Search

Public health emergencies impact the well-being of people and communities. Long-term emotional distress is a pervasive and serious consequence of high levels of crisis exposure and low levels of access to mental health care. At highest risk for mental health trauma are historically medically underserved and socially marginalized populations and frontline health care workers (HCWs). Current public health emergency response efforts provide insufficient mental health services for these groups. The ongoing mental health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has implications for the resource-strained health care workforce. Public health has an important role in delivering psychosocial care and physical support in tandem with communities. Assessment of US and international public health strategies deployed during past public health emergencies can guide development of population-specific mental health care. The objectives of this topical review were (1) to examine scholarly and other literature on the mental health needs of HCWs and selected US and international policies to address them during the first 2 years of the pandemic and (2) to propose strategies for future responses. We reviewed 316 publications in 10 topic areas. Two-hundred fifty publications were excluded, leaving 66 for this topical review. Findings from our review indicate a need for flexible, tailored mental health outreach for HCWs after disasters. US and global research emphasizes the dearth of institutional mental health support for HCWs and of mental health providers who specialize in helping the health care workforce. Future public health disaster responses must address the mental health needs of HCWs to prevent lasting trauma.

Objective: Despite barriers, organizations with varying characteristics have achieved full integration of primary care services with providers and services that identify, treat, and manage those with mental health and substance use disorders. What are the key factors and common themes in stories of this success? Methods: A systematic literature review and snowball sampling technique was used to identify organizations. Site visits and key informant interviews were conducted with 6 organizations that had over time integrated behavioral health and primary care services. Case studies of each organization were independently coded to identify traits common to multiple organizations. Results: Common characteristics include prioritized vulnerable populations, extensive community collaboration, team approaches that included the patient and family, diversified funding streams, and data-driven approaches and practices. Conclusions: While significant barriers to integrating behavioral health and primary care services exist, case studies of organizations that have successfully overcome these barriers share certain common factors.

Assessing the value of clinical and translational research funding on accelerating the translation of scientific knowledge is a fundamental issue faced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSAs). To address this issue, the authors propose a model for measuring the return on investment (ROI) of one key CTSA program, the clinical research unit (CRU). By estimating the economic and social inputs and outputs of this program, this model produces multiple levels of ROI: investigator, program, and institutional estimates. A methodology, or evaluation protocol, is proposed to assess the value of this CTSA function, with specific objectives, methods, descriptions of the data to be collected, and how data are to be filtered, analyzed, and evaluated. This article provides an approach CTSAs could use to assess the economic and social returns on NIH and institutional investments in these critical activities.

We revisit the question of price elasticity of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) take-up by directly examining changes in the take-up of ESI at a large firm in response to exogenous changes in employee premium contributions. We find that, on average, a 10% increase in the employee's out-of-pocket premium increases the probability of dropping coverage by approximately 1%. More importantly, we find heterogeneous impacts: married workers are much more price-sensitive than single employees, and lower-paid workers are disproportionately more likely to drop coverage than higher-paid workers. Elasticity estimates for employees below the 25th percentile of salary distribution in our sample are nearly twice the average.

While early growth in preferred provider organizations (PPOs) coincided with growth of managed care generally, recent expansion has come primarily at the expense of other managed care plans. Little is known about the micro behavior underlying these trends. In 2005, University of Michigan employees were offered PPOs for the first time by vendors who also offered other plans. PPOs helped the offering vendors maintain or increase their total enrollment share. PPOs were most attractive to workers who previously had chosen less managed plans. Because PPOs drew few enrollees from health maintenance organizations (HMOs), there was little evidence of a backlash against managed care in the context of the University of Michigan employee group.

This paper examines the relative accuracy of risk-adjustment methodologies used to profile primary care physician practice efficiency. Claims and membership data from an independent practice association health maintenance organization (HMO) were processed through risk-adjustment software of six different profiling methodologies. The Group R2 statistic was used to measure, for simulated panels of HMO members, how closely each methodology's cost predictions matched the panel's actual costs. All but one methodology explained at least 50% of panel cost variance with panels as small as 25 patients. Group R2 performance tended to be better when high-cost cases were included rather than excluded from the analyses.

To control the rise in expenditures and to increase access to mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) services, a growing number of employers and states are implementing a “carve-out.” Under this arrangement, the sponsor separates insurance benefits by disease or condition, service category, or population and contracts separately for the management of care and/or associated risks. A carve-out allows a unique set of managed care techniques to be applied to a subset of particularly costly or complex benefits. This article describes various carve-out models, discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of a full carve-out, and summarizes recent public and private sector research regarding the strategy’s effects on access and use, cost savings and shifting, and quality of care. It concludes by discussing approaches to the assessment and monitoring of the processes and outcomes associated with a MH/SA carve-out.