Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis.

BACKGROUND: People with psychosis struggle with decisions about their use of antipsychotics. They often want to reduce the dose or stop, while facing uncertainty regarding the effects these decisions will have on their treatment and recovery. They may also fear raising this issue with clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a shared decision making (SDM) tool to support patients and clinicians in making decisions about antipsychotics. METHODS: A diverse editorial research team developed an Encounter Decision Aid (EDA) for patients and clinicians to use as part of the psychiatric consultation. The EDA was tested using 24 semistructured interviews with participants representing six stakeholder groups: patients with first-episode psychosis, patients with long-term psychosis, family members, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and administrators. We used inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts to identify points to revise within three domains: general impression and purpose of the EDA; suggested changes to the content, wording, and appearance; and usability and potential contribution to the psychiatric consultation. RESULTS: An EDA was developed in an iterative process that yielded evidence-based answers to five frequently asked questions about antipsychotic medications. Patients with long-term psychosis and mental health counselors suggested more changes and revisions than patients with first-episode psychosis and psychiatrists. Family members suggested more revisions to the answers about potential risks of stopping or adjusting antipsychotics than other respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The EDA was perceived as potentially useful and feasible in psychiatric routine care, especially if presented during the consultation.

Reimbursement for a Broader Array of Services in Coordinated Specialty Care for Early Psychosis.

Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefits of coordinated specialty care (CSC) for early psychosis, access to this multimodal, evidence-based program in the United States has been hindered by a lack of funding for core CSC services and activities. The recent approval of team-based reimbursement codes by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to fund substantially more CSC services for clients with insurance coverage that accepts the new team-based billing codes. This streamlined and more inclusive billing strategy may reduce administrative burden and support the financial viability of CSC programs.

Identifying indicators of community participation-promoting efforts within coordinated specialty care: A modified e-Delphi study of stakeholder perspectives.

AIM: Community participation in occupational, social, recreational, and other domains is critically important during young adulthood. Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) programs provide developmentally tailored care to young adults experiencing early psychosis within the United States, but little is known about the breadth of efforts to promote community participation. This study aimed to develop and evaluate indicators of these efforts based on the perspectives of a national multi-stakeholder group. METHODS: Seventeen stakeholders (i.e., young adults with early psychosis, family members, experts by profession) participated in a modified e-Delphi study, conducted in two rounds. The purpose of round one was to generate a comprehensive list of community participation-promoting indicators. During round two, stakeholders rated the importance and feasibility of the implementation of each indicator. Descriptive statistics and percentage of agreement regarding round two ratings were assessed. RESULTS: During round one, 186 indicators of activities and/or practices designed to promote community participation were identified; this list was reduced to 44 by eliminating redundancies or indicators not related to community participation. In round two, we found broad agreement regarding the importance, but significant variation in perceived feasibility of indicators. The highest-rated indicators in both categories pertained to staff knowledge (regarding barriers and supports to participation and the importance of participation to health) and strategies for addressing participation barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study is expected to facilitate the identification and development of promising CSC activities and practices designed to promote community participation among young adults while potentially also enhancing engagement in services and improving clinical outcomes.

Financing Early Psychosis Intervention Programs: Provider Organization Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to identify prominent financing approaches for coordinated specialty care (CSC) of patients with first-episode psychosis, alignment or misalignment of such approaches with sustained CSC implementation, and CSC provider perspectives on ideal payment models. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with informants from CSC provider organizations. Purposeful sampling of CSC program directors, team leaders, and other administrators from a national e-mail Listserv was supplemented by snowball sampling via participant recommendations. Interview data from 19 CSC programs in 14 states were analyzed by using an integrated (inductive and deductive) approach to derive themes. RESULTS: The results indicated that financing approaches to CSC were patchwork and highly varied. Three major sources of funding were cited: insurance billing (largely fee for service [FFS] to Medicaid and private insurance), set-aside funding from the federal Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) program, and state funding. The findings revealed limited coverage and restrictive rules associated with FFS insurance billing that were misaligned with CSC implementation. The grant nature of MHBG and other public funding was seen as a threat to long-term CSC sustainability and deployment. CSC stakeholders endorsed a bundled-payment approach by public and private payers and supported tying payment to client outcomes to reflect CSC's recovery orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on FFS insurance billing and public funding is likely to be unsustainable. Additionally, FFS billing is misaligned with CSC goals. Because of the diversity in CSC programs, populations, and existing funding mechanisms and rules, payer-provider collaboration will be essential in designing a bundled-payment model that meets local needs.

