Evaluation Of The Behavioral Health Integration And Complex Care Initiative In Medi-Cal

Addressing Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Implementation and Impact on Health Care Utilization, Costs, and Integration of Care

In recent years, health care policy makers have focused increasingly on addressing social drivers of health as a strategy for improving health and health equity. Impacts of social, economic, and environmental conditions on health are well established. However, less is known about the implementation and impact of approaches used by health care providers and payers to address social drivers of health in clinical settings. This article reviews current efforts by US health care organizations and public payers such as Medicaid and Medicare to address social drivers of health at the individual and community levels. We summarize the limited available evidence regarding intervention impacts on health care utilization, costs, and integration of care and identify key lessons learned from current implementation efforts.

Integrating behavioural health and primary care: qualitative findings on contextual factors that influence integration

BACKGROUND

Integrating behavioural health care into primary care practices may increase patients' access to behavioural health services and improve health outcomes. However, few studies have explored factors that influence integration processes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to better understand contextual factors that support or impede behavioural health integration in primary care practices.

METHODS

We conducted 71 semi-structured interviews with providers, staff, and leaders from eight primary care practices in the United States with integrated behavioural health services, which were participating in a randomized control, pragmatic trial: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care. Practices were selected for diversity on geographic location, size, ownership, and experience with integration. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data derived from the interviews.

RESULTS

We identified four categories of contextual factors influencing behavioural health integration: leadership commitment to integration, financial considerations, workflow and communication systems, and providers' perspectives on integration and team-based healthcare. Supportive factors included leaders' commitment to integration, adequate staffing, customized communication and workflow systems, collaborative practice culture, and healthy working relationships amongst providers. Impediments included staffing issues and payment models that do not reimburse for activities required to support integrated care.

CONCLUSION

Interviewees described various benefits of integration, including providers feeling better equipped to address patients' needs due to collaboration between medical and behavioural providers and resulting interdisciplinary learning. Given concerns about provider burnout, this finding warrants further study.

Measuring Behavioral Health Integration in Primary Care

Behavioral health integration (BHI) within primary care settings is shown to improve outcomes. However, achieving BHI requires identifying best practices and a reliable tool that can be used to measure existing levels and progress toward BHI. The objective of this study was to develop and apply a conceptual framework to measure BHI, test the approach, and examine challenges to achieving BHI. Surveys and interviews were conducted with key informants within 17 designated public hospitals in California at the midpoint of participating in a 5-year project to establish BHI. A framework and coding methodology were developed to assess BHI best practices at each hospital. BHI status was assessed in the domains of infrastructure and process. Each domain included 5 themes such as electronic health record integration and functionality (infrastructure) and interprovider communication (process). Themes were assessed using a 6-point scale for various activities under a theme and associated weights. Theme-specific values were standardized from 0% to 100% to compare BHI scores between hospitals. Overall progress toward BHI ranged from scores of 52% to 83% (mean 63%) and indicated greater contribution of infrastructure versus process implementation. Within the infrastructure domain, scores were higher for having institutional and provider support, but lagged in establishing provider proximity. Within the process domain, scores were highest for implementation of behavioral health screening, but were frequently lower for other themes such as use of care coordination and referral processes. Further research is needed to test the robustness of this approach in other settings.

Emerging models of care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions

OBJECTIVE

To characterize emerging and current practice models to more effectively treat and support patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC).

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

We conducted a rapid literature scoping augmented by key informant interviews with clinicians knowledgeable about MCC care from a broad spectrum of US delivery systems and feedback from multidisciplinary experts at two virtual meetings.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature findings were triangulated with data from semi-structured interviews with clinical experts. Reflections on early results were obtained from policy, research, clinical, advocacy, and patient representatives at two virtual meetings sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Emergent themes addressed were as follows: (1) more timely strategies for MCC care; and (2) trends not previously represented in the peer-reviewed literature.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The rapid literature scoping relied on Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print databases for the most recent 5-year period. Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone. Virtual meetings provided oral and written (chat) captured inputs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Although the literature scoping did not identify a specific set of evidence-based care models, key informant discussions identified eight themes reflecting emerging approaches to population-based MCC care. For example, addressing the needs of individuals with MCC through a complexity lens by assessing and addressing social risk factors; extending the care continuum with home-based care; understanding how to address ongoing patient and caregiver supports outside of clinical encounters; and engaging available community resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating care for MCC patient populations requires processes for determining different subpopulation needs in various settings and lived experiences. Innovation should be anchored at the nexus of payment systems, social risks, medical needs, and community-based resources. Our learnings suggest a need for an ongoing MCC care research agenda to inform new approaches to care delivery incorporating innovations in technology and home-based supports for patients and caregivers.

