Primary care and behavioral health practice size: the challenge for health care reform

How Phantom Networks And Other Barriers Impede Progress On Mental Health Insurance Reform

Phantom networks are but one of many barriers to realizing access to mental health services. The term phantom networks refers to the misleading practice of listing providers as members of a network when they are not actually accepting patients. Inaccurate information on provider availability impedes the implementation of reforms that are designed to improve health insurance coverage of mental health treatment. Some other barriers to improving access to mental health services include low reimbursement rates from Medicaid, hesitancy of psychiatrists and psychologists to participate in networks, and practices of some managed care networks that require prior approval of mental health services such as psychiatric hospitalization. Phantom networks and these other barriers stand in the way of patients finding providers to help them at a time of need for treatment and support.

Phantom Networks: Discrepancies Between Reported And Realized Mental Health Care Access In Oregon Medicaid

Understanding the extent to which beneficiaries can "realize" access to reported provider networks is imperative in mental health care, where there are significant unmet needs. We compared listings of providers in network directories against provider networks empirically constructed from administrative claims among members who were ages sixty-four and younger and enrolled in Oregon's Medicaid managed care organizations between January 1 and December 31, 2018. "In-network" providers were those with any medical claims filed for at least five unique Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in a given health plan. They included primary care providers, specialty mental health prescribers, and nonprescribing mental health clinicians. Overall, 58.2 percent of network directory listings were "phantom" providers who did not see Medicaid patients, including 67.4 percent of mental health prescribers, 59.0 percent of mental health nonprescribers, and 54.0 percent of primary care providers. Significant discrepancies between the providers listed in directories and those whom enrollees can access suggest that provider network monitoring and enforcement may fall short if based on directory information.

Technology-Facilitated Depression Self-Management Linked with Lay Supporters and Primary Care Clinics: Randomized Controlled Trial in a Low-Income Sample

Purpose: To test whether technology-facilitated self-management support improves depression in primary care settings. Methods: We randomized 204 low-income primary care patients who had at least moderate depressive symptoms to intervention or control. Intervention participants received 12 months of weekly automated interactive voice response telephone calls that assessed their symptom severity and provided self-management strategies. Their patient-nominated supporter (CarePartner) received corresponding guidance on self-management support, and their primary care team received urgent notifications. Those randomized to enhanced usual care received printed generic self-management instructions. Results: One-year attrition rate was 14%. By month 6, symptom severity on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) decreased 2.5 points more in the intervention arm than in the control arm (95% CI -4.2 to -0.8, p = 0.003). This benefit was similar at month 12 (p = 0.004). Intervention was also over twice as likely to lead to ≥50% reduction in symptom severity by month 6 (OR = 2.2 (1.1, 4.7)) and a decrease of ≥5 PHQ-9 points by month 12 (OR = 2.3 (1.2, 4.4)). Conclusions: Technology-facilitated self-management guidance with lay support and clinician notifications improves depression for primary care patients. Subsequent research should examine implementation and generalization to other chronic conditions. clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01834534.

Driving Access and Quality: A Shift to Value-Based Behavioral Health Care

Multiple barriers exist to accessing behavioral health care, and several are related to payment. The national shortage of behavioral health providers is exacerbated by their not joining health insurance networks, often shifting the cost of treatment to patients. In the face of high out-of-network expenses, deductibles, and copays, many insured patients forgo behavioral health treatment altogether. However, even when patients access care, health outcomes are not routinely measured, and there is reason to suspect that the quality of care is poor. To address these issues, value-based reimbursement for behavioral health care offers a sustainable pathway to increase payment for providers in return for improved population health outcomes and costs. This article describes a comprehensive collaborative effort between a payer and a health care technology and services organization to support behavioral health providers to enter into value-based care. This approach changes financial incentives to drive improvements in behavioral health care access and quality.

Comparative effectiveness of external vs blended facilitation on collaborative care model implementation in slow-implementer community practices

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support.

STUDY SETTING

Primary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.

STUDY DESIGN

Sites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses.

DATA COLLECTION

Sites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

N = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (Δ_EF/IF-EF  = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.

CONCLUSIONS

Although stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.

Primary care competition and quality of care: Empirical evidence from Medicare

In this paper, we explore the effects of primary care physician (PCP) practice competition on five distinct quality metrics directly tied to screening, follow-up care, and prescribing behavior under Medicare Part B and D. Controlling for physician, practice, and area characteristics as well as zip code fixed effects, we find strong evidence that PCP practices in more concentrated areas provide lower quality of care. More specifically, PCPs in more concentrated areas are less likely to perform screening and follow-up care for high blood pressure, unhealthy bodyweight, and tobacco use. They are also less likely to document current medications. Furthermore, PCPs in more concentrated areas have a higher amount of opioid prescriptions as a fraction of total prescriptions.

Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice-based research network

BACKGROUND

Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.

METHODS

We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).

RESULTS

Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

Adherence to neuroleptic treatment in psychiatric practices: A retrospective study of 55 practices with more than 5000 bipolar and schizophrenic patients in Germany

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect that treating physicians have on the compliance of their psychiatric (schizophrenia (SP) and bipolar disorder (BP)) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA). It included 2870 SP and 2327 BD patients who had received at least two neuroleptic prescriptions from 55 psychiatric practices between January 2016 and December 2018. The average proportion of days covered (PDC) per patient was calculated. Patients were considered adherent if their PDC was greater than or equal to 80%. Practice adherence was considered high if at least 70% of patients in the practice of interest were adherent.

RESULTS

The mean PDC was 59.8% (SD: 13.9%) in SP and 65.0% (SD: 11.5%) in BD patients. The share of patients with an optimal PDC value (≥80%) differed considerably between practices (between 28% and 92% for SP and between 33% and 92% for BP). The prevalence of practices with high adherence was lower for schizophrenia than for bipolar disorder (21.9% versus 45.5%).

CONCLUSION

Psychiatrists play an important role in the compliance of SP and BP patients treated with neuroleptics.

The Role of Screening in Depression Diagnosis and Treatment in a Representative Sample of US Primary Care Visits

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers encounter a large proportion of the population with depression. Yet, many primary care patients with depression remain undiagnosed and untreated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine depression screening patterns and the role of screening in depression diagnosis and treatment in the outpatient primary care setting.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative survey data of visits to outpatient physician offices from the 2005 to 2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample included the first visit in the past year to a primary care provider by patients 12 years and older (N = 16,887).

METHODS

The associations of visit characteristics with depression screening and of depression screening with depression diagnosis and treatment during the visit were assessed using logistic regression. Logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to estimate the odds of depression diagnosis and treatment under the counterfactual scenario in which patients who visited providers with lower depression screening rates had visited providers with higher screening rates instead. All models were adjusted for patient and visit characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

A small proportion of sample visits involved depression screening (3.0%). Visits by patients with depressive symptom complaints were associated with higher odds of depression screening than other visits. When visits were weighted to have similar demographic and clinical characteristics, visits to providers with higher screening rates had higher odds of diagnosis (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001) and treatment (OR = 1.61, p = 0.001) compared to visits to providers with lower screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians appear to use depression screening selectively based on patients' presenting symptoms. Higher screening rates were associated with higher odds of depression diagnosis and treatment, and even modest increases in screening rates could meaningfully increase population-level rates of depression identification and treatment in primary care. Future research is needed to identify barriers to depression care and implement systematic interventions to improve services and patient outcomes.

Trends In Buprenorphine Prescribing By Physician Specialty

Office-based visits involving a buprenorphine prescription increased significantly among primary care and specialist physicians from 2006 to 2014. The growing involvement of nonpsychiatry physicians in buprenorphine prescribing has the potential to provide better access to care for people with opioid use disorders.

Change in Patient Outcomes After Augmenting a Low-level Implementation Strategy in Community Practices That Are Slow to Adopt a Collaborative Chronic Care Model: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

BACKGROUND

Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF).

MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Mood Disorders by a National Commercial Health Plan

OBJECTIVE

Few individuals with mood disorders have access to evidence-based collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) because most patients are seen in small-group practices (<20 providers) with limited capacity to deliver CCMs. In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, we determined whether a CCM delivered nationally in a U.S. health plan improved 12-month outcomes among enrollees with mood disorders compared with usual care.

METHODS

Aetna insurance enrollees (N=238), mostly females (66.1%) with a mean age of 41.1 years, who were recently hospitalized for unipolar major depression or bipolar disorder provided informed consent, completed baseline assessments, and were randomly assigned to usual care or CCM. The CCM included 10 sessions of the Life Goals self-management program and brief contacts by phone by a care manager to determine symptom status. Primary outcomes were changes over 12 months in depression symptoms (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and mental health-related quality of life (Short Form-12).

RESULTS

Adjusted mean PHQ-9 scores were lower by 2.34 points (95% confidence level [CL]=-4.18 to -0.50, p=0.01), indicating improved symptoms, and adjusted mean SF-12 mental health scores were higher by 3.21 points (CL=-.97 to 7.38, p=0.10), indicating better quality of life, among participants receiving CCM versus usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals receiving CCM compared with usual care had improved clinical outcomes, although substantial attrition may limit the impact of health plan-level delivery of CCMs. Further research on the use of health plan-level interventions, such as CCMs, as alternatives to practice-based models is warranted.

Workforce Configurations to Provide High-Quality, Comprehensive Primary Care: a Mixed-Method Exploration of Staffing for Four Types of Primary Care Practices

BACKGROUND

Broad consensus exists about the value and principles of primary care; however, little is known about the workforce configurations required to deliver it.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the team configurations and associated costs required to deliver high-quality, comprehensive primary care.

METHODS

We used a mixed-method and consensus-building process to develop staffing models based on data from 73 exemplary practices, findings from 8 site visits, and input from an expert panel. We first defined high-quality, comprehensive primary care and explicated the specific functions needed to deliver it. We translated the functions into full-time-equivalent staffing requirements for a practice serving a panel of 10,000 adults and then revised the models to reflect the divergent needs of practices serving older adults, patients with higher social needs, and a rural community. Finally, we estimated the labor and overhead costs associated with each model.

RESULTS

A primary care practice needs a mix of 37 team members, including 8 primary care providers (PCPs), at a cost of $45 per patient per month (PPPM), to provide comprehensive primary care to a panel of 10,000 actively managed adults. A practice requires a team of 52 staff (including 12 PCPs) at $64 PPPM to care for a panel of 10,000 adults with a high proportion of older patients, and 50 staff (with 10 PCPs) at $56 PPPM for a panel of 10,000 with high social needs. In rural areas, a practice needs 22 team members (with 4 PCPs) at $46 PPPM to serve a panel of 5000 adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates provide health care decision-makers with needed guideposts for considering primary care staffing and financing and inform broader discussions on primary care innovations and the necessary resources to provide high-quality, comprehensive primary care in the USA.

Multiyear Performance Trends Analysis of Primary Care Practices Demonstrating Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation: An Observation of Quality Improvement Indicators among Outpatient Clinics

Despite the ever-changing requirements of modern policy, payers seek interventions for care delivery improvement through value-based care models. Prior research acknowledges the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) as a tool for performance and outcomes improvement. However, these studies lack empirical evidence of performance trends across medical homes. A retrospective observational study was conducted to describe national trends in National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH recognition for more than 23 000 primary care practices across the United States from 2008 to 2017. More than half of recognized practices scored 100% pass rates for activities related to appointment availability, patient care planning, and data for population management. The most common underperforming PCMH activities were for practice team, referral tracking and follow-up, and quality improvement implementation. Study findings indicate that patient-centered care collaboration between clinical and nonclinical team members, primary care provider coordination with specialty care providers, and practice implementation of clinical quality improvement methodologies are particularly challenging activities.

Team-Based Telecare for Bipolar Disorder

INTRODUCTION

Numerous randomized controlled trials indicate that collaborative chronic care models improve outcome in a wide variety of mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder. However, their spread into clinical practice is limited by the need for a critical mass of patients and specialty providers in the same locale. Clinical videoconferencing has the potential to overcome these geographic limitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A videoconference-based collaborative care program for bipolar disorder was implemented in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Program evaluation assessed experience with the first 400 participants, guided by five domains specified by the American Telemedicine Association: treatment engagement, including identification of subpopulations at risk for not being reached; participation in treatment; clinical impact; patient safety; and quality of care.

