Poor People Are Hospitalized Three Times More for Mental Health Services than the Non-Poor in Central Valley California.

Introduction: Providing health insurance to the poor has become a standard policy response to health disparities between the poor and the non-poor. It is often assumed that if the poor people are given health insurance, they will use preventative care, which will prevent more expensive emergency visits and inpatient hospitalization, and in turn, it will save healthcare cost in the long run. This paper presents the findings from our study in California about what happens to the poor when they are given health insurance. The purpose of the study was to understand how the healthcare system in California treats the poor patients differently than the non-poor. Method: Using multivariate logistic regressions, this study analyzed a large patient discharge data (PDD) from the California Office of Statewide Planning and Development (OSHPD) for eight counties in the Central Valley California (N = 423,640). First, utilizing International Classification of Diseases (ICD 10) as diagnostic criteria, mental-health vs. non-mental health hospitalization rates were estimated. Second, health insurance status was used as a proxy measure of poverty of the patients. Using chi-Square, the probability of hospitalization for mental health services was estimated based on their insurance types. Finally, using step-wise logistic regression, the odds of mental health hospitalization was estimated conditional on individual characteristics, health insurance types, and geographic characteristics. Findings: When the poor people were given health insurance, they were three times more likely to be hospitalized for mental health services than the non-poor. The more than three-fold variation in mental health hospitalization was not driven by demographic or geographic characteristics. The findings are new and have important implications for the healthcare policies for the poor. Further studies are needed to understand the extent to which the disproportionately high rate of mental health hospitalizations of the poor are driven by the provider-induced needs.

Interstate variations in psychotropic medication use among a national sample of children in the child welfare system.

Geographic variations in service utilization have emerged as sentinels of quality of care. We used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Area Resource File to examine interstate variations in psychotropic medication use among children coming into contact with child welfare agencies. Mean probabilities of medication use differed by 13% between California (7.1%) and Texas (20.1%). On regression analyses, children in California had a fifth of the odds of medication use compared to children in Texas, principally, because child characteristics of age, gender, foster care placement, and mental health need seem to be evaluated differently in Texas compared to in other states. These findings suggest that interstate variations in psychotropic medication use are driven by child characteristics, rather than by mental health need. Understanding the clinical contexts of psychotropic medication use is necessary to assure high-quality care for these children.

Treating homeless clients with severe mental illness and substance use disorders: costs and outcomes.

This study compared the costs and outcomes associated with three treatment programs that served 149 individuals with dual disorders (i.e., individuals with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders) who were homeless at baseline. The three treatment programs were: Integrated Assertive Community Treatment (IACT), Assertive Community Treatment only (ACTO), and standard care (Control). Participants were randomly assigned to treatment and followed for a period of 24 months. Clients in the IACT and ACTO programs were more satisfied with their treatment program and reported more days in stable housing than clients in the Control condition. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on psychiatric symptoms and substance use. The average total costs associated with the IACT and Control conditions were significantly less than the average total costs for the ACTO condition.