Behavioral Health Services use Among Racial and Ethnic Groups: Results from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)

Access and utilization of behavioral health services is a public health issue, yet disparities among racial/ethnic groups persist, resulting in fewer access points and lower utilization. Using pooled 2015 and 2016 California Health Interview Survey (N = 42,089) data of diverse adults, this study examines provider access points for behavioral health services use. Latinx (OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.38-0.80), Asian (OR = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.17-0.59), and first generation (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, .38-.83) individuals, reported lower odds of accessing specialty care behavioral health services, compared to no services. First generation adults reported lower odds accessing a primary care physician (OR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.44-0.98), compared to none. Results advance knowledge of behavioral health services access points among racial, ethnic and immigrant groups, following passage of the California Mental Health Services Act. Findings suggest primary care may be an important entry point for behavioral health service use engagement among underserved populations.

A Mixed-method Evaluation of the Behavioral Health Integration and Complex Care Initiative Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

Integrated behavioral health and primary care can improve the health of persons with complex chronic conditions. The Behavioral Health Integration and Complex Care Initiative (BHICCI) implemented integrated care across a large health system. Whether Behavioral Health Organizations (BHOs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) implemented the BHICCI differently is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate integration under the BHICCI and to understand implementation differences between BHOs and FQHCs.

METHODS

We used a convergent parallel mixed-method design. Integration was measured quantitatively using the Maine Health Access Site Self-Assessment (SSA), which was completed by clinic teams at baseline and 24 months, and through n=70 qualitative interviews with initiative stakeholders, which were organized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results were compared to understand how qualitative findings explained quantitative results.

RESULTS

Data were collected in 7 clinics (n=2 FQHC; n=5 BHOs). FQHCs reported greatest improvement in the client centered subscale, with a baseline score of 4.6 (SD=0.64) and 7.8 (SD=0.89) at 24 months. BHOs reported greatest improvement in the organizational supports for integration subscale, with a baseline score of 4.8 (SD=1.07) and 7.9 (SD=1.1) at 24 months. Our Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research analysis illustrates contextual factors, such as insurance plan supports and clinic-level challenges, that explain these scores.

CONCLUSIONS

All clinical settings received support from the health plan, but differences between BHOs and FQHCs affected integration progress. Study results can help identify organizational practices that advance or undermine the delivery of integrated care across multiple clinical settings.

Work-Sampling Study of an Innovative Care Coordination Program Aimed at Children With Chronic Health Conditions

PURPOSE OF STUDY

To estimate time allocation and labor cost for care coordinators (CCs), community health workers (CHWs), and mental health workers (MHWs) to conduct care coordination tasks in a pediatric care coordination program.

PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING

A public tertiary academic medical center in Chicago, IL.

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

A work-sampling study was conducted using a text message-based survey on 5 CCs, 20 CHWs, and 4 MHWs who volunteered to participate. Workers were randomly sampled within working hours to collect information on who was the subject of interaction and what service was being delivered over a 6-month period. Time allocation of workers to different subjects and services was summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Care coordinators allocated 41% of their time to managing CHW teams. Community health workers allocated 37% of time providing services directly to children and 26% to the parent/caregiver. Mental health workers allocated 16% of time providing services to children and 29% to the parent/caregiver. The care coordination program serviced 5,965 patients, with a total annual labor cost of $1,455,353.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Community health workers spent the majority of time working with patients and their families to conduct assessments. Mental health workers primarily addressed children's needs through their caregivers. Care coordinators primarily supported CHWs in coordinating care. Results may be used to inform development of such programs by determining services most often utilized, and labor cost may be used to inform program implementation and reimbursement.

Advancing Integrated Care through Practice Coaching

Introduction:

Practice coaches are skilled consultants who work in health care service delivery systems to make changes designed to improve patient outcomes, yet research is limited regarding their use to support integrated health care. This article describes the use of practice coaches in a large-scale effort to implement integrated care in the United States for patients with complex care needs.

Theory and methods:

This immersive, qualitative project involved five implementation team members; eight practice coaches; and 77 staff members from 12 health care organizations. Semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic and content analyses were applied in multiple stages to understand the use of practice coaches.

Results:

Qualitative themes about the use of practice coaching in this initiative were: (a) development of “a very rich coaching model”; (b) moving from an organic to standardized coaching approach; and (c) coaches representing the “face of the initiative.”

Discussion:

A rich coaching model that includes an interdisciplinary coaching team can support integrated care transformation but challenges including finding highly qualified coaches and sustaining and disseminating the coaching model exist. Standardization was seen as a way to address such challenges.

Conclusion:

Practice coaches can provide individualized, hands-on guidance to support successful implementation of integrated care.