Coordinated Specialty Care Discharge, Transition, and Step-Down Policies, Practices, and Concerns: Staff and Client Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, optimizing the process of transition and discharge from coordinated specialty care (CSC), a program that provides early intervention in psychosis, has emerged as an important focus area for program administrators, clinicians, and policy makers. To explore existing CSC policies and practices and to understand frontline provider and client views on discharge, the authors conducted a comprehensive analysis of staff and client interview data from the Mental Health Block Grant 10% Set-Aside Study. METHODS: Data from 66 interviews with groups of CSC providers and administrators representing 36 sites and 22 states were analyzed, as well as data from interviews with 82 CSC clients at 34 sites. Transcripts were coded by using systematic content analyses. RESULTS: Analyses of data from providers and administrators showed the heterogeneity of CSC program practices and strategies regarding discharge and highlighted a range of concerns related to postdischarge service accessibility and quality. Analysis of data from client interviews reflected the heterogeneity of transition challenges that clients confront. A significant number of participants reported concerns about their readiness for discharge. CONCLUSIONS: CSC discharge policies and practices vary across CSC programs and states. Frequent clinician and client concerns about optimal program length, transition, and postdischarge services highlight the importance of sustained policy and research efforts to develop evidence-informed practice guidelines and possible modifications to the time-limited CSC model that currently dominates the field.

Medicaid managed care and the distribution of societal costs for persons with severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: Managed care financing strategies that involve financial risk to insurers can reduce budgeted health expenditures. However, resource substitution may occur and negate apparent savings in budgeted expenditures. These substitutions may be important for individuals with disabling illnesses. The distribution of societal costs for adults with mental illnesses enrolled in plans that differ in their financial risk is examined to evaluate the degree to which risk-based financing strategies result in net savings or in the differential distribution of costs across public or private payers. METHOD: Six hundred twenty-eight adults with severe mental illnesses enrolled in three Medicaid plans that differ in financial risk arrangements were followed for 1 year to determine the distribution of resource use across Medicaid and other payers. Self-reported service use was obtained through interviews. Cost data were derived from self-reported expenditure, administrative, or agency data. Statistical procedures were used to control for preexisting group differences. RESULTS: Managed care was associated with a tendency toward reduced overall costs to Medicaid. However, private expenditures for managed care enrollees offset decreased Medicaid expenditures, resulting in no net difference in societal costs associated with managed care. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the distribution of societal costs is essential in evaluating health care financing strategies. For adults with mental illnesses, efforts to manage Medicaid expenditures may result in substituting individual and family resources for Medicaid services. Government must focus on the distribution of societal costs since risk-based financing strategies may redistribute costs across the fragmented human services sector and result in unintended system inefficiencies.

Mental Health in the Workplace: A Call to Action Proceedings From the Mental Health in the Workplace-Public Health Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to declare a call to action to improve mental health in the workplace. METHODS: We convened a public health summit and assembled an Advisory Council consisting of experts in the field of occupational health and safety, workplace wellness, and public policy to offer recommendations for action steps to improve health and well-being of workers. RESULTS: The Advisory Council narrowed the list of ideas to four priority projects. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for action include developing a mental health in the workplace (1) "how to" guide, (2) scorecard, (3) recognition program, and (4) executive training.

Financing Mechanisms for Reducing Adversity and Enhancing Resilience Through Implementation of Primary Prevention.

