Mental Health Impairment and Outpatient Mental Health Care of US Children and Adolescents.

Importance: Despite a federal declaration of a national child and adolescent mental health crisis in 2021, little is known about recent national trends in mental health impairment and outpatient mental health treatment of US children and adolescents. Objective: To characterize trends in mental health impairment and outpatient mental health care among US children and adolescents from 2019 to 2021 across demographic groups and levels of impairment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study with a repeated cross-sectional analysis of mental health impairment and outpatient mental health care use among youth (ages 6-17 years) within the 2019 and 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, nationally representative surveys of US households. Race and ethnicity were parent reported separately from 15 racial categories and 8 ethnic categories that were aggregated into Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; Other, non-Hispanic; and White, non-Hispanic. Exposure: Time period from 2019 to 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age- and sex-adjusted differences between 2019 and 2021 in mental health impairment measured with the Columbia Impairment Scale (a score ≥16 indicates severe; 1-15, less severe; and 0, no impairment) and age-, sex-, and Columbia Impairment Scale strata-adjusted differences in the use of any outpatient mental health care in 2019 and 2021. Results: The analysis involved 8331 participants, including 4031 girls and 4300 boys; among them, 1248 were Black and 3385 were White. The overall mean (SE) age was 11.6 (3.4) years. The percentage of children and adolescents with severe mental health impairment was 9.7% in 2019 and 9.4% in 2021 (adjusted difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.2%). Between 2019 and 2021, there was also no significant difference in the percentage of children and adolescents with less severe impairment and no impairment. The overall annual percentages of children with any outpatient mental health care showed little change: 11.9% in 2019 and 13.0% in 2021 (adjusted difference, 1.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to 3.0%); however, this masked widening differences by race. Outpatient mental health care decreased for Black youth from 9.2% in 2019 to 4.0% in 2021 (adjusted difference, -4.3%; 95% CI, -7.3% to -1.4%) and increased for White youth from 15.1% to 18.4% (adjusted difference, 3.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 6.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2019 and 2021, there was little change in the overall percentage of US children and adolescents with severe mental health impairment. During this period, however, there was a significant increase in the gap separating outpatient mental health care of Black and White youth.

Trends in Psychological Distress and Outpatient Mental Health Care of Adults During the COVID-19 Era.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the physical disease burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, concern exists over its adverse mental health effects. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends in psychological distress and outpatient mental health care among U.S. adults from 2018 to 2021 and to describe patterns of in-person, telephone, and video outpatient mental health care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey of noninstitutionalized adults. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults included in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component, 2018 to 2021 (n = 86 658). MEASUREMENTS: Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler-6 scale (range of 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe distress), with a score of 13 or higher defined as serious psychological distress, 1 to 12 as less serious distress, and 0 as no distress. Outpatient mental health care use was measured via computer-assisted personal interviews. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, the rate of serious psychological distress among adults increased from 3.5% to 4.2%. Although the rate of outpatient mental health care increased from 11.2% to 12.4% overall, the rate decreased from 46.5% to 40.4% among adults with serious psychological distress. When age, sex, and distress were controlled for, a significant increase in outpatient mental health care was observed for young adults (aged 18 to 44 years) but not middle-aged (aged 45 to 64 years) and older (aged >65 years) adults and for employed adults but not unemployed adults. In 2021, 33.4% of mental health outpatients received at least 1 video visit, including a disproportionate percentage of young, college-educated, higher-income, employed, and urban adults. LIMITATION: Information about outpatient mental health service modality (in-person, video, telephone) was first fully available in the 2021 survey. CONCLUSION: These trends and patterns underscore the persistent challenges of connecting older adults, unemployed persons, and seriously distressed adults to outpatient mental health care and the difficulties faced by older, less educated, lower-income, unemployed, and rural patients in accessing outpatient mental health care via video. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Nationally Representative Summary of 2020 Changes in the Use of Health Care in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic produced an unprecedented shock to the U.S. health care system. Prior literature documenting 2020 changes has been limited to certain types of care or subsets of patients. We use the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to summarize changes in all types of health care from 2018 through 2020. Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions each fell about 35% in April 2020. Dental visits fell over 80%. Ophthalmology visits declined 71% and mammograms 82%. Psychiatric visits rose slightly (1.6%). By the end of 2020, specialist physician visits recovered, though primary care and dental visits remained 12% lower than 2019.

