Filling the gaps: A community case study in using an interprofessional approach and community-academic partnerships to address COVID-19-related inequities.

Public health challenges rapidly escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a severe lack of resources and support in the near western suburbs of Chicago, the COVID Equity Response Collaborative: Loyola (CERCL) was established by an interprofessional team of Loyola University Chicago students, staff, and faculty. CERCL sought to minimize the negative impact of COVID-19 on vulnerable communities, those that are largely Black, Hispanic, or low-income. From April 2020 to the present, the collaborative utilized community-academic partnerships and interdisciplinary collaborations to conduct programming. CERCL's programming included free community-based testing, screening for and assistance with social determinants of health, dissemination of relevant and reliable COVID-related information, provision of personal protective equipment, and facilitation of access to vaccines. With partners, the collaborative conducted 1,500 COVID-19 tests, trained 80 individuals in contact tracing, provided over 100 individuals with specifically tailored resources to address social and legal needs, distributed 5,000 resource bags, held 20 community conversations, canvassed 3,735 homes, and hosted 19 vaccine clinics. Community-academic partnerships with the health system, community and governmental agencies, and the local public health department have been critical to CERCL efforts. The interdisciplinary and interprofessional successes demonstrated in this case study lends the example of a relevant, sustainable, and practical intervention to address nuanced public health issues.

Standardization of the Discharge Process for Inpatient Hematology and Oncology Using Plan-Do-Study-Act Methodology Improves Follow-Up and Patient Hand-Off.

BACKGROUND: Hematology and oncology patients represent a complex population that requires timely follow-up to prevent clinical decompensation and delays in treatment. Previous reports have demonstrated that follow-up within 14 days is associated with decreased 30-day readmissions, and the magnitude of this effect is greater for higher-risk patients. This project was designed to standardize the discharge process with the primary goal of reducing average time to hematology and oncology follow-up to < 14 days. METHODS: Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a multidisciplinary team of hematology and oncology staff developed and implemented a standardized discharge process. Rotating resident physicians were trained through online and in-person education. Additional interventions included the development of a discharge checklist handout, and a clinical decision support tool including a note template and embedded order set. All patients discharged during the 2-month period before and after the implementation of the standardized process were evaluated. Follow-up appointment scheduling data and communication between inpatient and outpatient providers were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 142 consecutive patients were reviewed. The primary endpoint of time to hematology and oncology follow-up appointment improved from a mean 17 days prior to intervention to 13 days in PDSA cycles 1 and 2 and 10 days in PDSA cycle 3. The target of 14-day average time to follow-up was achieved. Furthermore, the upper control limit decreased from 58 days at baseline to 21 days in PDSA cycle 3, demonstrating a decrease in variation. Electronic alerting of outpatient hematology and oncology providers to discharge summary increased from 20% before the intervention to 62% after the intervention (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: This quality initiative to standardize the discharge process for the hematology and oncology service decreased time to hematology and oncology follow-up appointments, improved communication between inpatient and outpatient teams, and decreased process variation. Timelier follow-up for this complex patient population will prevent clinical decompensation and delays in treatment.

Current and future funding sources for specialty mental health and substance abuse treatment providers.

OBJECTIVES: Goals were to describe funding for specialty behavioral health providers in 1986 and 2005 and examine how the recession, parity law, and Affordable Care Act (ACA) may affect future funding. METHODS: Numerous public data sets and actuarial methods were used to estimate spending for services from specialty behavioral health providers (general hospital specialty units; specialty hospitals; psychiatrists; other behavioral health professionals; and specialty mental health and substance abuse treatment centers). RESULTS: Between 1986 and 2005, hospitals-which had received the largest share of behavioral health spending-declined in importance, and spending shares trended away from specialty hospitals that were largely funded by state and local governments. Hospitals' share of funding from private insurance decreased from 25% in 1986 to 12% in 2005, and the Medicaid share increased from 11% to 23%. Office-based specialty providers continued to be largely dependent on private insurance and out-of-pocket payments, with psychiatrists receiving increased Medicaid funding. Specialty centers received increased funding shares from Medicaid (from 11% to 29%), and shares from other state and local government sources fell (from 64% to 46%). CONCLUSIONS: With ACA's full implementation, spending on behavioral health will likely increase under private insurance and Medicaid. Parity in private plans will also push a larger share of payments for office-based professionals from out-of-pocket payments to private insurance. As ACA provides insurance for formerly uninsured individuals, funding by state behavioral health authorities of center-based treatment will likely refocus on recovery and support services. Federal Medicaid rules will increase in importance as more people needing behavioral health treatment become covered.

Future funding for mental health and substance abuse: increasing burdens for the public sector.

Spending on mental health (MH) and substance abuse (SA) treatment is expected to double between 2003 and 2014, to $239 billion, and is anticipated to continue falling as a share of all health spending. By 2014, our projections of SA spending show increasing responsibility for state and local governments (45 percent); deteriorating shares financed by private insurance (7 percent); and 42 percent of SA spending going to specialty SA centers. For MH, Medicaid is forecasted to fund an increasingly larger share of treatment costs (27 percent), and prescription medications are expected to capture 30 percent of MH spending by 2014.