MEDREV (pharmacy-health psychology intervention in people living with dementia with behaviour that challenges): the feasibility of measuring clinical outcomes and costs of the intervention.

BACKGROUND: People living with dementia in care homes frequently exhibit "behaviour that challenges". Anti-psychotics are used to treat such behaviour, but are associated with significant morbidity. This study researched the feasibility of conducting a trial of a full clinical medication review for care home residents with behaviour that challenges, combined with staff training. This paper focusses on the feasibility of measuring clinical outcomes and intervention costs. METHODS: People living with moderate to severe dementia, receiving psychotropics for behaviour that challenges, in care homes were recruited for a medication review by a specialist pharmacist. Care home and primary care staff received training on the management of challenging behaviour. Data were collected at 8 weeks, and 3 and 6 months. Measures were Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH), cognition (sMMSE), quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L/DEMQoL) and costs (Client Services Receipt Inventory). Response rates, for clinical, quality of life and health economic measures, including the levels of resource-use associated with the medication review and other non-intervention costs were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 34 participants recruited received a medication review. It was feasible to measure the effects of the complex intervention on the management of behaviour that challenges with the NPI-NH. There was valid NPI-NH data at each time point (response rate = 100%). The sMMSE response rate was 18.2%. Levels of resource-use associated with the medication review were estimated for all 29 participants who received a medication review. Good response levels were achieved for other non-intervention costs (100% completion rate), and the EQ-5D-5 L and DEMQoL (≥88% at each of the time points where data was collected). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention for behaviour that challenges using the NPI-NH and quality of life measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58330068. Retrospectively registered, 15 October 2017.

Standards for economic analyses of interventions for the field of health psychology and behavioral medicine.

Behavioral interventions can be offered within a wide range of contexts, including public health, medicine, surgery, physical rehabilitation, nutrition, and other health services. These differing services compete for the same resources and it is difficult to compare their value. Systematic standardized methodologies for valuing outcomes are available and are being applied by economists and health services researchers, but are not widely used in our field. With support from the Society for Health Psychology, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the Office for Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) at the National Institutes of Health, two working group meetings were held to consider the use of well-established cost-effectiveness methodologies for the evaluation of behavioral and public health interventions. In this special section, we acknowledge a wide range of variability in terms of behavioral interventions typically delivered in nonclinical versus more traditional clinical settings. Three articles address (1) standardizing methods for conducting cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, (2) providing examples to illustrate progress in applying these methods to evaluate interventions delivered in whole or in part in clinical settings, and (3) providing nonclinical intervention examples selected to highlight the challenges and opportunities for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in more diverse settings. The ability of our field to communicate cost-effectiveness data to policy makers, employers, and insurers that incorporates implementation costs is central to the likelihood of our interventions being adopted by practitioners and reimbursed by payers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Impact of Designated Behavioral Health Services on Resource Utilization and Quality of Care in Patients Requiring Constant Observation in a General Hospital Setting: A Quality Improvement Project.

Constant observation (CO) is a common economic burden on general hospitals. A quality improvement (QI) project focusing on behavioral health (BH) management of this population was piloted using a novel BH protocol for the proactive assessment and management of all patients requiring CO. The impact on CO-cost and length of stay (LOS) was assessed. Data on demographics, diagnoses, psychopharmacologic treatment, complications and clinical setting were collected and analyzed for all CO-patients over a 6-month period. Cost and LOS data were compared with a similar sequential group prior to project implementation. Out of the 533 patients requiring CO during the study period, 491 underwent the protocol. This QI-project resulted in a significant reduction in the average monthly CO-cost by 33.06% and a 15% reduction in LOS without any increase in complications.

Cost savings associated with an alternative payment model for integrating behavioral health in primary care.

Financially supporting and sustaining behavioral health services integrated into primary care settings remains a major barrier to widespread implementation. Sustaining Healthcare Across Integrated Primary Care Efforts (SHAPE) was a demonstration project designed to prospectively examine the cost savings associated with utilizing an alternative payment methodology to support behavioral health services in primary care practices with integrated behavioral health services. Six primary care practices in Colorado participated in this project. Each practice had at least one on-site behavioral health clinician providing integrated behavioral health services. Three practices received non-fee-for-service payments (i.e., SHAPE payment) to support provision of behavioral health services for 18 months. Three practices did not receive the SHAPE payment and served as control practices for comparison purposes. Assignment to condition was nonrandom. Patient claims data were collected for 9 months before the start of the SHAPE demonstration project (pre-period) and for 18 months during the SHAPE project (post-period) to evaluate cost savings. During the 18-month post-period, analysis of the practices' claims data demonstrated that practices receiving the SHAPE payment generated approximately $1.08 million in net cost savings for their public payer population (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, and Dual Eligible; N = 9,042). The cost savings were primarily achieved through reduction in downstream utilization (e.g., hospitalizations). The SHAPE demonstration project found that non-fee-for-service payments for behavioral health integrated into primary care may be associated with significant cost savings for public payers, which could have implications on future delivery and payment work in public programs (e.g., Medicaid).

