The Relevance of the Affordable Care Act for Improving Mental Health Care.

Provisions of the Affordable Care Act provide unprecedented opportunities for expanded access to behavioral health care and for redesigning the provision of services. Key to these reforms is establishing mental and substance abuse care as essential coverage, extending Medicaid eligibility and insurance parity, and protecting insurance coverage for persons with preexisting conditions and disabilities. Many provisions, including Accountable Care Organizations, health homes, and other structures, provide incentives for integrating primary care and behavioral health services and coordinating the range of services often required by persons with severe and persistent mental health conditions. Careful research and experience are required to establish the services most appropriate for primary care and effective linkage to specialty mental health services. Research providing guidance on present evidence and uncertainties is reviewed. Success in redesign will follow progress building on collaborative care and other evidence-based practices, reshaping professional incentives and practices, and reinvigorating the behavioral health workforce.

More people than ever before are receiving behavioral health care in the United States, but gaps and challenges remain.

The high prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse disorders and their significant impact on disability, mortality, and other chronic diseases have encouraged new initiatives in mental health policy including important provisions of the Affordable Care Act and changes in Medicaid. This article examines the development and status of the behavioral health services system, gaps in access to and quality of care, and the challenges to implementing aspirations for improved behavioral and related medical services. Although many more people than ever before are receiving behavioral health services in the United States-predominantly pharmaceutical treatments-care is poorly allocated and rarely meets evidence-based standards, particularly in the primary care sector. Ideologies, finances, and pharmaceutical marketing have shaped the provision of services more than treatment advances or guidance from a growing evidence base. Among the many challenges to overcome are organizational and financial realignments and improved training of primary care physicians and the behavioral health workforce.

Seizing opportunities under the Affordable Care Act for transforming the mental and behavioral health system.

The Affordable Care Act, along with Medicaid expansions, offers the opportunity to redesign the nation's highly flawed mental health system. It promotes new programs and tools, such as health homes, interdisciplinary care teams, the broadening of the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services option, co-location of physical health and behavioral services, and collaborative care. Provisions of the act offer extraordinary opportunities, for instance, to insure many more people, reimburse previously unreimbursed services, integrate care using new information technology tools and treatment teams, confront complex chronic comorbidities, and adopt underused evidence-based interventions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and its Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation should work intensively with the states to implement these new programs and other arrangements and begin to fulfill the many unmet promises of community mental health care.

Sociology of health care reform: building on research and analysis to improve health care.

Health reform efforts in the United States have focused on resolving some of the fundamental irrationalities of the system whereby costs and services utilization are often not linked to improved patient outcomes. Sociologists have contributed to these efforts by documenting the extent of problems and by confronting central questions around issues of accountability, reimbursement, and rationing that must be addressed in order to achieve meaningful reform that controls costs, expands access, and improves quality. Major reform rarely occurs without "paying off" powerful interests, a particularly difficult challenge in the context of a large and growing deficit. Central to achieving increased coverage and access, high quality, and cost control is change in reimbursement arrangements, increased accountability for both costs and outcomes, and criteria for rationing based on the evidence and accepted as legitimate by all stakeholders. Consensus about health reform requires trust. The traditional trust patients have in physicians provides an important base on which to build.

Toward a 21st-century health care system: recommendations for health care reform.

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.

Rethinking medical professionalism: the role of information technology and practice innovations.

