients: bringing value at the physical health and mental health/substance-use disorder interface.

BACKGROUND: In their current configuration, traditional reactive consultation-liaison services see a small percentage of the general-hospital patients who could benefit from their care. These services are poorly reimbursed and bring limited value in terms of clinical improvement and reduction in health-service use. METHOD: The authors examine models of cross-disciplinary, integrated health services that have been shown to promote health and lower cost in medically-complex patients, those with complicated admixtures of physical, mental, social, and health-system difficulties. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists who specialize in the treatment of medically-complex patients must now consider a transition from traditional consultation to proactive, value-added programs and bill for services from medical, rather than behavioral, insurance dollars, since the majority of health-enhancement and cost-savings from these programs occur in the medical sector. The authors provide the clinical and financial arguments for such program-creation and the steps that can be taken as psychiatrists for medically-complex patients move to the next generation of interdisciplinary service.

Delirium: patient characteristics that predict a missed diagnosis at psychiatric consultation.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates patient characteristics that might predict a missed diagnosis of delirium prior to being seen by a psychiatric consultant. METHOD: Study participants were assessed using quantitative standardized scales of cognitive function, delirium and physical impairment. RESULTS: Referring service personnel missed the diagnosis of delirium in 46% of psychiatric consultations. Two factors were associated with their failure to identify delirium accurately: use of a past psychiatric diagnosis to explain delirium symptoms and the presence of pain. Symptoms of delirium and quantitative scale scores did not distinguish between patients with whom diagnosis had been missed and those with accurate diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The consulting physicians of patients with delirium often incorrectly turn to past psychiatric diagnoses and/or are distracted by the presence of pain and, thus, fail to accurately diagnose delirium.

Payment reform in the patient-centered medical home: Enabling and sustaining integrated behavioral health care.

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a promising framework for the redesign of primary care and more recently specialty care. As defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the PCMH framework has 5 attributes: comprehensive care, patient-centered care, coordinated care, accessible services, and quality and safety. Evidence increasingly demonstrates that for the PCMH to best achieve the Triple Aim (improved outcomes, decreased cost, and enhanced patient experience), treatment for behavioral health (including mental health, substance use, and life stressors) must be integrated as a central tenet. However, challenges to implementing the PCMH framework are compounded for real-world practitioners because payment reform rarely happens concurrently. Nowhere is this more evident than in attempts to integrate behavioral health clinicians into primary care. As behavioral health clinicians find opportunities to work in integrated settings, a comprehensive understanding of payment models is integral to the dialogue. This article describes alternatives to the traditional fee for service (FFS) model, including modified FFS, pay for performance, bundled payments, and global payments (i.e., capitation). We suggest that global payment structures provide the best fit to enable and sustain integrated behavioral health clinicians in ways that align with the Triple Aim. Finally, we present recommendations that offer specific, actionable steps to achieve payment reform, complement PCMH, and support integration efforts through policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Epidemiologic trends and costs of fragmentation.

The data that were reviewed in this article documented that in health systems, which manage behavioral health disorders independently from general medical disorders, the estimated 10% to 30% of patients with behavioral health service needs can expect (1) poor access or barriers to medical or mental health care; (2) when services are available, most provided will not meet minimum standards for expected outcome change; and (3) as a consequence of (1) and (2), medical and behavioral disorders will be more persistent with increased complications, will be associated with greater disability, and will lead to higher total health care and disability costs than will treatment of patients who do not have behavioral health disorders. This article proposes that these health system deficiencies will persist unless behavioral health services become an integral part of medical care (ie, integrated). By doing so, it creates a win-win situation for virtually all parties involved. Complex patients will receive coordinated general medical and behavioral health care that leads to improved outcomes. Clinicians and the hospitals that support integrated programs will be less encumbered by cross-disciplinary roadblocks as they deliver services that augment patient outcomes. Health plans (insurers) will be able to decrease administrative and claims costs because the complex patients who generate more than 80% of service use will have less complicated claims adjudication and better clinical outcomes. As a result, purchaser premiums, whether government programs, employers, or individuals, will decrease and the impact on national budgets will improve. Ongoing research will be important to assure that application of the best clinical and administrative practices are used to achieve these outcomes.