Comparison of the out-of-pocket costs of Medicare-funded telepsychiatry and face-to-face consultations: A descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: Telepsychiatry items in the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) were expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their out-of-pocket costs have not been examined. We describe and compare patient out-of-pocket payments for face-to-face and telepsychiatry (videoconferencing and telephone) MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services to understand the differential out-of-pocket cost burden for patients across these modalities. METHODS: out-of-pocket cost information was obtained from the Medical Costs Finder website, which extracted data from Services Australia's Medicare claims data in 2021-2022. Cost information for corresponding face-to-face, video, and telephone MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services was compared, including (1) Median specialist fees; (2) Median out-of-pocket payments; (3) Medicare reimbursement amounts; and (4) Proportions of patients subject to out-of-pocket fees. RESULTS: Medicare reimbursements are identical for all comparable face-to-face and telepsychiatry items. Specialist fees for comparable items varied across face-to-face to telehealth options, with resulting differences in out-of-pocket costs. For video items, higher proportions of patients were not bulk-billed, with greater out-of-pocket costs than face-to-face items. However, the opposite was true for telephone items compared with face-to-face items. CONCLUSIONS: Initial cost analyses of MBS telepsychiatry items indicate that telephone consultations incur the lowest out-of-pocket costs, followed by face-to-face and video consultations.

Commentary on the private practice implications of the Deed of Settlement in the Honeysuckle Health - NIB Australian-Competition-Tribunal-hearing.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a commentary on the implications of the Deed of Settlement in the Honeysuckle Health - nib Australian-Competition-Tribunal Hearing. This hearing has major implications in relation to the potential for a single dominant private-health-insurance buying-group to contract for medical-purchaser-provider-agreements that might limit the clinical autonomy of patients and psychiatrists. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) authorised the formation of a joint buying-group for private-health-insurers in 2021 to provide collective contracting and related services to private-health-insurers and other healthcare-payers. A consequent legal challenge resulted in a Deed of Settlement on 18 July 2022 that for 5 years preserves doctor-patient autonomy in clinical decision-making, the medical gaps scheme, the transparency of contractual arrangements, and if clinical data of those insured are collected by HH-nib, it must be with the full informed consent of patients. However, there remain options for private-health-insurers to apply for formation of new buying-groups, as well as to collect data and profile the general public and insured patients using online programs. Vigilance on private-health-insurer buying-groups, and the potential for US-style managed-care is warranted.

Private psychiatric hospital care in Australia: a descriptive analysis of casemix and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a rapid clinical update on casemix, average length of stay, and the effectiveness of Australian private psychiatric hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the publicly available patient data from the Australian Private Hospitals Association Private Psychiatric Hospitals Data Reporting and Analysis Service website, from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. This was compared with corresponding reporting on public and private hospitals from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network. RESULTS: In 2019-2020, there were 72 private psychiatric hospitals in Australia with 3582 acute beds. There were 42,942 inpatients with 1,286,470 days of care, and a mean length of stay 19.6 days (SD 13.9) for the financial year 2019-2020. The main diagnoses were major affective and other mood disorders (49%), and alcohol and other substance abuse disorders (21%). Clinician-rated outcome measures, that is, the HoNOS, showed an improvement effect size of 1.64, while the patient-rated MHQ-14 showed an improvement effect size of 1.18. Results are similar for previous years. CONCLUSIONS: Private psychiatric hospitals provide substantial, effective psychiatric care.

A clinical update on managed care implications for Australian psychiatric practice.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a clinical update on private health insurance in Australia and outline developments in US-style managed care that are likely to affect psychiatric and other specialist healthcare. We explain aspects of the US health system, which has resulted in a powerful and profitable private health insurance sector, and one of the most expensive and inefficient health systems in the world, with limited patient choice in psychiatric treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Australian psychiatrists should be aware of changes to private health insurance that emphasise aspects of managed care such as selective contracting, cost-cutting or capitation of services. These approaches may limit access to private hospital care and diminish the autonomy of patients and practitioners in choosing the most appropriate treatment. Australian patients, carers and practitioners need to be informed about the potential impact of private managed care on patient-centred evidence-based treatment.

Increased Australian outpatient private practice psychiatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic: usage of new MBS-telehealth item and face-to-face psychiatrist office-based services in Quarter 3, 2020.

OBJECTIVE: The Australian federal government introduced new COVID-19 psychiatrist Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth items to assist with providing private specialist care. We investigate private psychiatrists' uptake of video and telephone telehealth, as well as total (telehealth and face-to-face) consultations for Quarter 3 (July-September), 2020. We compare these to the same quarter in 2019. METHOD: MBS-item service data were extracted for COVID-19-psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth item numbers and compared with Quarter 3 (July-September), 2019, of face-to-face consultations for the whole of Australia. RESULTS: The number of psychiatry consultations (telehealth and face-to-face) rose during the first wave of the pandemic in Quarter 3, 2020, by 14% compared to Quarter 3, 2019, with telehealth 43% of this total. Face-to-face consultations in Quarter 3, 2020 were only 64% of the comparative number of Quarter 3, 2019 consultations. Most telehealth involved short telephone consultations of ⩽15-30 min. Video consultations comprised 42% of total telehealth provision: these were for new patient assessments and longer consultations. These figures represent increased face-to-face consultation compared to Quarter 2, 2020, with substantial maintenance of telehealth consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Private psychiatrists continued using the new COVID-19 MBS telehealth items for Quarter 3, 2020 to increase the number of patient care contacts in the context of decreased face-to-face consultations compared to 2019, but increased face-to-face consultations compared to Quarter 2, 2020.

Australian private practice metropolitan telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of Quarter-2, 2020 usage of new MBS-telehealth item psychiatrist services.

OBJECTIVE: The Australian Commonwealth Government introduced new psychiatrist Medicare-Benefits-Schedule (MBS)-telehealth items in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to assist with previously office-based psychiatric practice. We investigate private psychiatrists' uptake of (1) video- and telephone-telehealth consultations for Quarter-2 (April-June) of 2020 and (2) total telehealth and face-to-face consultations in Quarter-2, 2020 in comparison to Quarter-2, 2019 for Australia. METHODS: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19-psychiatrist-video- and telephone-telehealth item numbers and compared with a baseline of the Quarter-2, 2019 (April-June 2019) of face-to-face consultations for the whole of Australia. RESULTS: Combined telehealth and face-to-face psychiatry consultations rose during the first wave of the pandemic in Quarter-2, 2020 by 14% compared to Quarter-2, 2019 and telehealth was approximately half of this total. Face-to-face consultations in 2020 comprised only 56% of the comparative Quarter-2, 2019 consultations. Most telehealth provision was by telephone for short consultations of ⩽15-30 min. Video consultations comprised 38% of the total telehealth provision (for new patient assessments and longer consultations). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a flexible, rapid response to patient demand by private psychiatrists using the new COVID-19-MBS-telehealth items for Quarter-2, 2020, and in the context of decreased face-to-face consultations, ongoing telehealth is essential.

Private practice metropolitan telepsychiatry in smaller Australian jurisdictions during the COVID-19 pandemic: preliminary analysis of the introduction of new Medicare Benefits Schedule items.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the smaller Australian state/territory service impact of the introduction of new COVID-19 psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items. METHOD: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19 psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth item numbers corresponding to the pre-existing in-person consultations for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Northern Territory (NT), South Australia (SA) and Tasmania. RESULTS: The overall rate of consultations (face-to-face and telehealth) increased during March and April 2020, compared to the monthly face-to-face consultation average, excepting Tasmania. Compared to an annual monthly average of in-person consultations for July 2018-June 2019, total telepsychiatry consultations were higher for April than May. For total video and telephone telehealth consultations combined, video consultations were lower in April and higher in May. As a percentage of combined telehealth and in-person consultations, telehealth was greater for April and lower for May compared to the monthly face-to-face consultation average. CONCLUSIONS: In the smaller states/territories, the private practice workforce rapidly adopted COVID-19 MBS telehealth items, with the majority of psychiatric consultation shifting to telehealth initially, and then returning to face-to-face. With a second wave of COVID-19 in Australia, telehealth is likely to remain a vital part of the national mental health strategy.

Private practice metropolitan telepsychiatry in larger Australian states during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of the first 2 months of new MBS telehealth item psychiatrist services.

OBJECTIVE: Private practice psychiatry in Australia was largely office-based until the Commonwealth Government introduced new psychiatrist Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth items in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate the uptake of (1) video and telephone telehealth consultations in April-May 2020, and (2) the overall changing rates of consultation, i.e. total telehealth and in-person consultations across the larger states of Australia. METHOD: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19 psychiatrist video- and telephone-telehealth item numbers and compared with a baseline of the 2018-2019-financial-year monthly average of in-person consultations for New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia. RESULTS: Total psychiatry consultations (telehealth and in-person) rose during the first wave of the pandemic by 10%-20% compared to the previous year. The majority of private practice was conducted by telehealth in April but was lower in May as new COVID-19 case rates fell. Most telehealth provision was by telephone for short consultations of ⩽15-30 min. Video consultations increased from April into May. CONCLUSIONS: For large states, there has been a rapid adoption of the MBS telehealth psychiatrist items, followed by a trend back to face-to-face as COVID-19 new case rates reduced. There was an overall increased consultation rate (in-person plus telehealth) for April-May 2020.