The consequences of firm scope and scale on patient access to healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to quantify changes in the market structure of primary care physicians and examine its relationship with access to care. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We created measures of market structure from a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims and examined access to care using nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Our study spanned from 2008 to 2019. STUDY DESIGN: We used a linear probability model to estimate the relationship between access to care and two measures of market structure: concentration, measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and vertical integration, measured by the market share of multispecialty firms. Our model controlled for year and ZIP code fixed effects, respondents' demographics and health status, and other measures of market structure. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All adult respondents in the MEPS were included. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The percentage of people living in concentrated ZIP codes (HHI above 1500) increased from 37% in 2008 to 53% in 2019. During the same period, the median market share of multispecialty firms rose from 30% to 48%. Respondents in highly concentrated ZIP codes (HHI over 2500) were 5.9 percentage points (95% CI: -1.4 to -10.4) less likely to report having access to immediate care than respondents in unconcentrated ZIP codes. The association was largest among Medicaid beneficiaries, a 17.3 percentage point reduction (95% CI: -5.1 to -29.4). When we applied a model that was robust to biases from treatments with staggered timing, the estimated association remained negative but was not statistically significant. We found no association between HHI and indicators for having a usual source of care and annual checkups. The multispecialty market share was negatively associated with checkups, but not other measures of access. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in concentration may reduce some types of access to healthcare. These effects appear most pronounced among Medicaid beneficiaries.

COVID-19, Mental Health, and Mental Health Treatment among Adults.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been widely reported to have increased symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. It may also have significantly disrupted continuity of treatment for existing patients and made access for those newly seeking care more difficult at a time when treatment needs are higher. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study seeks to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health status and mental health treatment among adults residing in the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population. METHODS: The data are drawn from the 2019-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative household survey of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population conducted annually since 1996 and used extensively to study mental health treatment in the U.S. I examine unadjusted and regression-adjusted differences between 2019 and 2020 in perceived mental health status (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor) and in the K6 general psychological distress, the PHQ-2 depression screener, and the VR-12 mental component summary score. Similarly, using the detailed MEPS data on health care encounters and prescription drug fills, I examine differences in mental health use treatment between 2019 and 2020. I focus specifically on changes in continuity of treatment among those already in treatment in January and February, before the pandemic fully struck, as well differences in the initiation of new episodes of treatment after the pandemic began. RESULTS: All four mental health scales included in the MEPS show statistically significant declines in mental health between 2019 and 2020, particularly among younger adults. On balance, the percentage of US adults receiving mental health treatment did not change significantly. Continuity of treatment increased slightly in 2020, with 87.1% of adults in treatment January or February still receiving care in the second quarter, an increase of 2.5 percentage points (p=.025). However, there were significant declines in the initiation of new episodes of treatment, especially in the second quarter of 2020. DISCUSSION: While the continuity of treatment among adults already in care when the COVID pandemic first led to nationwide disruptions is welcome news, the decline in new episodes of mental health treatment among those not previously treated is of great concern. In a time of heightened need, the gap between need and treatment likely grew larger. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Continued long-term monitoring of the mental health needs and treatment gaps will be important, especially as many emergency measures designed to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on access to mental health treatment expire.

Primary Care Spending in the US Population.

This survey study assesses the 2019 spending estimates on checkups, well-child visits, and diagnosis or treatment provided by primary care physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants.

Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Outpatient Mental Health Care in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to compare national rates and patterns of use of outpatient mental health care among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals. METHODS: Data from the 2018-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S. households, were analyzed, focusing on use of any outpatient mental health care service by non-Hispanic White (N=29,126), non-Hispanic Black (N=7,965), and Hispanic (N=12,640) individuals ages ≥4 years (N=49,731). Among individuals using any mental health care, analyses focused on those using psychotropic medications, psychotherapy, or both and on receipt of minimally adequate mental health care. RESULTS: The annual rate per 100 persons of any outpatient mental health service use was more than twice as high for White (25.3) individuals as for Black (12.2) or Hispanic (11.4) individuals. Among those receiving outpatient mental health care, Black (69.9%) and Hispanic (68.4%) patients were significantly less likely than White (83.4%) patients to receive psychotropic medications, but Black (47.7%) and Hispanic (42.6%) patients were significantly more likely than White (33.3%) patients to receive psychotherapy. Among those treated for depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or disruptive behavior disorders, no significant differences were found in the proportions of White, Black, or Hispanic patients who received minimally adequate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Large racial-ethnic gaps in any mental health service use and smaller differences in patterns of treatment suggest that achieving racial-ethnic equity in outpatient mental health care delivery will require dedicated efforts to promote greater mental health service access for Black and Hispanic persons in need.

