Bridging the Behavioral Health Gap in Serious Illness Care: Challenges and Strategies for Workforce Development.

Comorbidity with behavioral health conditions is highly prevalent among those experiencing serious medical illnesses and is associated with poor outcomes. Siloed provision of behavioral and physical healthcare has contributed to a workforce ill-equipped to address the often complex needs of these clinical populations. Trained specialist behavioral health providers are scarce and there are gaps in core behavioral health competencies among serious illness care providers. Core competency frameworks to close behavioral health training gaps in primary care exist, but these have not extended to some of the distinct skills and roles required in serious illness care settings. This paper seeks to address this issue by describing a common framework of training competencies across the full spectrum of clinical responsibility and behavioral health expertise for those working at the interface of behavioral health and serious illness care. The authors used a mixed-method approach to develop a model of behavioral health and serious illness care and to delineate seven core skill domains necessary for practitioners working at this interface. Existing opportunities for scaling-up the workforce as well as priority policy recommendation to address barriers to implementation are discussed.

Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mental and physical disorders commonly co-occur leading to higher morbidity and mortality in people with mental and substance use disorders (collectively called behavioral health disorders). Models to integrate primary and behavioral health care for this population have not yet been implemented widely across health systems, leading to efforts to adapt models for specific subpopulations and mechanisms to facilitate more widespread adoption. RECENT FINDINGS: Using examples from the UK and USA, we describe recent advances to integrate behavioral and primary care for new target populations including people with serious mental illness, people at the extremes of life, and for people with substance use disorders. We summarize mechanisms to incentivize integration efforts and to stimulate new integration between health and social services in primary care. We then present an outline of recent enablers for integration, concentrating on changes to funding mechanisms, developments in quality outcome measurements to promote collaborative working, and pragmatic guidance aimed at primary care providers wishing to enhance provision of behavioral care. Integrating care between primary care and behavioral health services is a complex process. Established models of integrated care are now being tailored to target specific patient populations and policy initiatives developed to encourage adoption in particular settings. Wholly novel approaches to integrate care are significantly less common. Future efforts to integrate care should allow for flexibility and innovation around implementation, payment models that support delivery of high value care, and the development of outcome measures that incentivize collaborative working practices.

Measuring Efficiency at the Interface of Behavioral and Physical Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Measures of efficiency in healthcare delivery, particularly between different parts of the healthcare system could potentially improve health resource utilization. We use a typology adapted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to characterize current measures described in the literature by stakeholder perspective (payer, provider, patient, policy-maker), type of output (reduced utilization or improved outcomes) and input (physical, financial or both). AIMS OF THE STUDY: To systematically describe measures of healthcare efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare and identify gaps in the literature base that could form the basis for further measure development. METHODS: We searched the Medline database for studies published in English in the last ten years with the terms 'efficiency', 'inefficiency', 'productivity', 'cost' or 'QALY' and 'mental' or 'behavioral' in the title or abstract. Studies on healthcare resource utilization, costs of care, or broader healthcare benefits to society, related to the provision of behavioral health care in physical health care settings or to people with physical health conditions or vice versa were included. RESULTS: 85 of 6,454 studies met inclusion criteria. These 85 studies described 126 measures of efficiency. 100 of these measured efficiency according to the perspective of the purchaser or provider, whilst 13 each considered efficiency from the perspective of society or the consumer. Most measures counted physical resources (such as numbers of therapy sessions) rather than the costs of these resources as inputs. Three times as many measures (95) considered service outputs as did quality outcomes (31). DISCUSSION: Measuring efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical care is particularly difficult due to the number of relevant stakeholders involved, ambiguity over the definition of efficiency and the complexity of providing care for people with multimorbidity. Current measures at this interface concentrate on a limited range of outcomes. LIMITATIONS: We only searched one database and did not review the gray literature, nor solicit a call for relevant but unpublished work. We did not assess the methodological quality of the studies identified. IMPLICATION FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Most measures of healthcare efficiency are currently viewed from the perspective of payers and providers, with very few studies addressing the benefits of healthcare to society or the individual interest of the consumer. One way this imbalance could be addressed is through much stronger involvement of consumers in measurement-development, for example, by an expansion in patient-reported outcome measures in assessing quality of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Integrating behavioral and physical care is a major area of implementation as health systems in high income countries move from volume to value based care delivery. Measuring efficiency at this interface has the potential to incentivize and also evaluate integration efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: There has been only one previous systematic review of efficiency measurement and none at the interface of behavioral and physical care. We identify gaps in the evidence base for efficiency measurement which could inform further research and measurement development.

