Search

Objective: This study assessed trends in access to and use of behavioral health services for school-aged children in TennCare, Tennessee's Medicaid managed care program, between state fiscal years 1995 and 2000., Methods: Claims, encounter, and enrollment data from the Bureau of TennCare were used. The data analyzed were restricted to services and enrollment periods for children and adolescents between the ages of four and 17 years at the time of service or enrollment. Measures were calculated in four areas: overall access to behavioral health services, use of inpatient services, use of outpatient specialty treatment services, and use of supportive services like case management and medication management., Results: The number of youths who received a behavioral service increased by nearly 50 percent between state fiscal years 1995 and 2000. At the same time, the number of youths enrolled in TennCare increased by 19 percent. The annual access rate increased from 72.7 youths per 1000 enrollees to 91.7. However, the volume of services for children fell. Access rates were low relative to estimates of need in this population. The system made less use of inpatient services and relied more on outpatient services, particularly case management and medication management services., Conclusions: Children's access rates for behavioral health services improved even as the TennCare program expanded to cover more children. The system served more youths in part by reducing the volume of services for children receiving treatment and substituting more supportive services. Ongoing performance monitoring for policy making will require enhancements of data monitoring activities by the state.

Objective: Meta-analytical methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of case management and to compare outcomes for assertive community treatment and clinical case management., Methods: Controlled studies of case management published between 1980 and 1998 were identified from reviews and through database searches. The results were quantitatively combined and compared with results of studies of mental health services without case management. Combined effect sizes and significance levels for 12 outcome domains were calculated. Analysis of homogeneity was used to explore differences between models., Results: Forty-four studies were analyzed; 35 compared assertive community treatment or clinical case management with usual treatment, and nine directly compared assertive community treatment with clinical case management. Both types of case management were more effective than usual treatment in three outcome domains: family burden, family satisfaction with services, and cost of care. The total number of admissions and the proportion of clients hospitalized were reduced in assertive community treatment programs and increased in clinical case management programs. In both programs the number of hospital days used was reduced, but assertive community treatment was significantly more effective. Although clients in clinical case management had more admissions than those in usual treatment, the admissions were shorter, which reduced the total number of hospital days. The two types of case management were equally effective in reducing symptoms, increasing clients' contacts with services, reducing dropout rates, improving social functioning, and increasing clients' satisfaction., Conclusions: Both types of case management led to small to moderate improvements in the effectiveness of mental health services. Assertive community treatment had some demonstrable advantages over clinical case management in reducing hospitalization.

The Connecticut Department of Mental Health began creating assertive community treatment teams in 1987. The authors describe the approach taken by the department in defining the assertive community treatment model, in creating new assertive community treatment teams, and in monitoring the creation and functioning of these teams to ensure that fidelity to the assertive community treatment model is maintained. Assertive community treatment teams can be created even in the absence of funding for new staff by reconfiguring current community-based staff and by moving staff from state hospitals to the community. Preliminary data from a randomized trial in Connecticut comparing assertive community treatment with high-quality case management in areas with an array of community services indicated that the intended models were replicated, with variations in practice style across programs. Clients in assertive community treatment were in the hospital about half as often as clients in standard services and were also less likely to be without a permanent residence. Training and ongoing monitoring of assertive community treatment teams are necessary to detect practices that diverge from the intervention model so that corrective action can be taken.