CONTEXT: Physician leaders and the public have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of medical professionalism. Changes in the organization, economics, and technology of medical care have made it difficult to maintain competence, meet patients' expectations, escape serious conflicts of interest, and distribute finite resources fairly. Information technology (IT), electronic health records (EHRs), improved models of disease management, and new ways of relating to and sharing responsibility for patients' care can contribute to both professionalism and quality of care. METHODS: The potential of IT, EHRs, and other practice facilitators for professionalism is assessed through diverse but relevant literatures, examination of relevant websites, and experience in working with medical leaders on renewing professionalism. FINDINGS: IT and EHRs are the basis of needed efforts to reinforce medical competence, improve relationships with patients, implement disease management programs, and, by increasing transparency and accountability, help reduce some conflicts of interest. Barriers include the misalignment of goals with payment incentives and time pressures in meeting patients' expectations and practice demands. Implementing IT and EHRs in small, dispersed medical practices is particularly challenging because of short-term financial costs, disruptions in practice caused by learning and adaptation, and the lack of confidence in needed support services. Large organized systems like the VA, Kaiser Permanente, and general practice in the United Kingdom have successfully overcome such challenges. CONCLUSIONS: IT and the other tools examined in this article are important adjuncts to professional capacities and aspirations. They have potential to help reverse the decline of primary care and make physicians' practices more effective and rewarding. The cooperation, collaboration, and shared responsibility of government, insurers, medical organizations, and physicians, as well as financial and technical support, are needed to implement these tools in the United States' dispersed and fragmented medical care system.

Mental health services then and now.

Over the past twenty-five years, psychiatric services have shifted from hospital to community. Managed care reinforces this trend. Mental illness is better understood and less stigmatized, and services are more commonly used. But many in need do not receive care consistent with evidence-based standards, or at all. Challenges are greatest for people with serious and persistent mental illnesses who depend on generic health and welfare programs and integrated services. Evidence-based rehabilitative care is often unavailable. Failures in community care lead to arrest; jail diversion and treatment are required. Despite progress, implementing an effective, patient-centered care system remains a formidable challenge.

Vulnerable people, groups, and populations: societal view.

Vulnerability, the susceptibility to harm, results from an interaction between the resources available to individuals and communities and the life challenges they face. Vulnerability results from developmental problems, personal incapacities, disadvantaged social status, inadequacy of interpersonal networks and supports, degraded neighborhoods and environments, and the complex interactions of these factors over the life course. The priority given to varying vulnerabilities, or their neglect, reflects social values. Vulnerability may arise from individual, community, or larger population challenges and requires different types of policy interventions--from social and economic development of neighborhoods and communities, and educational and income policies, to individual medical interventions.

Population health: challenges for science and society.

The emphasis on risk factor intervention at the individual level has predominated in efforts to reduce mortality and promote health. Interest in social and other nonmedical interventions, particularly socioeconomic status (SES) influences, has increased in recent years. This article focuses on the interaction of social structure and socioeconomic status with other influences in complex pathways to affect health, and their contribution to health disparities. It examines both social class as an explanation of health differences and competing hypotheses concerning prenatal and early nutrition and cognitive capacity. Although education is associated with income, wealth, occupation, and other SES indicators and may not be the most important SES determinant, it influences a variety of pathways to health outcomes and offers strategic leverage for intervention because of social and political consensus on its value beyond health.

Barriers to help-seeking, detection, and adequate treatment for anxiety and mood disorders: implications for health care policy.

Recently, the focus of health policies and initiatives has been directed toward mental health. More precisely, depressive and anxiety disorders have received particular attention because of their disabling outcomes and prevalence among most populations. Despite this increased interest, numerous issues regarding patients' willingness to seek treatment and the adequate recognition and treatment of these disorders by clinicians remain to be addressed. This article considers the factors that influence patients and physicians in their reticence to acknowledge and adequately treat depression and anxiety disorders. It also reviews the impact of society and the media, together with other factors relating to health care organization and administration that affect the treatment of depression and anxiety. In view of the multifaceted challenge involved, efforts to achieve a consensus in determining treatment for those with depressive and anxiety disorders are essential. A consensus will require easy, measurable, and reliable disability indicators; evidence that treatment of patients with varying levels of need is cost effective; and that persons who most need and would benefit from care can be reliably identified among the highly prevalent population of persons with more transient symptoms. Governments and other policymakers should be encouraged to provide appropriate coverage for access to primary and secondary care, the treatments required, and sufficient resources so that care is available when necessary. An important aspect of the challenge is to incorporate these efforts within the realistic constraints of primary care.

