General medical and pharmacy claims expenditures in users of behavioral health services.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude of general medical and/or pharmacy claims expenditures for individuals who use behavioral health services and to assess future claims when behavioral service use persists. DESIGN: Retrospective cost trends and 24-month cohort analyses. SETTING: A Midwest health plan. PARTICIPANTS: Over 250,000 health plan enrollees during 2000 and 2001. MEASUREMENTS: Claims expenditures for behavioral health services, general medical services, and prescription medications. MAIN RESULTS: Just over one tenth of enrollees (10.7%) in 2001 had at least 1 behavioral health claim and accounted for 21.4% of total general medical, behavioral health, and pharmacy claims expenditures. Costs for enrollees who used behavioral health services were double that for enrollees who did not use such services. Almost 80% of health care costs were for general medical services and medications, two thirds of which were not psychotropics. Total claims expenditures in enrollees with claims for both substance use and mental disorders in 2000 were 4 times that of those with general medical and/or pharmacy claims only. These expenditures returned to within 15% of nonbehavioral health service user levels in 2001 when clinical need for behavioral health services was no longer required but increased by another 37% between 2000 and 2001 when both chemical dependence and mental health service needs persisted. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of total claims expenditures in patients who utilize behavioral health services are for medical, not behavioral, health benefits. Continued service use is associated with persistently elevated total general medical and pharmacy care costs. These findings call for studies that better delineate: 1) the interaction of general medical, pharmacy, and behavioral health service use and 2) clinical and/or administrative approaches that reverse the high use of general medical resources in behavioral health patients.

Treatment of tobacco use as a chronic medical condition: primary care physicians' self-reported practice patterns.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to better understand factors related to physician treatment of tobacco as a chronic medical condition. METHODS: In the fall of 2000, we conducted a mail survey of primary care physicians in a large mid-western health plan. The response rate was 61% (750/1235). The survey assessed physician attitude, perceived clinic support, training, and self-reported tobacco treatment practices. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of physicians reported incomplete or minimal care. Thirty-nine percent reported providing assistance without follow-up, while 21% reported providing follow-up to tobacco users making quit attempts. Only 12% of physicians reported assistance and follow-up for all tobacco users. Controlling for differences in physician and clinic characteristics, more positive physician attitudes decreased incomplete or minimal care (OR = 4.62 most positive tertile vs. least positive, P < 0.001) but did not increase follow-up activities. Higher perceived clinic support increased follow-up care (OR = 2.69, highest tertile vs. lowest, P < 0.001). Physician training was associated with increased provision of ongoing care (OR = 1.88 per additional hour of training, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician attitudes, clinic support, and training are related to different steps in the adoption of more complete tobacco use treatment. These findings support the need for multifaceted approaches to improve tobacco treatment as a chronic medical condition.

Comorbidity: implications for the importance of primary care in 'case' management.

BACKGROUND: Although comorbidity is very common in the population, little is known about the types of health service that are used by people with comorbid conditions. METHODS: Data from claims on the nonelderly were classified by diagnosis and extent of comorbidity, using a case-mix measure known as the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups, to study variation in extent of comorbidity and resource utilization. Visits of patients (adults and children) with 11 conditions were classified as to whether they were to primary care physicians or to other specialists, and whether they involved the chosen condition or other conditions. RESULTS: Comorbidity varied within each diagnosis; resource use depended on the degree of comorbidity rather than the diagnosis. When stratified by degree of comorbidity, the number of visits for comorbid conditions exceeded the number of visits for the index condition in almost all comorbidity groups and for visits to both primary care physicians and to specialists. The number of visits to primary care physicians for both the index condition and for comorbid conditions almost invariably exceeded the number of visits to specialists. These patterns differed only for uncommon conditions in which specialists played a greater role in the care of the condition, but not for comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the high degree of comorbidity, even in a nonelderly population, single-disease management does not appear promising as a strategy to care for patients. In contrast, the burden is on primary care physicians to provide the majority of care, not only for the target condition but for other conditions. Thus, management in the context of ongoing primary care and oriented more toward patients' overall health care needs appears to be a more promising strategy than care oriented to individual diseases. New paradigms of care that acknowledge actual patterns of comorbidities as well as the need for close coordination between generalists and specialists require support.