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.

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.

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.