Using machine-learning algorithms to improve imputation in the medical expenditure panel survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of applying machine learning (ML) methods to imputation in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). DATA SOURCES: All data come from the 2016-2017 MEPS. STUDY DESIGN: Currently, expenditures for medical encounters in the MEPS are imputed with a predictive mean matching (PMM) algorithm in which a linear regression model is used to predict expenditures for events with (donors) and without (recipients) data. Recipient events and donor events are then matched based on the smallest distance between predicted expenditures, and the donor event's expenditures are used as the recipient event's imputation. We replace linear regression algorithm in the PMM framework with ML methods to predict expenditures. We examine five alternatives to linear regression: Gradient Boosting, Random Forests, Extreme Random Forests, Deep Neural Networks, and a Stacked Ensemble approach. Additionally, we introduce an alternative matching scheme, which matches on a vector of predicted expenditures by sources of payment instead of a single total expenditure prediction to generate potentially superior matches. DATA COLLECTION: Study data is derived from a large federal survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: ML algorithms perform better at both prediction and matching imputation than Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), the most common prediction algorithm used in PMM. On average, the Stacked Ensemble approach that combines all the ML algorithms performs best, improving expenditure prediction R2 by 108% (0.156 points) and final imputation R2 by 227% (0.397 points). Matching on a prediction vector also improves alignment of sources of payments between donor and recipient events. CONCLUSIONS: ML algorithms and an alternative matching scheme improve the overall quality of expenditure PMM imputation in the MEPS. These methods may have additional value in other national surveys that currently rely on PMM or similar methods for imputation.

Effects of Medicaid expansion on insurance coverage and health services use among adults with disabilities newly eligible for Medicaid.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on insurance and health services use for adults with disabilities who were newly eligible for Medicaid. DATA SOURCES: 2008-2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. STUDY DESIGN: We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) PUBSIM model to identify adults aged 26-64 years with disabilities who were newly Medicaid-eligible in expansion states or would have been eligible in non-expansion states had those states opted to expand. Outcomes included insurance coverage; access to care; receipt of primary care, outpatient specialty physician services, and preventive services; and out-of-pocket health care spending. To estimate the effects of Medicaid expansion, we used two-way fixed effects models and a triple differences framework to compare pre-post changes in each outcome in expansion and non-expansion states for adults with and without disabilities. EXTRACTION METHODS: We simulated Medicaid eligibility with the AHRQ PUBSIM model, which uses state-specific Medicaid rules and MEPS data on family relationships, state of residence, and income. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among adults with disabilities who were newly eligible for Medicaid, Medicaid expansion was associated with significant increases in full-year Medicaid coverage (35.9 percentage points [pp], p < 0.001), receipt of primary care (15.5 pp, p < 0.01), and receipt of flu shots (19.2 pp, p < 0.01), and a significant decrease in out-of-pocket spending (-$457, p < 0.01). There were larger improvements for adults with disabilities compared to those without disabilities in full-year Medicaid coverage (11.0 pp, p < 0.01) and receipt of flu shots (18.0 pp, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with improvements in full-year insurance coverage, receipt of primary and preventive care, and out-of-pocket spending for adults with disabilities who were newly eligible for Medicaid. For insurance coverage, preventive care, and some primary care measures, there were differentially larger improvements for adults with disabilities than for those without disabilities.

The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial disruptions in the field operations of all 3 major components of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is widely used to study how policy changes and major shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, affect insurance coverage, access, and preventive and other health care utilization and how these relate to population health. We describe how the MEPS program successfully responded to these challenges by reengineering field operations, including survey modes, to complete data collection and maintain data release schedules. The impact of the pandemic on response rates varied considerably across the MEPS. Investigations to date show little effect on the quality of data collected. However, lower response rates may reduce the statistical precision of some estimates. We also describe several enhancements made to the MEPS that will allow researchers to better understand the impact of the pandemic on US residents, employers, and the US health care system. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2157-2166. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306534).

LETTER: Medicaid Expansion and Mental Health Care and Coverage: Reply.