Prioritizing quality measure concepts at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Integrated healthcare models can increase access to care, improve healthcare quality, and reduce cost for individuals with behavioral and general medical healthcare needs, yet there are few instruments for measuring the quality of integrated care. In this study, we identified and prioritized concepts that can represent the quality of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. DESIGN: We conducted a literature review to identify candidate measure concepts. Experts then participated in a modified Delphi process to prioritize the concepts for development into specific quality measures. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Expert behavioral health and general medical clinicians, decision-makers (policy, regulatory and administrative professionals) and patient advocates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Panelists rated measure concepts on importance, validity and feasibility. RESULTS: The literature review identified 734 measures of behavioral or general medical care, which were then distilled into 43 measure concepts. Thirty-three measure concepts (including a segmentation strategy) reached a predetermined consensus threshold of importance, while 11 concepts did not. Two measure concepts were 'ready for further development' ('General medical screening and follow-up in behavioral health settings' and 'Mental health screening at general medical healthcare settings'). Among the 31 additional measure concepts that were rated as important, 7 were rated as valid (but not feasible), while the remaining 24 concepts were rated as neither valid nor feasible. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified quality measure concepts that capture important aspects of integrated care. Researchers can use the prioritization process described in this study to guide healthcare quality measures development work.

Quality Measures at the Interface of Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

The development of quality measures has gained increasing attention as health care reimbursements transition from fee-for-service to value-based payment models. As behavioral health care moves towards integration of services with primary care, specific measures and payment incentives will be needed to successfully expand access. This study uses a keyword search to identify 730 quality indicators that are relevant to behavioral health and general medical health. Measures identified have been coded and grouped into domains based on a taxonomy developed by the authors. The analysis reveals that quality measures focusing on general medical conditions exceed those focused on behavioral health diagnoses for evidence-based treatments, patient safety, and outcomes. Furthermore, measures predominantly concentrate on care during or following hospitalizations, which represents a minority of behavioral health care and does not characterize the outpatient settings that are the focus of many models of integrated care. The authors offer recommendations for future steps to identify the quality measures that can best evaluate the evolving behavioral health care system.

Measuring the quality of mental health care: consensus perspectives from selected industrialized countries.

This international initiative sought to develop a consensus framework of mental health quality measures. The 656 quality measures identified via literature review were narrowed to 36 measurement concepts. A modified Delphi process was used to rate these for validity, importance, and feasibility. The highest rated concepts for validity and importance included 7-day follow-up after inpatient discharge, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization, seclusion, death rates, medication adherence, medication errors, and restraint. Importance and validity scores were correlated, with importance scores higher than validity scores. Further work is needed to develop and implement a core set of measures for international comparison of mental health quality.

Technology for advancing behavioral health integration: implications for behavioral health practice and policy.

Behavioral health integration (BHI) encompasses the integration of general health, mental health, and substance use care. BHI has promise for healthcare improvement, yet several challenges limit its uptake and successful implementation. Translational Behavioral Medicine published the Continuum-Based Framework by Goldman et al., 2020 to create comprehensive guidance for BHI within primary care settings. Technology can help advance BHI and provide evidence to support it. This commentary describes challenges and illustrative use cases in which technology solutions help organizations achieve BHI through the Continuum-Based Framework domains. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews with field leaders, practice sites, and technology stakeholders identified key barriers in BHI amenable to technology solutions, applications of technologies, and how they facilitate BHI. Findings showed that technology can facilitate the implementation and scaling of BHI by reducing care fragmentation and improving patient engagement, accountability and financial sustainability, provider experience and support, and equitable access to culturally competent care. Continued efforts by stakeholders to address legacy policy and implementation issues (e.g. incentives, investment, privacy, and workforce) are needed to optimize the impact of technology on BHI.

Behavioral health integration (BHI) combines physical, mental, and substance use care to enhance overall well-being. While BHI offers benefits, it faces challenges. Researchers developed the Continuum-Based Framework to aid primary healthcare centers in implementing BHI. Technology is key to supporting BHI effectiveness. Researchers examined how technology can assist with BHI by interviewing experts and analyzing real-world examples. They found that technology helps healthcare centers address BHI challenges by ensuring comprehensive and equitable care delivery, promoting patient engagement, and supporting healthcare providers. Technology can improve BHI practices over time, but policy, investment, and privacy changes are necessary for optimal integration.

Providing Behavioral Health Care in PACE - A Review of Federal and State Manual Regulations.

OBJECTIVES: Present analysis of the federal and state regulations that guide The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) operations and core clinical features for direction on behavioral health (BH). DESIGN: Review and synthesize the federal (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]) and all publicly available state manuals according to the BH-Serious Illness Care (SIC) model domains. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 155 PACE organizations operating in 32 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: A multipronged search was conducted to identify official state and federal manuals guiding the implementation and functions of PACE organizations. The CMS PACE website was used to identify the federal PACE manual. State-level manuals for 32 states with PACE programs were identified through several sources, including official PACE websites, contacts through official websites, the National PACE Association (NPA), and public and academic search engines. The manuals were searched according to the BH-SIC model domains that pertain to integrating BH care with complex care individuals. RESULTS: According to the CMS Manual, the interdisciplinary team is responsible for holistic care of PACE enrollees, but a BH specialist is not a required member. The CMS Manual includes information on BH clinical functions, BH workforce, and structures for outcome measurement, quality, and accountability. Eight of 32 PACE-participating states offer publicly available state PACE manuals; of which 3 offer information on BH clinical functions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Regarding BH, federal and state manual regulations establish limited guidance for comprehensive care service delivery at PACE organizations. The absence of clear directives weakens BH care delivery due to a limiting the ability to develop quality measures and accountability structures. This hinders incentivization and accountability to truly all-inclusive care. Clearer guidelines and regulatory parameters regarding BH care at federal and state levels may enable more PACE organizations to meet rising BH demands of aging communities.

Developing mental health-care quality indicators: toward a common framework.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistent performance measurement schemes hinder attempts to make international comparisons about mental health-care quality. This report describes a project undertaken by an international collaborative group that aims to develop a common framework of measures that will allow for international comparisons of mental health system performance. DESIGN: Representatives from each country submitted reports of quality measurement initiatives in mental health. Indicators were reviewed, and all measurable indicators were compiled and organized. Sample Twenty-nine programs from 11 countries and two cross-national programs submitted reports. METHODS: Indicators were evaluated according to measurable inclusion criteria. RESULTS: These methods yielded 656 total measures that were organized into 17 domains and 80 subdomains. CONCLUSIONS: No single program contained indicators in all domains, highlighting the need for a comprehensive, shared scheme for international measurement. By collecting and organizing measures through an inductive compilation of existing programs, the present study has generated a maximally inclusive basis for the creation of a common framework of international mental health quality indicators.

ICD-11 for quality and safety: overview of the WHO Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group.

This paper outlines the approach that the WHO's Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC) network is undertaking to create ICD-11. We also outline the more focused work of the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group, whose activities include the following: (i) cataloguing existing ICD-9 and ICD-10 quality and safety indicators; (ii) reviewing ICD morbidity coding rules for main condition, diagnosis timing, numbers of diagnosis fields and diagnosis clustering; (iii) substantial restructuring of the health-care related injury concepts coded in the ICD-10 chapters 19/20, (iv) mapping of ICD-11 quality and safety concepts to the information model of the WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and the AHRQ Common Formats; (v) the review of vertical chapter content in all chapters of the ICD-11 beta version and (vi) downstream field testing of ICD-11 prior to its official 2015 release. The transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 promises to produce an enhanced classification that will have better potential to capture important concepts relevant to measuring health system safety and quality-an important use case for the classification.

Behavioral health integration in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE): A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is a community-based care model that delivers collaborative care via an interdisciplinary team to meet the medical and social needs of older adults eligible for nursing home placement. Fifty-nine percent of PACE participants are reported to have at least one psychiatric disorder. PACE organizations (POs) function through an interdisciplinary model of care, but a behavioral health (BH) provider is not a mandated role on the interdisciplinary team. Published literature regarding how POs integrate and provide BH services is limited; however, the National PACE Association (NPA) and select POs have made significant contributions to behavioral health integration (BHI) efforts in PACE. METHODS: PubMED, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2022; hand-searching was also conducted. Research articles and items involving BH components or programming in POs were included. Evidence of BH programming and initiatives at the organization and national level was summarized. RESULTS: This review reported on nine primary items addressing BH in POs from 2004 to 2022. It found evidence of successful BH initiatives in PACE and identified a gap of published information given an evident need for BH services in the PACE participant population. Findings also indicate the NPA works to advance BH integration in POs with a dedicated workgroup that has produced the NPA BH Toolkit, BH training webinar series, and a site coaching program. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of PACE-specific BH delivery guidelines and guidance from the federal or state level for PACE programs, BH service inclusion has been developed unevenly across POs. Assessing the landscape of BH inclusion across POs is a step toward evidence-based and standardized inclusion of BH within the all-inclusive care model.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Serious Illness Care in a Post-COVID-19 Environment.

Individuals with serious medical illnesses experience high rates of comorbid behavioral health conditions. Behavioral health comorbidity affects outcomes in serious illness care. Despite this consequence, behavioral health remains siloed from serious illness care. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors presented a conceptual model of behavioral health integration into serious illness care. In this column, the authors reflect on this model in the context of the challenges and opportunities posed by COVID-19.

Measuring quality of mental health care: a review of initiatives and programs in selected countries.

This review article presents a systematic review of grey literature describing current initiatives that assess the quality of mental health care in 12 countries, as collected by the International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership.There have been increased efforts in many countries to develop and implement mental health indicator schemes to measure and monitor the quality of mental health care at the national and subnational level. Most mental health indicator sets are part of larger health policy initiatives at the national and (or) provincial or state level, with indicators and domains regularly reviewed and revised. The indicator sets described in health care quality initiatives vary widely in their scope, intended use, and degree of development, and they often cut across a broad range of domains, reflecting not only a country's specific health system and how it is organized and structured but also the implementation of such schemes (that is, collection and analysis of data) and the sociopolitical realities that determine mental health priorities.

A Model to Improve Behavioral Health Integration into Serious Illness Care.

Behavioral health problems are highly prevalent among people with serious medical illness. Individuals living with these comorbidities have complex clinical and social needs yet face siloed care, high health care costs, and poor outcomes. Interacting factors contribute to these inequalities including historical separation of behavioral and physical health provision. Several care models for integrating behavioral health and general medical care have been developed and tested, but the evidence base focuses primarily on primary care populations and settings. This article advances that work by proposing a Behavioral Health-Serious Illness Care model. Developed through a mixed methods approach combining literature review, surveys, interviews, and input from an expert advisory panel, it provides a conceptual framework of building blocks for behavioral health integration tailored to serious illness care populations and the range of settings in which they receive care. The model is intended to serve as foundation to support the development and implementation of integrated behavioral health and serious illness care. The key components of the model are described, barriers to implementation discussed, and recommendations for policy approaches to address these barriers presented.

The Case for Severe Mental Illness as a Disparities Category.

Extensive evidence documents that people with severe mental illness have higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with the general population and receive lower-quality and higher-cost health care. These trends, at least in part, stem from discrimination, exclusion, widespread stigma, and criminalization of individuals with mental illness. As such, severe mental illness should receive formal, national recognition as a disparities category. Such a designation would have multiple important implications in health policy, services and quality research, and advocacy.

Health and Aging Policy Fellows: Dementia and Mental Health Policy to Improve Lives of Older Adults.

The Health and Aging Policy Fellows (HAPF) Program has, since its inception in 2008, provided health policy training and mentorship for 113 gerontological professionals across a wide range of disciplines and stages of careers. The fellows' shared passion is the effective engagement of policy levers to improve the lives of older adults. This article briefly describes the HAPF Program and provides a sample of policies with which fellows have been engaged related to dementia and late-life mental health. Approximately 20% of the fellows have specifically addressed one of these areas during their fellowship year. This would be expected, given that 14% of older adults aged 71 and older have a diagnosis of dementia, and although new mental health diagnoses decline as adults age, mental health conditions remain prevalent. Thus, we conclude by describing opportunities for future advocacy and policy efforts in dementia and mental health in the areas of funding, translating science to practice, interprofessional education and innovative models of care for persons with these conditions.

Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective.

Mental disorders are common worldwide, yet the quality of care for these disorders has not increased to the same extent as that for physical conditions. In this paper, we present a framework for promoting quality measurement as a tool for improving quality of mental health care. We identify key barriers to this effort, including lack of standardized information technology-based data sources, limited scientific evidence for mental health quality measures, lack of provider training and support, and cultural barriers to integrating mental health care within general health environments. We describe several innovations that are underway worldwide which can mitigate these barriers. Based on these experiences, we offer several recommendations for improving quality of mental health care. Health care payers and providers will need a portfolio of validated measures of patient-centered outcomes across a spectrum of conditions. Common data elements will have to be developed and embedded within existing electronic health records and other information technology tools. Mental health outcomes will need to be assessed more routinely, and measurement-based care should become part of the overall culture of the mental health care system. Health care systems will need a valid way to stratify quality measures, in order to address potential gaps among subpopulations and identify groups in most need of quality improvement. Much more attention should be devoted to workforce training in and capacity for quality improvement. The field of mental health quality improvement is a team sport, requiring coordination across different providers, involvement of consumer advocates, and leveraging of resources and incentives from health care payers and systems.