Search

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.

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.

Florida, like many other states, has embarked on an experiment with managed mental health care for Medicaid enrollees. Under a 1915(b) waiver, the state's Medicaid agency began a mental health carve-out demonstration in March 1996 in the Tampa Bay area. This qualitative case study seeks to ascertain the impact of the carve-out (and, by comparison, HMO arrangements) on the public mental health sector. Findings suggest that the carve-out demonstration has succeeded in creating a fully integrated mental health delivery system with financial and administrative mechanisms that support a shared clinical model. However, other findings raise concerns about the HMO model in terms of stability, access to care, efficiency, and more generally about the shifting of risk and public responsibility "downstream" to private organizations without sufficient governmental oversight. These findings may offer guidance for other states implementing major managed care policy initiative for disabled Medicaid enrollees.