Virtual Behavioral Health for Army Soldiers: Soldier Perspectives and Patterns of Treatment.

Delivery of high-quality behavioral health (BH) care is essential to supporting the readiness of the U.S. armed forces and their families. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a dramatic expansion of virtual behavioral health (VBH) care: remote patient access to BH care using technology such as a computer or cellular phone. The U.S. Army asked RAND Arroyo Center to examine the use of VBH to inform recommendations on the role of VBH care in the future of BH care in the Military Health System. The authors analyzed administrative data on VBH and in-person BH care from prior to the pandemic through March 2022 and surveyed soldiers who received BH care to assess their perceptions of VBH care. Administrative data analyses showed that direct care providers were less likely to deliver VBH care than private-sector providers and relied heavily on audio rather than video VBH. In addition, soldiers who received VBH care typically received a mix of VBH and in-person visits. Survey respondents who used VBH care had similar perceptions of the quality of their care and more-positive views of VBH than respondents who did not use VBH care. Few respondents had declined VBH care in favor of in-person care. Using these findings, the authors make recommendations on the role of VBH care in overall BH delivered by the military.

Optimizing the Role of Military Behavioral Health Technicians: A Survey of Behavioral Health Technicians and Mental Health Providers.

Behavioral health technicians (BHTs), who are enlisted service members with the technical training to work alongside licensed mental health providers (MHPs), are an important part of the Military Health System (MHS) workforce. However, each service branch has different training requirements for BHTs, making it difficult to identify common qualifications across the BHT workforce and ensure that the MHS is making the best use of their skills. Building on prior RAND research that found inconsistencies in how BHTs were integrated across the force, researchers conducted what might be the largest survey to date of BHTs and MHPs. The results provide insights on BHTs' practice patterns, training and supervisory needs, and job satisfaction, as well as barriers to better integrating BHTs into clinical practice and steps that the MHS could take to optimize BHTs' contributions to the health and readiness of the force. Posing parallel sets of questions to BHTs and MHPs allowed comparisons of these groups' perspectives on these topics. The results revealed differences in views by service branch, time in practice, deployment history, and other characteristics. The researchers drew on these findings and recommendations to identify opportunities to optimize the BHT role.

Adjusting for Patient Characteristics to Compare Quality of Care Provided by Serious Illness Programs.

Background: To compare serious illness programs (SIPs) using recently developed patient experience measures, adjustment must be made for patient characteristics not under control of the programs. Objectives: To develop a case-mix adjustment model to enable fair comparison of patient experience between SIPs by investigating the roles of patient characteristics, proxy response, and mode of survey administration (mail-only vs. mail with telephone follow-up) in survey responses. Methods: Using survey data from 2263 patients from 32 home-based SIPs across the United States, we fit regression models to assess the association between patient-level variables and scores for seven quality measures (Communication, Care Coordination, Help for Symptoms, Planning for Care, Support for Family and Friends, and two global assessments of care). Characteristics that are not consequences of the care the program delivered were considered as adjustors. Results: Final recommended case-mix adjustors are age, education, primary diagnosis, self-reported functional status, self-rated physical health, self-rated mental health, proxy respondent use, and response percentile (a measure of how soon a person responded compared with others in the same program and mode). Age, primary diagnosis, self-rated mental health, and proxy respondent use had the most impact on program-level scores. We also recommend adjusting for mode of survey administration. We find that up to 12 percent of pairs of programs would have their rankings reversed by adjustment. Conclusions: To ensure fair comparison of programs, scores should be case-mix adjusted for variables that influence patients' reports about care quality, but are not under the control of the program administering care.

Reliable and Valid Survey-Based Measures to Assess Quality of Care in Home-Based Serious Illness Programs.

Background: There is a pressing need for standardized measures to assess the quality of home-based serious illness care. Currently, there are no validated quality measures that are specific to home-based serious illness programs (SIPs) and the unique needs of their patients. Objective: To develop and evaluate standardized survey-based measures of serious illness care experiences for assessing and comparing quality of home-based serious illness care programs. Methods: From October 2019 through January 2020, we administered a survey to patients who received care from 32 home-based SIPs across the United States. Using the 2263 survey responses, we assessed item performance and constructed composite measures via factor analysis, evaluated item-scale correlations, estimated reliability, and examined validity by regressing overall ratings and willingness to recommend care on each composite. Results: The overall survey response rate was 36%. Confirmatory factor analyses supported five composite quality measures: Communication, Care Coordination, Help for Symptoms, Planning for Care, and Support for Family and Friends. Cronbach's alpha estimates for the composite measures ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, indicating adequate internal consistency in assessing their underlying constructs. Interprogram reliability ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 at 100 completed surveys per measure, meeting common standards for distinguishing between programs' performance. Together, the composites explained 45% of the variance in patients' overall care ratings. Communication, Care Coordination, and Planning for Care were the strongest predictors of overall ratings. Conclusion: Our analyses provide evidence of the feasibility, reliability, and validity of proposed survey-based measures to assess the quality of home-based serious illness care from the perspective of patients and their families.

Access to Medical Treatment for Injured Workers in California: Year 3 Annual Report.

The California workers' compensation program provides medical care and indemnity benefits to workers who suffer on-the-job injuries or illnesses. California law mandates an annual assessment of whether injured workers in the state have adequate access to quality care, and the RAND Corporation was asked to help answer that question over three years. This article describes access to medical care among injured workers in California using medical billing data from Version 2.0 of the Workers' Compensation Information System. Overall, the estimates using such data suggest stability or slight improvements in most measures analyzed when compared with the Year 2 estimates.