Measuring Efficiency at the Interface of Behavioral and Physical Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Measures of efficiency in healthcare delivery, particularly between different parts of the healthcare system could potentially improve health resource utilization. We use a typology adapted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to characterize current measures described in the literature by stakeholder perspective (payer, provider, patient, policy-maker), type of output (reduced utilization or improved outcomes) and input (physical, financial or both). AIMS OF THE STUDY: To systematically describe measures of healthcare efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare and identify gaps in the literature base that could form the basis for further measure development. METHODS: We searched the Medline database for studies published in English in the last ten years with the terms 'efficiency', 'inefficiency', 'productivity', 'cost' or 'QALY' and 'mental' or 'behavioral' in the title or abstract. Studies on healthcare resource utilization, costs of care, or broader healthcare benefits to society, related to the provision of behavioral health care in physical health care settings or to people with physical health conditions or vice versa were included. RESULTS: 85 of 6,454 studies met inclusion criteria. These 85 studies described 126 measures of efficiency. 100 of these measured efficiency according to the perspective of the purchaser or provider, whilst 13 each considered efficiency from the perspective of society or the consumer. Most measures counted physical resources (such as numbers of therapy sessions) rather than the costs of these resources as inputs. Three times as many measures (95) considered service outputs as did quality outcomes (31). DISCUSSION: Measuring efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical care is particularly difficult due to the number of relevant stakeholders involved, ambiguity over the definition of efficiency and the complexity of providing care for people with multimorbidity. Current measures at this interface concentrate on a limited range of outcomes. LIMITATIONS: We only searched one database and did not review the gray literature, nor solicit a call for relevant but unpublished work. We did not assess the methodological quality of the studies identified. IMPLICATION FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Most measures of healthcare efficiency are currently viewed from the perspective of payers and providers, with very few studies addressing the benefits of healthcare to society or the individual interest of the consumer. One way this imbalance could be addressed is through much stronger involvement of consumers in measurement-development, for example, by an expansion in patient-reported outcome measures in assessing quality of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Integrating behavioral and physical care is a major area of implementation as health systems in high income countries move from volume to value based care delivery. Measuring efficiency at this interface has the potential to incentivize and also evaluate integration efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: There has been only one previous systematic review of efficiency measurement and none at the interface of behavioral and physical care. We identify gaps in the evidence base for efficiency measurement which could inform further research and measurement development.

Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) position statement: Increasing funding for the NIH OBSSR to promote timely and effective behavioral medicine research.

Chronic diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA. Most chronic diseases have behavioral risk factors that can improve health and quality of life and reduce financial burdens. Improved methods of measurement and behavioral interventions are rapidly progressing. These changes require sufficient funding to maximize effectiveness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) helps to coordinate and support behavioral and social science research initiatives that are designed to promote public health and reduce chronic disease burden throughout the NIH. OBSSR's budget has not increased for the past 5 years. The goals of this policy paper are to promote awareness of the OBSSR Strategic Plan FY 2017-2021's three priority areas and encourage increased and sustained funding for OBSSR to support these priority areas. Priority area 1 involves improving the quality and integration of behavioral and social science research, which can increase speed of funding natural experiments. Priority area 2 encourages the use and improvement of new technology to create methods and infrastructures to analyze big behavioral data, ensuring that health behavior interventions keep pace with the substantial data generated from new technology. Priority area 3 supports translational research between scientific data and real-world practice, ensuring the delivery of research findings to patients and populations. Adequate and sustained resources are needed to address these priority areas. Without such resources, disparities in health outcomes and the costs of treating preventable chronic diseases will continue to grow. Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) recommends and supports an increase for OBSSR's budget.

Financing the Primary Care Behavioral Health Model.

The PCBH model of integrated care blends behavioral health professionals into the primary care team, thereby enhancing the scope of primary care and expanding the range of services provided to the patient. Despite promising evidence in support of the model and a growing number of advocates and practitioners of PCBH integration, current reimbursement policies are not always favorable. As the nation's healthcare system transitions to value-based payment models, new financing strategies are emerging which will further support the viability of PCBH integration. This article provides an overview of the infrastructure necessary to support PCBH practice; reviews the current PCBH funding landscape; discusses how emerging trends in healthcare financing are impacting the model; and provides a vision for the viability of the PCBH model within the value-based financing of our healthcare system in the future.

Purchased Behavioral Health Care Received by Military Health System Beneficiaries in Civilian Medical Facilities, 2000-2014.

Introduction: Behavioral health conditions are a significant concern for the U.S. military and the Military Health System (MHS) because of decreased military readiness and increased health care utilization. Although MHS beneficiaries receive direct care in military treatment facilities, a disproportionate majority of behavioral health treatment is purchased care received in civilian facilities. Yet, limited evidence exists about purchased behavioral health care received by MHS beneficiaries. This longitudinal study (1) estimated the prevalence of purchased behavioral health care and (2) identified patient and visit characteristics predicting receipt of purchased behavioral health care in acute care facilities from 2000 to 2014. Materials and Methods: Medical claims with Major Diagnostic Code 19 (mental disorders/diseases) or 20 (alcohol/drug disorders) as primary diagnoses and TRICARE as the primary/secondary payer were analyzed for MHS beneficiaries (n = 17,943) receiving behavioral health care in civilian acute care facilities from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014. The primary dependent variable, receipt of purchased behavioral health care, was modeled for select mental health and substance use disorders from 2000 to 2014 using generalized estimating equations. Patient characteristics included time, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Visit types included inpatient hospitalization and emergency department (ED). Time was measured in days and visits were assumed to be correlated over time. Behavioral health care was described by both frequency of patients and visit type. The University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board approved this study. Results: From 2000 to 2014, purchased care visits increased significantly for post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment, anxiety, mood, bipolar, tobacco use, opioid/combination opioid dependence, nondependent cocaine abuse, psychosocial problems, and suicidal ideation among MHS beneficiaries. The majority of care was received for mental health disorders (78.8%) and care was most often received in EDs (56%). Most commonly treated diagnoses included mood, tobacco use, and alcohol use disorders. ED visits were associated with being treated for anxiety (excluding post-traumatic stress disorder; Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 9.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.26, 10.12]), alcohol use disorders (AOR = 1.67 [95% CI: 1.53, 1.83]), tobacco use (AOR = 1.16 [95% CI: 1.06, 1.26]), nondependent cocaine abuse (AOR = 5.47 [95% CI: 3.28, 9.12]), nondependent mixed/unspecified drug abuse (AOR = 7.30 [95% CI: 5.11, 10.44]), and psychosis (AOR = 1.38 [95% CI: 1.20, 1.58]). Compared with adults age 60 yr and older, adolescents (ages 12-17 yr), and adults under age 60 yr were more likely to be treated for suicidal ideation, adjustment, mood, bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, nondependent cocaine, and mixed/unspecified drug abuse. Adults under age 60 yr also had increased odds of being treated for tobacco use disorders, alcohol use disorders, and opioid/combination opioid dependence compared with adults age 60 yr and older. Conclusions: Over the past 15 yr, purchased behavioral health care received by MHS beneficiaries in acute care facilities increased significantly. MHS beneficiaries received the majority of purchased behavioral health care for mental health disorders and were treated most often in the ED. Receiving behavioral health care in civilian EDs raises questions about access to outpatient behavioral health care and patient-centered care coordination between civilian and military facilities. Given the influx of new Veterans Health Administration users from the MHS, findings have implications for military, veteran, and civilian facilities providing behavioral health care to military and veteran populations.

County workforce, reimbursement, and organizational factors associated with behavioral health capacity in health centers.

This study describes on-site behavioral health treatment capacity in health centers in 2007 and examines whether capacity was associated with health center characteristics, county-level behavioral health workforce, and same-day billing restrictions. Cross-sectional data from the 2007 Area Resource File and Uniform Data System were linked with data on Medicaid same-day billing restrictions. Mental health treatment capacity was common; almost four in five health centers provided on-site mental health services. Additional services such as crisis counseling (20 %), treatment from a psychiatrist (29 %), and substance abuse treatment were offered by fewer health centers (51 % provide on-site services and only 20 % employ substance abuse specialists). In multivariate analysis, larger health centers, health centers located in counties with a larger behavioral health workforce per capita, and those located in the West and Northeast were more likely to have behavioral health capacity. Same-day billing restrictions were associated with lower odds of substance use treatment capacity and providing 24 hr crisis counseling services.