Self-Pay Outpatient Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents, by Socioeconomic Status.

OBJECTIVE: Many parents struggle to find mental health care for their children, and many mental health clinicians do not accept insurance payments. The authors aimed to estimate the frequency and cost of self-pay psychotherapy and psychotropic medication management visits for youths and to determine how service use varies by family income. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional analysis was performed among youths ages 5-17 years in the 2018-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Specialist visits included those with psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and mental health counselors or family therapists. RESULTS: Approximately one in five of 13,639 outpatient mental health specialist visits were self-pay, with psychologists (23% of visits) and social workers (24% of visits) most likely to see youths on a self-pay basis. Use of self-pay care was strongly associated with higher income, but even families earning <$28,000 per year utilized some self-pay care, at a median cost of $95 per visit. Self-pay visits were associated with slightly lower clinical need than insurance-covered visits, although this measure varied by income. CONCLUSIONS: The self-pay market for child mental health care potentially exacerbates inequities in access to care by burdening low-income families with high costs. Incentivizing mental health providers to participate in insurance for larger portions of their patient panels, for example, by increasing reimbursement rates and reducing paperwork, may help improve equitable access to mental health care. To the extent that reimbursement rates drive insurance acceptance, the frequency of self-pay mental health visits suggests that mental health services are underreimbursed relative to their benefit to patients and families.

Trends in Acute Care Use for Mental Health Conditions Among Youth During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Understanding how children's utilization of acute mental health care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic is critical for directing resources. Objective: To examine youth acute mental health care use (emergency department [ED], boarding, and subsequent inpatient care) during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of national, deidentified commercial health insurance claims of youth mental health ED and hospital care took place between March 2019 and February 2022. Among 4.1 million commercial insurance enrollees aged 5 to 17 years, 17 614 and 16 815 youth had at least 1 mental health ED visit in the baseline year (March 2019-February 2020) and pandemic year 2 (March 2021-February 2022), respectively. Exposure: The COVID-19 pandemic. Main outcomes and measures: The relative change from baseline to pandemic year 2 was determined in (1) fraction of youth with 1 or more mental health ED visits; (2) percentage of mental health ED visits resulting in inpatient psychiatry admission; (3) mean length of inpatient psychiatric stay following ED visit; and (4) frequency of prolonged boarding (≥2 midnights) in the ED or a medical unit before admission to an inpatient psychiatric unit. Results: Of 4.1 million enrollees, 51% were males and 41% were aged 13 to 17 years (vs 5-12 years) with 88 665 mental health ED visits. Comparing baseline to pandemic year 2, there was a 6.7% increase in youth with any mental health ED visits (95% CI, 4.7%-8.8%). Among adolescent females, there was a larger increase (22.1%; 95% CI, 19.2%-24.9%). The fraction of ED visits that resulted in a psychiatric admission increased by 8.4% (95% CI, 5.5%-11.2%). Mean length of inpatient psychiatric stay increased 3.8% (95% CI, 1.8%-5.7%). The fraction of episodes with prolonged boarding increased 76.4% (95% CI, 71.0%-81.0%). Conclusions and relevance: Into the second year of the pandemic, mental health ED visits increased notably among adolescent females, and there was an increase in prolonged boarding of youth awaiting inpatient psychiatric care. Interventions are needed to increase inpatient child psychiatry capacity and reduce strain on the acute mental health care system.