RESULTS

Participation rates resembled those for facility-based collaborative care. No participant characteristics predicted nonengagement. Program completers demonstrated significant improvements in several clinical indices, without evidence of compromise in patient safety. Guideline-based quality of care assessment after 1 year indicated increased lithium use, decreased antidepressant use, and increased prazosin use in individuals with comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder, but no impact on already high rates of lithium serum level monitoring.

DISCUSSION

Clinical videoconferencing can extend the reach of collaborative care models for bipolar disorder. The next step involves assessment of the videoconference-based collaborative care for other serious mental health conditions, investigation of barriers and facilitators of broad implementation of the model, and evaluation of the business case for deployment and sustainability in clinical practice.

Randomized controlled trial of a health plan-level mood disorders psychosocial intervention for solo or small practices

BACKGROUND

Mood disorders represent the most expensive mental disorders for employer-based commercial health plans. Collaborative care models are effective in treating chronic physical and mental illnesses at little to no net healthcare cost, but to date have primarily been implemented by larger healthcare organizations in facility-based models. The majority of practices providing commercially insured care are far too small to implement such models. Health plan-level collaborative care treatment can address this unmet need. The goal of this study is to implement at the national commercial health plan level a collaborative care model to improve outcomes for persons with mood disorders.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care model versus usual care will be conducted among beneficiaries of a large national health plan from across the country seen by primary care or behavioral health practices. At discharge 344 patients identified by health plan claims as hospitalized for unipolar depression or bipolar disorder will be randomized to receive collaborative care (patient phone-based self-management support, care management, and guideline dissemination to practices delivered by a plan-level care manager) or usual care from their provider. Primary outcomes are changes in mood symptoms and mental health-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include rehospitalization, receipt of guideline-concordant care, and work productivity.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine whether a collaborative care model for mood disorders delivered at the national health plan level improves outcomes compared to usual care, and will inform a business case for collaborative care models for these settings that can reach patients wherever they receive treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02041962; registered January 3, 2014.

Protocol: Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): cluster randomized SMART trial comparing a standard versus enhanced implementation strategy to improve outcomes of a mood disorders program

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs), treatment and outcomes for persons with mental disorders remain suboptimal. Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an effective implementation strategy, still resulted in less than half of sites using an EBP. The primary aim of this cluster randomized trial is to determine, among sites not initially responding to REP, the effect of adaptive implementation strategies that begin with an External Facilitator (EF) or with an External Facilitator plus an Internal Facilitator (IF) on improved EBP use and patient outcomes in 12 months.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to build an adaptive implementation strategy. The EBP to be implemented is life goals (LG) for patients with mood disorders across 80 community-based outpatient clinics (N = 1,600 patients) from different U.S. regions. Sites not initially responding to REP (defined as < 50% patients receiving ≥ 3 EBP sessions) will be randomized to receive additional support from an EF or both EF/IF. Additionally, sites randomized to EF and still not responsive will be randomized to continue with EF alone or to receive EF/IF. The EF provides technical expertise in adapting LG in routine practice, whereas the on-site IF has direct reporting relationships to site leadership to support LG use in routine practice. The primary outcome is mental health-related quality of life; secondary outcomes include receipt of LG sessions, mood symptoms, implementation costs, and organizational change.

DISCUSSION

This study design will determine whether an off-site EF alone versus the addition of an on-site IF improves EBP uptake and patient outcomes among sites that do not respond initially to REP. It will also examine the value of delaying the provision of EF/IF for sites that continue to not respond despite EF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02151331.

Patient registries for substance use disorders

This commentary discusses the need for developing patient registries of substance use disorders (SUD) in general medical settings. A patient registry is a tool that documents the natural history of target diseases. Clinicians and researchers use registries to monitor patient comorbidities, care procedures and processes, and treatment effectiveness for the purpose of improving care quality. Enactments of the Affordable Care Act 2010 and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 2008 open opportunities for many substance users to receive treatment services in general medical settings. An increased number of patients with a wide spectrum of SUD will initially receive services with a chronic disease management approach in primary care. The establishment of computer-based SUD patient registries can be assisted by wide adoption of electronic health record systems. The linkage of SUD patient registries with electronic health record systems can facilitate the advancement of SUD treatment research efforts and improve patient care.

Overcoming roadblocks: current and emerging reimbursement strategies for integrated mental health services in primary care

The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been shown to improve medical and psychiatric outcomes for persons with mental disorders in primary care settings, and has been proposed as a model to integrate mental health care in the patient-centered medical home under healthcare reform. However, the CCM has not been widely implemented in primary care settings, primarily because of a lack of a comprehensive reimbursement strategy to compensate providers for day-to-day provision of its core components, including care management and provider decision support. Drawing upon the existing literature and regulatory guidelines, we provide a critical analysis of challenges and opportunities in reimbursing CCM components under the current fee-for-service system, and describe an emerging financial model involving bundled payments to support core CCM components to integrate mental health treatment into primary care settings. Ultimately, for the CCM to be used and sustained over time to integrate physical and mental health care, effective reimbursement models will need to be negotiated across payers and providers. Such payments should provide sufficient support for primary care providers to implement practice redesigns around core CCM components, including care management, measurement-based care, and mental health specialist consultation.

Collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions: cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression to guide future research and implementation

OBJECTIVE

Prior meta-analysis indicates that collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) improve mental and physical health outcomes for individuals with mental disorders. This study aimed to investigate the stability of evidence over time and identify patient and intervention factors associated with CCM effects to facilitate implementation and sustainability of CCMs in clinical practice.

METHODS

We reviewed 53 CCM trials that analyzed depression, mental quality of life (QOL), or physical QOL outcomes. Cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression were supplemented by descriptive investigations across and within trials.

RESULTS

Most trials targeted depression in the primary care setting, and cumulative meta-analysis indicated that effect sizes favoring CCM quickly achieved significance for depression outcomes, and more recently achieved significance for mental and physical QOL. Four of 6 CCM elements (patient self-management support, clinical information systems, system redesign, and provider decision support) were common among reviewed trials, whereas 2 elements (health care organization support and linkages to community resources) were rare. No single CCM element was statistically associated with the success of the model. Similarly, metaregression did not identify specific factors associated with CCM effectiveness. Nonetheless, results within individual trials suggest that increased illness severity predicts CCM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant CCM trials have been derived primarily from 4 original CCM elements. Nonetheless, implementing and sustaining this established model will require health care organization support. Although CCMs have typically been tested as population-based interventions, evidence supports stepped care application to more severely ill individuals. Future priorities include developing implementation strategies to support adoption and sustainability of the model in clinical settings while maximizing fit of this multicomponent framework to local contextual factors.

Mental health collaborative care and its role in primary care settings

Collaborative care models (CCMs) provide a pragmatic strategy to deliver integrated mental health and medical care for persons with mental health conditions served in primary care settings. CCMs are team-based intervention to enact system-level redesign by improving patient care through organizational leadership support, provider decision support, and clinical information systems, as well as engaging patients in their care through self-management support and linkages to community resources. The model is also a cost-efficient strategy for primary care practices to improve outcomes for a range of mental health conditions across populations and settings. CCMs can help achieve integrated care aims underhealth care reform yet organizational and financial issues may affect adoption into routine primary care. Notably, successful implementation of CCMs in routine care will require alignment of financial incentives to support systems redesign investments, reimbursements for mental health providers, and adaptation across different practice settings and infrastructure to offer all CCM components.

Integrating bipolar disorder management in primary care

There is growing realization that persons with bipolar disorder may exclusively be seen in primary (general medical) care settings, notably because of limited access to mental health care and stigma in seeking mental health treatment. At least two clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder recommend collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) to help integrate mental health care to better manage this illness. CCMs, which include provider guideline support, self-management support, care management, and measurement-based care, are well-established in primary care settings, and may help primary care practitioners manage bipolar disorder. However, further research is required to adapt CCMs to support complexities in diagnosing persons with bipolar disorder, and integrate decision-making processes regarding medication safety and tolerability in primary care. Additional implementation studies are also needed to adapt CCMs for persons with bipolar disorder in primary care, especially those seen in smaller practices with limited infrastructure and access to mental health care.