Development of a Perceived Access Inventory for Community Care Mental Healthcare Services for Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Access to high-quality healthcare, including mental healthcare, is a high priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Meaningful monitoring of progress will require patient-centered measures of access. To that end, we developed the Perceived Access Inventory focused on access to VA mental health services (PAI-VA). However, VA is purchasing increasing amounts of mental health services from community mental health providers. In this paper, we describe the development of a PAI for users of VA-funded community mental healthcare that incorporates access barriers unique to community care service use and compares the barriers most frequently reported by veterans using community mental health services to those most frequently reported by veterans using VA mental health services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted mixed qualitative and quantitative interviews with 25 veterans who had experience using community mental health services through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). We used opt-out invitation letters to recruit veterans from three geographic regions. Data were collected on sociodemographics, rurality, symptom severity, and service satisfaction. Participants also completed two measures of perceived barriers to mental healthcare: the PAI-VA adapted to focus on access to mental healthcare in the community and Hoge's 13-item measure. This study was reviewed and approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Analysis of qualitative interview data identified four topics that were not addressed in the PAI-VA: veterans being billed directly by a VCP mental health provider, lack of care coordination and communication between VCP and VA mental health providers, veterans needing to travel to a VA facility to have VCP provider prescriptions filled, and delays in VCP re-authorization. To develop a PAI for community-care users, we created items corresponding to each of the four community-care-specific topics and added them to the 43-item PAI-VA. When we compared the 10 most frequently endorsed barriers to mental healthcare in this study sample to the ten most frequently endorsed by a separate sample of current VA mental healthcare users, six items were common to both groups. The four items unique to community-care were: long waits for the first mental health appointment, lack of awareness of available mental health services, short appointments, and providers' lack of knowledge of military culture. CONCLUSIONS: Four new barriers specific to veteran access to community mental healthcare were identified. These barriers, which were largely administrative rather than arising from the clinical encounter itself, were included in the PAI for community care. Study strengths include capturing access barriers from the veteran experience across three geographic regions. Weaknesses include the relatively small number of participants and data collection from an early stage of Veteran Choice Program implementation. As VA expands its coverage of community-based mental healthcare, being able to assess the success of the initiative from the perspective of program users becomes increasingly important. The 47-item PAI for community care offers a useful tool to identify barriers experienced by veterans in accessing mental healthcare in the community, overall and in specific settings, as well as to track the impact of interventions to improve access to mental healthcare.

Comparing Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation in Urban and Rural VHA Clinics: Results From the Patient Aligned Care Team Initiative.

Rural Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care clinics are smaller, have fewer staff, and serve more rural patients compared with urban VHA primary care clinics. This may lead to different challenges to implementation of the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, the Patient Aligned Care Team, in the VHAs' large integrated health system. In this cross-sectional observational study of 905 VHA primary clinics in the United States and Puerto Rico, we found overall PCMH implementation was greater in rural compared to urban primary care clinics. Urban-rural differences in PCMH implementation may largely be related to clinic organizational factors.

Population-level cost-effectiveness of implementing evidence-based practices into routine care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to apply a new methodology (population-level cost-effectiveness analysis) to determine the value of implementing an evidence-based practice in routine care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from sequentially conducted studies: a randomized controlled trial and an implementation trial of collaborative care for depression. Both trials were conducted in the same practice setting and population (primary care patients prescribed antidepressants). STUDY DESIGN: The study combined results from a randomized controlled trial and a pre-post-quasi-experimental implementation trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The randomized controlled trial collected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from survey and medication possession ratios (MPRs) from administrative data. The implementation trial collected MPRs and intervention costs from administrative data and implementation costs from survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the randomized controlled trial, MPRs were significantly correlated with QALYs (p = .03). In the implementation trial, patients at implementation sites had significantly higher MPRs (p = .01) than patients at control sites, and by extrapolation higher QALYs (0.00188). Total costs (implementation, intervention) were nonsignificantly higher ($63.76) at implementation sites. The incremental population-level cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,905.92/QALY (bootstrap interquartile range -$45,343.10/QALY to $99,260.90/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology was feasible to operationalize and gave reasonable estimates of implementation value.