Consensus statement on the benefit to the community of ESEMeD (European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders) survey data on depression and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the importance of the data generated by the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD), which found that prevalence and burden of mood and anxiety disorders were high and that care of individuals with mental disorders was suboptimal. Thus, ESEMeD data, based on 21,425 noninstitutionalized adults from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain who underwent computer-assisted personal interviews, confirmed previous findings from epidemiologic studies performed in other locations. In addition, how this large and unique dataset may be utilized for maximum benefit to patients is outlined. PARTICIPANTS: The co-chairmen David J. Nutt, M.D., Ph.D., and Ronald C. Kessler, Ph.D., invited 6 faculty members to participate: Jordi Alonso, M.D., Ph.D.; Alastair Benbow, M.B., M.R.C.P.I.; Yves Lecrubier, M.D.; Jean-Pierre Lépine, M.D.; David Mechanic, Ph.D.; and André Tylee, M.D. EVIDENCE: The consensus statement is based on the 6 review articles published in this supplement, which include ESEMeD data and data from pertinent scientific literature. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The faculty met over a 2-day period: day 1 included discussion of the review articles, during which the chairmen identified issues for further debate; day 2 included discussion of key issues to arrive at a consensus view. The consensus view was drafted by the chairmen and approved by all attendees. CONCLUSIONS: ESEMeD provides a very important opportunity to improve knowledge on the epidemiology of mood and anxiety disorders. Despite a decade of educational initiatives, the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders remain suboptimal. Lack of awareness and stigma surrounding mental illness, variations in physicians' ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric conditions, and physician time pressures all contribute to the problem. Future education initiatives should include patients, primary care physicians, employers, and health policy influencers. Patients with mood and anxiety disorders may benefit from targeted antidepressant treatment, which should optimize the chance of patients' receiving appropriate therapy. In addition, depending on the patients' circumstances, psychotherapy, counseling, or social support may also be initiated.

Facilitators and barriers to employment among individuals with psychiatric disabilities: a job coach perspective.

Unemployment rates remain high among individuals with psychiatric disabilities despite growing evidence that supported employment programs (SEPs) can help such individuals to obtain and retain competitive employment. A complete understanding of factors that may facilitate or hinder the success of such supported employment efforts is urgently needed to increase the efficacy of SEPs and move more individuals with psychiatric disabilities from welfare to work. This exploratory study provides insight into potential facilitators and barriers to employment among individuals with psychiatric disabilities from the perspective of job coaches. Twenty-eight job coaches from 14 SEPs in a Northeastern state reported on their experience with four recent clients, two who were successful in obtaining employment and two who failed, through a semi-structured mail survey. Findings suggest that job coaches use similar strategies to assist clients, but in each case try to tailor specific strategies to client's needs and characteristics. Factors that influence successful job placement and research and policy implications are discussed.

Policy challenges in addressing racial disparities and improving population health.

Socioeconomic status fundamentally affects most health and disease outcomes, but black Americans are doubly disadvantaged by low status, discrimination, and residential segregation. Improving health and removing disparities are essential goals, but some efforts that improve the health of blacks in important ways also increase black-white disparity ratios. People with more information, influence, resources, and social networks may be better able to take advantage of new technologies and scientific developments, initially increasing disparities. Better health and reduced mortality should be the key policy criteria, but these criteria should be linked with consideration of careful targeting to level the playing field and close disparities.

Treatment of people with mental illness: a decade-long perspective.

Many believe that managed behavioral health care has been associated with reduced access to care. Data from a variety of sources suggest that access has increased, although patterns of care and locations of treatment have changed. Data from Healthcare for Communities, a nationally representative community survey, show that access to care has not decreased for people with the most serious conditions who were more likely to receive specialty mental health care after 2000. Further, once people enter specialty care, the number of visits appears unrelated to need. The data highlight the urgent need for a greater focus on the quality of care and patient outcomes.