No abstract available.

Understanding the characteristics of US cancer survivors with informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Although informal caregivers such as family and friends provide people with cancer needed physical care and emotional support, little is known about which individuals have access to such caregivers. The purpose of this article is to provide a nationally representative description of the sociodemographic characteristics of cancer survivors who have or had an informal caregiver in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were taken from the Experiences With Cancer Survivorship Supplement of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey in 2011, 2016, and 2017. People were cancer survivors from diagnosis until the end of life. The study population consisted of adult survivors of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer who were treated for cancer less than 3 years before the survey and were living in the community (n = 720). The main outcome measure was whether or not the cancer survivor reported having an informal caregiver. RESULTS: In the United States, 55.2% of cancer survivors reported having an informal caregiver during or after their cancer treatment. The relationship of the caregiver to the survivor varied by sex: males were more likely to have a spouse as their caregiver, and females were more likely to have a child as their caregiver. In multivariate analyses, cancer survivors who were female, were married, were of a race/ethnicity other than White, or were in poor health were more likely to have an informal caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: Future research can examine whether those without informal caregivers might need more formal support as they undergo cancer treatment and transition into cancer survivorship.

Do Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mental Health Treatment Vary With Underlying Mental Health?

A long line of studies document substantial and persistent racial and ethnic disparities in the use of mental health services. Many recent studies follow the Institute of Medicine's definition of disparities, adjusting only for differences in health and mental health status across groups. However, controlling for mental health may mask important changes in the magnitudes of disparities at different levels of mental health need. We extend the previous literature by explicitly estimating how differences in treatment use across groups change at different levels of psychological distress. We used detailed data on sociodemographic characteristics, health insurance coverage, treatment, and the K6 psychological distress scale from the 2010 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to estimate nonlinear models of ambulatory and prescription drug mental health treatment. We find that in contrast to physical health treatment, Black-White and Hispanic-White disparities in any mental health treatment use widen with higher levels of psychological distress.

Spending on Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder in Employer-Sponsored Plans, 2011-2017.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid increases in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and increased access to intensive behavioral interventions have likely increased health care spending. This study estimated recent changes in spending among privately insured children with and without current ASD. METHODS: A repeated cross-sections analysis of 2011-2017 claims data from large-employer-sponsored health plans assessed changes in annual expenditures by service type for children ages 3-7 enrolled for ≥1 year and with two or more claims with ASD billing codes within a calendar year and for all other children. RESULTS: Mean spending per child with a current-year ASD diagnosis increased by 51% in 2017 U.S. dollars, from roughly $13,000 in 2011 to $20,000 in 2017. Among children who did not meet the current-year ASD case definition, per-child spending increased by 8%. Spending on children with ASD accounted for 41% of spending growth for children ages 3-7 during 2011-2017. Outpatient behavioral intervention-related spending per child with ASD increased by 376%, from $1,746 in 2011 to $8,317 in 2017; spending on all other services increased by 2%. Their share of behavioral intervention-related spending increased from 13.2% in 2011 to 41.7% in 2017. In 2011, 2.5% of children with current-year ASD diagnoses incurred ≥$20,000 in outpatient behavioral intervention-related spending, which increased to 14.4% in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: During 2011-2017, spending increased six times as much for privately insured children ages 3-7 with current-year ASD as for children without ASD, largely from increased behavioral intervention-related spending. One in seven children received at least $20,000 in services in 2017.

Patient-Centered Medical Homes and Pediatric Preventive Counseling.

OBJECTIVE: To measure pediatric preventive counseling at patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) compared with practices that reported undertaking some or no quality-related activities. METHODS: We analyzed 4814 children and adolescents ages 0 to 17 who visited their usual sources of care in the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Medical Organizations Survey (MEPS-MOS), a household survey combined with a survey of household members' usual sources of care. We identified PCMHs using lists from certifying or accrediting organizations. For other practices in the MEPS-MOS, 2 quality-related activities were 1) reports to physicians about their clinical quality of care, and 2) electronic health record system reminders to physicians. Regressions controlled for practice, child, and family characteristics. RESULTS: Compared with other practices, PCMHs were generally associated with greater likelihood of receiving preventive counseling. Estimates varied with the quality-related activities of the comparison practices. Counseling against smoking in the home was 10.4 to 18.7 percentage points (both P < .01) more likely for PCMHs. More associations were statistically significant for PCMHs compared with practices that undertook 1 of 2 quality-related activities examined. Among children ages 2 to 5, compared with practices undertaking both quality-related activities, those with PCMHs were more likely to receive counseling on 3 of 5 topics. Among adolescents, compared with practices undertaking both quality-related activities, those with PCMHs were more likely to receive counseling on smoking, exercise, and eating healthy. CONCLUSIONS: PCMHs were associated with substantially greater receipt of pediatric preventive counseling. Evaluations of PCMHs need to account for the quality-related activities of comparison practices.

Healthcare Costs of Pediatric Autism Spectrum Disorder in the United States, 2003-2015.

Published healthcare cost estimates for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) vary widely. One possible contributor is different methods of case ascertainment. In this study, ASD case status was determined using two sources of parent reports among 45,944 children ages 3-17 years in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) linked to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Sample Child Core questionnaire. In a two-part regression model, the incremental annual per-child cost of ASD relative to no ASD diagnosis was $3930 (2018 US dollars) using ASD case status from the NHIS Child Core and $5621 using current-year ASD case status from MEPS. Both estimates are lower than some published estimates but still represent substantial costs to the US healthcare system.

The Impact Of Medicare's Mental Health Cost-Sharing Parity On Use Of Mental Health Care Services.

Before the implementation of cost-sharing parity in Medicare, beneficiaries faced higher cost sharing for mental health services than for other medical services. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 phased in cost-sharing reductions in Medicare for outpatient mental health services in the period 2010-14. Using data for 2006-15 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and difference-in-differences analyses, we assessed whether this reduction in mental health cost sharing was associated with changes in specialty and primary care outpatient mental health visits and psychotropic medication fills. We compared people with Medicare and with private insurance before and after parity implementation. Medicare beneficiaries' use of psychotropic medication increased after the implementation of cost-sharing parity, but we did not detect a change in visits. Changes in the use of psychotropic medications were greater among people with probable serious mental illness and among Medicare beneficiaries who did not report having supplemental coverage. The increased medication use could signal improvements in mental health care access among Medicare beneficiaries, especially among the subgroups most likely to benefit from the policy change.

Medicaid Expansion and Health Insurance Coverage and Treatment Utilization among Individuals with a Mental Health Condition.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) gives states the option of expanding Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals; however, not all states have chosen to expand Medicaid. The ACA Medicaid expansions are particularly important for Americans with mental health conditions because they are substantially more likely than other Americans to have low incomes. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We examine the impact of Medicaid expansion on adults who were newly eligible for Medicaid using the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). METHODS: We use the AHRQ PUBSIM model to identify low-income adults aged 19-64 who were either newly Medicaid eligible if they lived in an expansion state or would have been eligible had their state opted to expand its Medicaid program. We estimate linear probability models within a difference-in-difference framework. An additional interaction term allows us to test for differences among those with serious psychological distress (SPD) or probable depression (PD). Outcomes of interest are insurance coverage by type, behavioral health treatment by service (specifically, any behavioral health treatment, any specialty treatment, any psychotropic medication, any ambulatory treatment outside of an emergency department, and any emergency department treatment), quantities of behavioral health treatment services, and out of pocket spending on healthcare. RESULTS: Our adjusted difference-in-differences estimates indicate Medicaid expansion increased any insurance coverage by 14.2 percentage points and increased Medicaid coverage by 21.2 percentage points. Insurance coverage for individuals with SPD/PD in expansion states increased by an additional 12.9 percentage points. Medicaid expansion did not have an effect on behavioral health treatment for the newly eligible population as a whole or for the subset with SPD/PD. DISCUSSION: Consistent with previous Medicaid expansions, we find that the ACA Medicaid expansions substantially increased insurance rates for the newly Medicaid-eligible population, regardless of mental health status but the overall effect on insurance coverage was stronger among those with SPD/PD. The lack of an effect on treatment use suggests that providing insurance coverage alone may be insufficient to guarantee that people with mental illness will receive the treatment they need. Limitations include that our difference-in-difference estimator may not account for time-varying factors that change contemporaneously with the expansions. Our estimates may also be affected by other provisions of the ACA that went into effect at the same time as the Medicaid expansions. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Although the ACA has resulted in increased coverage for low-income individuals, more outreach efforts may be needed to encourage individuals with mental illness to get the treatment they need.