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.

Creating clinical and economic "wins" through integrated case management: lessons for physicians and health system administrators.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes an innovative integrated approach to case management using a standardized complexity assessment grid and communication tool, which is designed to identify barriers to improvement in 4 domains: biological, psychological, social, and health system; to create and implement holistic care plans based on "anchored barriers; and to document ongoing targeted outcomes. PRACTICE SETTINGS: Adult and pediatric case and disease managers working for hospitals or clinics, health care delivery systems, general medical health plans, care management vendors, government agencies, and employers can effectively employ integrated case management procedures. INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT: Integrated case management augments traditional care coordination by allowing trained medical or mental health managers to assist with cross-disciplinary barriers without handoffs; to connect multidomain barriers to mutually agreed-upon care plan goals and activities; and to measure clinical, functional, fiscal, quality of life, and satisfaction outcomes as a part of the management process, especially in high-cost, complex patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Integrated case management provides a step-by-step interdisciplinary approach for helping complex patients that has the potential to maximize clinical and functional value, while reducing total health-related costs.

Creating clinical and economic "wins" through integrated case management: lessons for physicians and health system administrators.

The 5% of patients using 50% of health resources commonly have interacting and persistent multimorbid illnesses; concurrent mental health problems; impaired social networks; and/or difficulties in accessing care through the health system. To improve outcomes in these patients, it is necessary to overcome clinical and nonclinical barriers that lead to poor health, treatment resistance, high health care cost, and disability. This article describes an innovative complexity-based and outcome-oriented approach using integrated case management. It helps treating physicians and health administrators understand how to incorporate value-based case managers to optimize care for complex patients while better utilizing resources.

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.

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.

Financing mental health and substance use disorder care within physical health: a look to the future.

After sharing several case examples of health care for patients who have mental health/substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) in the current health care environment, this article describes the advantages that would occur if assessment and treatment of MH/SUDs became a clinical, administrative, and financial part of physical health with common provider networks, the ability to combine service locations (integrated clinics and inpatient units), similar coding and billing procedures, and a single funding pool. Because transition to such a system is complicated, the article then describes several process changes that would be required for integrated service delivery to take place.

Integration of mental health/substance abuse and primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe models of integrated care used in the United States, assess how integration of mental health services into primary care settings or primary health care into specialty outpatient settings impacts patient outcomes and describe barriers to sustainable programs, use of health information technology (IT), and reimbursement structures of integrated care programs within the United States. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and PsychINFO databases, the internet, and expert consultants for relevant trials and other literature that does not traditionally appear in peer reviewed journals. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and high quality quasi-experimental design studies were reviewed for integrated care model design components. For trials of mental health services in primary care settings, levels of integration codes were constructed and assigned for provider integration, integrated processes of care, and their interaction. Forest plots of patient symptom severity, treatment response, and remission were constructed to examine associations between level of integration and outcomes. RESULTS: Integrated care programs have been tested for depression, anxiety, at-risk alcohol, and ADHD in primary care settings and for alcohol disorders and persons with severe mental illness in specialty care settings. Although most interventions in either setting are effective, there is no discernible effect of integration level, processes of care, or combination, on patient outcomes for mental health services in primary care settings. Organizational and financial barriers persist to successfully implement sustainable integrated care programs. Health IT remains a mostly undocumented but promising tool. No reimbursement system has been subjected to experiment; no evidence exists as to which reimbursement system may most effectively support integrated care. Case studies will add to our understanding of their implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: In general, integrated care achieved positive outcomes. However, it is not possible to distinguish the effects of increased attention to mental health problems from the effects of specific strategies, evidenced by the lack of correlation between measures of integration or a systematic approach to care processes and the various outcomes. Efforts to implement integrated care will have to address financial barriers. There is a reasonably strong body of evidence to encourage integrated care, at least for depression. Encouragement can include removing obstacles, creating incentives, or mandating integrated care. Encouragement will likely differ between fee-for-service care and managed care. However, without evidence for a clearly superior model, there is legitimate reason to worry about premature orthodoxy.

Rethinking the place of the psyche in health: toward the integration of health care systems.

OBJECTIVE: To review the value provided when health care systems independently manage medical and psychiatric care. METHOD: The authors draw on data from the world literature, their own experiences and reflections (one author as an international consultant in the coordination of physical and behavioural health care), and input from colleagues throughout the world who face similar challenges to improve outcomes for complex, high cost patients in their own health care systems. RESULTS: Most health care systems in the world approach the administration and delivery of mental health care separately from that of general medical care. This practice is no longer supported as effective, efficient or inexpensive. Rather accumulating data indicates that concurrent and coordinated medical and psychiatric care, which can only be accomplished by integrating physical and behavioural health through infrastructure change, should replace the present system of independently provided sequential care; that is, one which provides first medical and then psychiatric treatment, or vice versa, with little communication between clinicians in the two sectors. CONCLUSIONS: By making mental health treatment an integral part of general medical care through reorganization of the funding system, a higher percentage of those now untreated for their psychiatric disorders, both within and outside of the medical setting, can have their mental health needs addressed in coordination with their physical disorders. At the same time, the number of patients that can be treated within the same budget will be expanded.

Are the patients with post-transplant psychiatric consultation different from other medical-surgical consultation inpatients?

The present study examines the characteristics of post-transplant patients compared with non-transplant patients seen by consultation psychiatrists. Medical records of 541 consecutive psychiatric consultation patients at a university teaching hospital in 2001 were reviewed. Of the 541 patients who were evaluated, 67 were post-transplant patients. Post-transplant psychiatric consultation is different in some aspects from other psychiatric consultation. Post-transplant patients suffer complicated medical, psychiatric, and social burdens.