Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., Competing Interests: Dr. Niendam is a founder of and shareholder in Safari Health, Inc. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Dixon is editor of Psychiatric Services; Editor Emeritus Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., served as decision editor on the manuscript.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the early 1990s the National Institute of Mental Health sponsored projects in four cities that served a total of 896 homeless mentally ill adults. Each project tested the effectiveness of different housing, support, and rehabilitative services in reducing homelessness. Most homeless individuals resided in community housing after the intervention. The proportion in community housing varied between sites. A 47.5 percent increase in community housing was found for those in active treatment conditions. At final follow-up, 78 percent of participants in community housing were stably housed. The findings indicate that effective strategies are available for serving homeless individuals with severe mental illness.

Reimbursement strategies represent a key tool in implementing public policy. Often the relationship between changes in reimbursement policy and changes in provider behavior is difficult to predict, particularly in complex service systems. Here we present findings from a multiyear study involving the comparison of alternative Medicaid reimbursement systems for intensive case management services: a fee-for-service arrangement developed specifically for this study, and the partial capitation system in use in New York State. We focus on the impact of these two reimbursement schemes on the number and types of services provided by case managers and on client outcomes.