Acceptance of Insurance by Psychiatrists and Other Physicians, 2007-2016

Measurement-Based Care: A Practical Strategy Toward Improving Behavioral Health Through Primary Care

Behavioral health care access is inadequate and new primary care-based strategies are needed to meet the rising demand. Behavioral health integration (BHI) models, such as collaborative care (CoCM) or the primary care behavioral health (PCBH) model, are often touted as actionable and sustainable solutions. The intent of such models is to bring behavioral health expertise into medical settings with the aims of improving outcomes, increasing treatment capacity, and reducing stigma. BHI models differ across several parameters, though measurement-based care (MBC) is a key component of virtually all effective approaches. MBC employs the repeated and timely use of validated instruments to inform medical decision-making for individual patients at the point of care and has a demonstrated association with improved outcomes. MBC generally has more flexibility for workflow development and fewer financial, staffing, and IT requirements than CoCM, PCBH, or other models. It can also be implemented by primary medical providers independently. Recent encouraging developments include technical assistance opportunities for MBC implementation and emerging payment models that emphasize MBC. However, concerns remain surrounding the limitations of existing MBC billing codes. Ultimately, with continued advocacy and thoughtful policy decision-making, MBC has the potential to be a solution to the current behavioral health crisis.

Slipping Through the Cracks: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Gaps in New York City's Public Mental Health System

Most people who seek mental health treatment cannot access it. Certain groups (e.g., Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured) face particularly severe treatment access barriers along the care continuum. We interviewed 31 clinicians across two studies about their perspectives working in New York City's public mental health system. Because every clinician across both studies reported gaps in the system, we deployed an emergent, "serendipitous finding" approach and qualitatively analyzed the interviews together. Clinicians described three public mental health system gaps. First, many treatment-seekers must wait long periods of time to receive care and some never receive it at all. Second, patients with more serious challenges cannot access longer-term, higher-intensity, or specialized treatment. Third, some patients receiving high-intensity services may benefit from lower-intensity mental health support that is better integrated with medical and social service support. Coordinated and sustained financial investments at every step of the mental healthcare continuum are needed.

Differences in self-reported disruptions in mental health treatment during COVID-19 in a national household sample: impact of severity of functional impairment

Objective

This report uses data from Mental Disorders Prevalence Study (MDPS), a large epidemiologic study that provided national prevalence estimates of seven mental disorders based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID), to assess the odds of treatment disruption during COVID for SMI and non-SMI groups.

Methods

This cross-sectional study conducted from 2020 to 2022 included 2,810 household participants with any lifetime mental health treatment. Weighted logistic regressions estimated the odds of reporting disruptions in access to mental health care or psychotropic prescriptions due to COVID. SMI was broadly defined as having an MDP diagnosis and serious functional impairment (GAF ≤50, a validated and widely used cutoff). Non-SMI groups were a mental diagnosis without serious impairment (MDPS diagnosis, GAF >50) and any lifetime treatment and no serious impairment (no MDPS diagnosis, GAF >50).

Results

The SMI and mental disorder without serious impairment groups had approximately 6.4- and 2.4-greater odds, respectively, of reporting inability to access mental health care and 4- and 3- greater odds, respectively, of having prescriptions delayed, relative to the group with any lifetime treatment. Among those with serious mental illness, having Medicare insurance increased the odds of reporting inability to access mental health care.

Conclusions

Individuals with SMI were much more likely to experience treatment disruptions throughout the pandemic than non-SMI groups.