The experience of adversity and toxic stress in childhood is associated with the development of chronic health and behavioral health problems. These problems contribute substantially to health care expenditures and the overall burden of disease. Although a strong scientific literature documents the effectiveness of primary prevention in reducing childhood adversity, promoting well-being and lessening the incidence of negative outcomes, funding for these interventions is highly fragmented across multiple government agencies as well as private and philanthropic sectors. It is becoming increasingly clear that improving population health will require a concentrated public health effort to improve access to and the accountability of these interventions as well as the development of novel financing schemes. In this perspective we review existing financing mechanisms for funding interventions known to reduce adverse childhood experiences and discuss innovative financing approaches that use insurance as well as pay-for-success funding mechanisms. The latter require that cost savings associated with primary prevention be quantified and that these savings be used to offset program costs, sometimes with a return on investment for private investors. We provide a series of recommendations regarding better coordination and strategic oversight of existing resources as well as the need to further develop and validate methodologies for estimating the societal costs and benefits associated with the varying social policies that are designed to ameliorate the effects of adversity and to build resilience.

Toxic stress, behavioral health, and the next major era in public health.

Before the development of the germ theory in the late 19th century, infectious illnesses were largely uncontrollable and caused significant mortality. Implementing public hygiene, preventive, and treatment interventions created remarkable improvements in population health. Today's U.S. public health crises involve threats to health and human capital evidenced by multiple indicators of deteriorating wellbeing. These problems result from the interaction of risk and protective factors. Specifically, we argue that the interaction of genetic vulnerability and toxic stress are antecedents to a developmental cascade that undermines healthy development and human capital. We review relevant literature, summarize effective strategies to prevent or ameliorate this deterioration, and outline a theory of the mechanisms currently undermining our health. A series of strategies that we believe will constitute the next major era in public health are discussed, involving actions at the individual/family, community and societal level to reduce risk and strengthen protective factors. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessment of Medicaid managed behavioral health care for persons with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: This five-site study compared Medicaid managed behavioral health programs and fee-for-service programs on use and quality of services, satisfaction, and symptoms and functioning of adults with serious mental illness. METHODS: Adults with serious mental illness in managed care programs (N=958) and fee-for-service programs (N=1,011) in five states were interviewed after the implementation of managed care and six months later. After a multiple regression to standardize the groups for case mix differences, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted, and bioequivalence methods were used to determine whether differences were significant for clinical or policy purposes. RESULTS: A significantly smaller proportion of the managed care group received inpatient care (5.7 percent compared with 11.5 percent). The managed care group received significantly more hours of primary care (4.9 compared with 4.5 hours) and was significantly less healthy. However, none of these differences exceed the bioequivalence criterion of 5 percent. Managed care and fee for service were "not different but not equivalent" on 20 of 34 dependent variables. Cochrane's Q statistic, which measured intersite consistency, was significant for 20 variables. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care and fee-for-service Medicaid programs did not differ on most measures; however, a lack of sufficient power was evident for many measures. Full endorsement of managed care for vulnerable populations will require further research that assumes low penetration rates and intersite variability.

Cost-sharing requirements and access to mental health care among medicare enrollees with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the association between Medicare cost-sharing requirements and the probability of use of various mental health outpatient services among Medicare enrollees with schizophrenia. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of use of each of seven types of services over six months. Patients were recruited from public and private mental health treatment provider organizations in six states. The analyses included 1,088 Medicare enrollees, of whom approximately 55 percent were also enrolled in Medicaid. RESULTS: Medicare-only patients (with greater cost-sharing) were 25 to 45 percent less likely to have used rehabilitation services, individual therapy with nonpsychiatrist mental health providers, and case management. No association was found between Medicaid enrollment and probability of service use for medical clinic visits, group therapy, individual contact with a psychiatrist, or receipt of second-generation antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare enrollees with schizophrenia, gaps in Medicare coverage may be more problematic for rehabilitation, case management, and contact with nonpsychiatrist providers. Local public and private subsidies for mental health treatment may compensate for some of the gaps in coverage. However, such subsidies are not universally or uniformly provided.

Effects of antipsychotic medication on psychiatric service utilization and cost.

BACKGROUND: Based on randomized clinical trials, consensus has been emerging that the first line of treatment for individuals with psychotic disorders should be the newer atypical or second generation antipsychotic medications rather than the older neuroleptics. Given that acquisition costs of atypical antipsychotics are generally higher than typical antipsychotics, uncertainty exists whether the newer atypicals are cost effective alternatives when used in ordinary practice settings. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The introduction of newer atypical antipsychotic agents has prompted evaluation of their overall effectiveness in reducing health care costs given their higher acquisition costs. This paper focuses on the effects of differing classes of atypical versus typical antipsychotic medications on psychiatric service utilization and cost for persons with serious mental illness treated in usual practice settings. METHODS: Descriptive statistics are used to compare patient characteristics, service rates and costs across psychotropic medication groups. Prediction equations employing ordinary least squares regression models are used to explain variation in cost due to pharmacy group membership controlling for demographics, clinical diagnoses and symptoms. Subjects were 338 Medicaid clients with serious mental illness from Florida, Pennsylvania and Oregon treated in ordinary clinical settings. Resource utilization and costs were operationalized using administrative databases to measure consumption of treatment services and pharmaceuticals for a six month period. RESULTS: Inpatient service use was significantly higher for individuals on atypical only and combination atypical/typical medications compared to those on typical medications only, whereas outpatient use was highest for those on typicals. Furthermore, six-month costs for both pharmacy and psychiatric services were significantly greater for persons in the atypical only (USD 6528) and combination typical/atypical groups (USD 6589) compared to those on typicals only (USD 3463). There were still significantly higher costs associated with atypical only and the combination typical/atypical users after multivariate controls were used. DISCUSSION: This study showed that Medicaid clients in community settings using atypical only and typical/atypical combination medications had the highest costs both in pharmacy and service use when compared to those on typical only medications. However, this study design does not allow us to ascribe a causal relationship between medication group and service costs. Given that olanzapine was the most recent medication in the compendium of available drugs at the time of this study, it is possible that those in the olanzapine only group were failing on other drugs. Caution must be used in drawing policy implications regarding cost effectiveness of newer medications since individuals who are getting the newer atypical or combination medications in community mental health center settings may be unstable on the older medications. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: A longer follow-up period is needed to determine if the cohort remaining on current atypical medications stabilize over time while those taking the newest drug on the market become the most costly population.

Managed behavioral health care: an instrument to characterize critical elements of public sector programs.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument to characterize public sector managed behavioral health care arrangements to capture key differences between managed and "unmanaged" care and among managed care arrangements. STUDY DESIGN: The instrument was developed by a multi-institutional group of collaborators with participation of an expert panel. Included are six domains predicted to have an impact on access, service utilization, costs, and quality. The domains are: characteristics of the managed care plan, enrolled population, benefit design, payment and risk arrangements, composition of provider networks, and accountability. Data are collected at three levels: managed care organization, subcontractor, and network of service providers. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data are collected through contract abstraction and key informant interviews. A multilevel coding scheme is used to organize the data into a matrix along key domains, which is then reviewed and verified by the key informants. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This instrument can usefully differentiate between and among Medicaid fee-for-service programs and Medicaid managed care plans along key domains of interest. Beyond documenting basic features of the plans and providing contextual information, these data will support the refinement and testing of hypotheses about the impact of public sector managed care on access, quality, costs, and outcomes of care. CONCLUSIONS: If managed behavioral health care research is to advance beyond simple case study comparisons, a well-conceptualized set of instruments is necessary.

The effect of financial risk arrangements on service access and satisfaction among medicaid beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between financial risk arrangements, access to services, and consumer satisfaction with services was assessed in a sample of Medicaid beneficiaries who were enrolled under three different financial risk arrangements for health care and mental health care. METHODS: A survey was mailed to a stratified random sample of 9,449 recipients of Supplemental Security Income. Respondents reported their health and mental health service needs, service use, and satisfaction with services. Access was measured in terms of service needs that were met. RESULTS: Access to services was related to the type of risk arrangement. Respondents who were enrolled in plans that assumed the risk for the cost of services had poorer access to services than respondents who were enrolled in plans that did not assume the risk for the cost of these services. Satisfaction with medical services was negatively related to the plan's assuming the risk for medical expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Financial risk arrangements may have important implications for service use patterns among persons who have disabilities. Health and mental health policy makers should carefully consider risk arrangements when designing health plans for vulnerable populations.

Preferences for schizophrenia treatment outcomes among public policy makers, consumers, families, and providers.

OBJECTIVE: This study measured state public policy makers' ratings of the importance of several key schizophrenia treatment outcomes and compared them with the ratings of primary stakeholders in schizophrenia treatment. METHODS: Three groups of policy makers (40 administrative decision makers, 40 state legislators, and 20 legislative aides) and three groups of core stakeholders (20 persons with schizophrenia, 13 of their family members, and 20 of their mental health care providers) were recruited in Florida. Participants rated 12 descriptions of schizophrenia-related health states that reflected better and worse outcomes in six domains: psychotic symptoms, deficit symptoms, medication side effects, productive activity, daily activity, and social activity. RESULTS: All participants valued functional outcomes, such as improved productive and social activity, more than they valued improvements in symptoms. Public policy makers and primary stakeholders differed in the value they placed on two of the six outcomes. Compared with primary stakeholders, policy makers valued improvements in social functioning significantly more and improvements in medication side effects significantly less. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and primary stakeholders place similar value on some of the major goals of schizophrenia treatment, with both groups valuing functional outcomes most highly. However, the difference between groups in the importance placed on medication side effects may lead to conflicts in the allocation of resources to the provision of newer and more expensive medications, which are associated with fewer side effects. This initial examination of policy makers' views provides a starting point for developing consensus about schizophrenia treatment policies.

Students with mental illnesses in a university setting: faculty and student altitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences.

Over the last decade, the topic of post-secondary supported education for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses has gained increasing attention and sparked interest in what colleges and universities can do to assist individuals with mental illnesses to achieve their educational goals. The purpose of this article is to discuss the issue and describe one university's strategy for improving the educational environment of students with psychiatric disabilities. We present findings from a survey designed to assess faculty and student attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences with students identified as having a mental illness.

After Newtown: mental illness and violence.

In the wake of the latest mass shooting, there are calls to marshal the evidence and take steps to identify and treat mental illness early in life.

Advancing Science Through Collaborative Data Sharing and Synthesis.

The demand for researchers to share their data has increased dramatically in recent years. There is a need to replicate and confirm scientific findings to bolster confidence in many research areas. Data sharing also serves the critical function of allowing synthesis of findings across trials. As innovative statistical methods have helped resolve barriers to synthesis analyses, data sharing and synthesis can help answer research questions that cannot be answered by individual trials alone. However, the sharing of data among researchers remains challenging and infrequent. This article aims to (a) increase support for data sharing and synthesis collaborations among researchers to advance scientific knowledge and (b) provide a model for establishing these collaborations using the example of the ongoing National Institute of Mental Health's Collaborative Data Synthesis on Adolescent Depression Trials. This study brings together datasets from existing prevention and treatment trials in adolescent depression, as well as researchers and stakeholders, to answer questions about "for whom interventions work" and "by what pathways interventions have their effects." This is critical to improving interventions, including increasing knowledge about intervention efficacy among minority populations, or what we call "scientific equity." The collaborative model described is relevant to fields with research questions that can only be addressed by synthesizing individual-level data.

Comparative effectiveness research in mental health: an advocate's perspective.

Comparative effectiveness research holds great promise for improving the care of people with mental health conditions and disorders related to substance abuse. But inappropriate application of such research can threaten the quality of that care. We examine the controversy surrounding a large real-world trial of schizophrenia treatments and conclude that the initial presentation of results led to overly simplistic policy suggestions that had the potential to harm patients. Patient advocacy groups helped illuminate these consequences and helped stimulate further discussion and analysis. Researchers must engage stakeholders, especially patients, in all aspects of comparative effectiveness research and translate the findings into sound mental health policy and practice.