Adjunctive antidepressant treatment among 763 outpatients with bipolar disorder: Findings from the Bipolar CHOICE and LiTMUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive antidepressants are frequently used for bipolar depression but their clinical efficacy has been studied in few trials and little is known about how co-occurring manic symptoms affect treatment response. METHODS: Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (N = 482) and Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (N = 281) were similar comparative effectiveness trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder comparing four different randomized treatment arms with adjunctive personalized guideline-based treatment for 24 weeks. Adjunctive antidepressant treatment could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses compared users of antidepressants to nonusers overall and in different subcohorts. RESULTS: Of the 763 patients, 282 (37.0%) used antidepressant drugs during the study. Antidepressant users had less improvement compared to nonusers on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder and on measures of depression. This was particularly true among patients with co-occurring manic symptoms. Exclusion of individuals begun on antidepressants late in the study (potentially due to overall worse response) resulted in no differences between users and nonusers. We found no differences in treatment effects on mania scales. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of outpatients with bipolar disorder, clinically indicated and guideline-based adjunctive antidepressant treatment was not associated with lower depressive symptoms or higher mania symptoms. The treatment-by-indication confounding due to the nonrandomized design of the trials complicates causal interpretations, but no analyses indicated better treatment effects of adjunctive antidepressants.

Familial severe psychiatric history in bipolar disorder and correlation with disease severity and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a heritable disorder, and we aimed to assess the impact of family history of mental disorders in first-degree relatives on the severity and course of bipolar disorder. METHODS: The Bipolar CHOICE (lithium versus quetiapine) and LiTMUS (optimized treatment with versus without lithium) comparative effectiveness studies were similar trials among bipolar disorder outpatients studying four different randomized treatment arms for 24 weeks. Patients self-reported on six severe mental disorders among first-degree relatives. We performed ANOVA and linear regression regarding disease severity measures, sociodemographic and cardiometabolic markers and mixed effects linear regression to evaluate treatment response. RESULTS: Among 757 patients, 644 (85.1%) reported at least one first-degree relative with a severe mental disorder (mean=2.8; standard deviation=2.2; range=0-13). Depression (67.1%), alcohol abuse (51.0%) and bipolar disorder (47.0%) were the most frequently reported disorders. Familial psychiatric history correlated with several disease severity measures (hospitalizations, suicide attempts, and earlier onset) and sociodemographic markers (lower education and household income) but not with cardiometabolic markers (e.g. cholesterol or waist circumference) or cardiovascular risk scores, e.g. the Framingham risk score. Patients with familial psychiatric history tended to require more psychopharmacological treatment (p=0.054) but responded similarly (all p>0.1) to all four treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that familial psychiatric history is common among outpatients with bipolar disorder and correlates with disease severity and sociodemographic measures. Patients with a greater familial psychiatric load required more intense treatment but achieved similar treatment responses compared to patients without familial psychiatric history.

Complex polypharmacy in bipolar disorder: Side effect burden, adherence, and response predictors.

BACKGROUND: Complex polypharmacy (CP) is common in bipolar disorder (BD). We assessed the associations between CP, adherence, and side effect burden, and patient traits associated with clinical improvement in relationship to CP. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 482 adult BD participants in the Bipolar CHOICE trial. We examined the associations between CP (use of ≥3 BD medications) and non-adherence (missing >30% of BD medication doses in the last 30 days) and side effect burden (Frequency, Intensity and Burden of Side Effects Rating scale) using multivariate models with patient random effects. We used logistic regression to assess the patient traits associated with remission among those with majority CP use (Clinical Global Impression-Severity for BD score ≤2 for 8+ weeks). RESULTS: 43% of patients had any CP and 25% had CP for the majority of the study. CP was associated with non-adherence (OR = 2.51, 95% CI [1.81, 3.50]), but not worse side effect burden. Among those with CP, 16% achieved remission; those with non-adherence, comorbid social or generalized anxiety disorder, or BD I vs. II were less likely to achieve remission among those with CP. LIMITATIONS: There could be unmeasured confounding between use of CP and side effect burden or adherence. Adherence was measured by self-report, which could be subject to reporting error. CONCLUSIONS: BD patients with CP were less likely to adhere to therapy, and those with worse adherence to CP were less likely to clinically respond. Clinicians should assess medication adherence prior to adding another agent to medication regimens.

Potential Effects Of Eliminating The Individual Mandate Penalty In California.

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those with lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured.