Something Republicans and Democrats can agree on: Support for integrated behavioral health.

Barriers to the spread of integrated behavioral health and primary care continue to limit progress on meeting critical needs for mental health and substance use disorder services. The recent Bipartisan Policy Center Report (2021) provides key policy recommendations to address these barriers and accelerate the adoption of integrated behavioral health in Medicaid and Medicare. Having bipartisan support presents a policy window of opportunity to advance integrated behavioral health through advocacy for implementation of these recommendations, parallel changes to occur in employer-based and other commercial insurance plans, and development of operationalized standards for core service delivery elements. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

What to do with that policy paper (and why).

In this editorial we describe the clinician/administrator/researcher experience of frustration or confusion around how to effectively advocate for policy change in health care. By the end of the piece the reader will (a) understand the importance of health professionals' advocacy; (b) know how to use policy papers to advocate; and (c) understand how policy organizations use policy papers. We also discuss the National Academies of Medicine, Science, & Engineering High Quality Primary Care report as an example of a policy paper, introduce our new coeditors for the Policy and Management Department, and describe the Collaborative Family Health Care Association's new policy principles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Assessing cross-sector stakeholder readiness to advance and sustain statewide behavioral integration beyond a State Innovation Model (SIM) initiative.

Integrated care is recognized as a promising approach to comprehensive health care and reductions in health care costs. However, the integration of behavioral health and primary care is complex and often difficult to implement. Successful and sustainable integration efforts require coordination and alignment both within health care organizations and across multiple sectors. Furthermore, implementation progress and outcomes are shaped by the readiness of stakeholders to work together toward integrated care. In the context of a Colorado State Innovation Model (SIM) effort, we examined stakeholder readiness to advance and sustain partnerships for behavioral health integration beyond the period of grant funding. Partnership readiness was assessed using the Readiness for Cross-sector Partnerships Questionnaire (RCP) in spring 2019. Participants from 67 organizations represented seven sectors: government, health care, academic, practice transformation, advocacy, payer, and other. RCP analyses indicated a moderate level of readiness among Colorado stakeholders for partnering to continue the work of behavioral health integration initiated by SIM. Stakeholders indicated their highest readiness levels for general capacity and lowest for innovation-specific capacity. Five thematic categories emerged from the open-ended questions pertaining to partnership experiences: (a) collaboration and relationships, (b) capacity and leadership, (c) measurement and outcomes, (d) financing integrated care, and (e) sustainability of the cross-sector partnership. Partnering across sectors to advance integrated behavioral health and create more equitable access to services is inherently complex and nonlinear in nature. The RCP usefully identifies opportunities to strengthen the sustainability of integrated care efforts.

Heeding the Call for Urgent Primary Care Payment Reform: What Do We Know about How to Get Started?

The COVID-19 pandemic has added further urgency to the need for primary care payment reform. Fee-for-service payments limit the flexibility of practices to respond to crises and leave practices without sufficient revenues when visit volumes decrease. Historic fee-for-service payments have been inadequate, and prior implementations of prospective payments have encountered challenges; there is a need to bring forward the best available evidence on how to design prospective payments for payers and policymakers. Evidence suggests setting primary care investment at 10% to 12% of the total cost of care, approximately translating to an average $85 per member per month, with significant variation based on age and adjustment for medical and social measures of risk. Enhanced investment in primary care should be aligned across payers and support practice transformation to advanced models of care.

Colorado's continuing journey to integrated care: Progress!

This commentary discusses the journey to integrated behavioral health and primary care in the state of Colorado. The authors discuss integrated care, and the lessons learned by early adopters can help those just getting started. They argue integration is possible in practice settings of all types despite the barriers that exist - but these barriers must continue to be broken down for further scaling and long-term sustainability. While adequate payment, workforce, and data-sharing infrastructure and policy are necessary for scaling and sustainability, they are not sufficient: practice transformation support is crucial for a change this fundamental. Finally, scaling and sustaining integration takes a village; diverse stakeholders across sectors, including payers, clinicians, patients, public health, philanthropy, and policymakers, all have a role to play. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrating behavioral health and primary care: a qualitative analysis of financial barriers and solutions.

The objective of this study was to characterize financial barriers and solutions for the integration of behavioral health in primary care at the practice and system levels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted March-August of 2015 with 77 key informants. Initially a broad thematic coding approach was used, and data coded as "financing" was further analyzed in ATLAS.ti using an inductive thematic approach by three coders. Themes identified included the following: fragmentation of payment and inadequate investment limit movement toward integration; the evidence base for integration is not well known and requires appropriately structured further study; fee-for-service limits the movement to integration-an alternative payment system is needed; there are financial considerations beyond specific models of payment, including incentivizing innovation, prevention, and practice transformation support; stakeholders need to be engaged and aligned to support this process. There was consensus that the current fragmented, fee-for-service system with inadequate baseline reimbursement significantly hinders progression toward integrated behavioral health and primary care. Funding is needed both to support integrated care and to facilitate the transition to a new model. Multiple suggestions were offered regarding interim solutions to move toward an integrated model and ultimately global payment. Payment, in terms of both adequate amount and model, is a significant obstacle to integrating behavioral health and primary care. Future policy efforts must focus on ensuring stakeholder collaboration, multi-payer alignment, increasing investment in behavioral health and primary care, and moving away from fee-for-service toward a global and value-based payment model.

How Evolving United States Payment Models Influence Primary Care and Its Impact on the Quadruple Aim.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research has demonstrated the associations between a strong primary care foundation with improved Quadruple Aim outcomes. The prevailing fee-for-service payment system in the United States reinforces the volume of services over value-based care, thereby devaluing primary care, and obstructing the health care system from attaining the Quadruple Aim. By supporting a shift from volume-based to value-based payment models, the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act may help fortify the role of primary care. This narrative review proposes a taxonomy of the major health care payment models, reviewing their ability to uphold the functions of primary care, and their impacts across the Quadruple Aim. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE search and expert opinion from members of the Family Medicine for America's Health payment and research tactic teams were used. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance to the topic, and expert opinion further narrowed the literature for inclusion to timely and relevant articles. FINDINGS: No payment model demonstrates consistent benefits across the Quadruple Aim across a limited evidence base. Several cross-cutting lessons from available payment models several recommendations for primary care payment models, including the following: implementing per member per month-based models, validating risk-adjustment tools, increasing investments in integrated behavioral health and social services, and connecting payments to patient-oriented and primary care-oriented metrics. Along with ongoing research in emerging payment models, data systems integrated across health care and social services settings using metrics that can capture the ideal functions of primary care will be critical to the development of future payment models that most optimally enhance the role of primary care in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Although the ideal payment model for primary care remains to be determined, lessons learned from existing payment models can help guide the shift from volume-based to value-based care. To most effectively pay for primary care, future payment models should invest in a primary care infrastructure, one that supports team-based, community-oriented care, and measures the delivery of the functions of primary care.

From Our Practices to Yours: Key Messages for the Journey to Integrated Behavioral Health.

BACKGROUND: The historic, cultural separation of primary care and behavioral health has caused the spread of integrated care to lag behind other practice transformation efforts. The Advancing Care Together study was a 3-year evaluation of how practices implemented integrated care in their local contexts; at its culmination, practice leaders ("innovators") identified lessons learned to pass on to others. METHODS: Individual feedback from innovators, key messages created by workgroups of innovators and the study team, and a synthesis of key messages from a facilitated discussion were analyzed for themes via immersion/crystallization. RESULTS: Five key themes were captured: (1) frame integrated care as a necessary paradigm shift to patient-centered, whole-person health care; (2) initialize: define relationships and protocols up-front, understanding they will evolve; (3) build inclusive, empowered teams to provide the foundation for integration; (4) develop a change management strategy of continuous evaluation and course-correction; and (5) use targeted data collection pertinent to integrated care to drive improvement and impart accountability. CONCLUSION: Innovators integrating primary care and behavioral health discerned key messages from their practical experience that they felt were worth sharing with others. Their messages present insight into the challenges unique to integrating care beyond other practice transformation efforts.