Should Medical Insurance Review Serve the Patient's Best Interests? Examples and Considerations Illustrated by Behavioral Health Cases.

ABSTRACT: Physician medical directors working for health care insurance companies conduct utilization reviews, participate in quality-of-care reviews, and adjudicate appeals. As a result, they have access to substantial and important clinical information. The medical director may have both current and historical information that can assist the treatment team in providing care. Sharing this information with a patient's current health care provider(s) is problematic due to concerns about patient privacy and the insurer's goal of not assuming legal liability for patient care. While this paper considers legal issues, it predominantly addresses the ethical responsibilities of medical directors who have valuable information unavailable to or unrecognized by the treatment team. Although it is important to consider sharing general medical information, this paper emphasizes the sharing of behavioral health information, which can be highly sensitive but also pertinent to psychiatric and other medical treatment choices. We suggest that clinical information should flow from insurer to provider when the insurer has information that will benefit the patient or prove crucial to optimal care rather than just flow from provider to insurer for the purposes of claims payments. To support and secure that flow, the paper outlines procedures for determining the need to share information, the means of providing that information, ways to separate liability, and processes for protecting privacy.

Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed how well articles in major medical and psychiatric journals followed best reporting practices in presenting results of intervention studies. METHOD: Standardised data collection was used to review studies in high-impact and widely read medical (JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) and psychiatric (American Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Lancet Psychiatry) journals, published between 1 September 2018 and 31 August 2019. Two team members independently reviewed each article. MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was proportion of papers reporting consensus elements required to understand and evaluate the results of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure was comparison of complete and accessible reporting in the major medical versus the major psychiatric journals. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were identified for inclusion. At least 90% of articles in both medical and psychiatric journals included sample size, statistical significance, randomisation method, elements of study flow, and age, sex, and illness severity by randomisation group. Selected elements less frequently reported by either journal type were confidence intervals in the abstract, reported in 93% (95% CI 84% to 97%) of medical journal articles and 58% (95% CI 45% to 69%) of psychiatric journal articles, and sample size method (93%, 95% CI 84% to 97% medical; 69%, 95% CI 57% to 80% psychiatric), race and ethnicity by randomisation group (51%, 95% CI 40% to 63% medical; 73%, 95% CI 60% to 83% psychiatric), and adverse events (94%; 95% CI 86% to 98% medical; 80%, 95% CI 68% to 88% psychiatric) in the main text. CIs were included less often in psychiatric than medical journals (p<0.004 abstract, p=0.04 main text, after multiple-testing correction). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include standard inclusion of a table specifying the outcome(s) designated as primary, and the sample size, effect size(s), CI(s) and p value(s) corresponding to the primary test(s) for efficacy.

Diagnostic terms psychiatrists prefer to use for common psychotic and personality disorders.

OBJECTIVE: There are ongoing discussions on updating various standard psychiatric terms, including schizophrenia, which can be confusing, and personality disorders, which can be pejorative. To contribute to this process, suggestions and recommendations on terminology were sought from academic psychiatrists with substantial clinical experience. METHODS: In an online survey, 263 psychiatrists were asked how often they used alternative instead of standard terms for the diagnosis or symptom description of psychotic disorders and DSM Cluster B personality disorders. They were also asked what specific terms they preferred to use. Reasons for their views and choices were obtained. RESULTS: 125 clinicians (48%) responded. Only a minority of clinicians (31%) tended to use the term schizophrenia often, preferring to say psychosis or to refer to thinking and perceptual problems. Even lower proportions of clinicians (7-14%) often use the terms for Cluster B personality disorder subtypes: antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, and borderline. Alternatives suggested for these disorders included discussing emotional dysregulation, traits of sensitivity and reactivity, and relational difficulties. Reasons cited for choosing alternative terms were to avoid miscommunication (71% of responders) and to avoid offending the patient (78% of responders). CONCLUSIONS: There are practical alternatives to standard psychiatric terminology that may improve communication with patients and be more respectful choices, as well. The suggestions of the psychiatrists responding to this survey might be of immediate value to others in their practices and might be worthy of consideration by those writing the next versions of the standard manuals, both the DSM and the ICD.

Omega-3 fatty acid treatment, with or without cytidine, fails to show therapeutic properties in bipolar disorder: a double-blind, randomized add-on clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (O3FA), given as fish oil capsules, with and without oral cytidine (CYT), a pyrimidine with reported preclinical and clinical antidepressant-like effects, in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: A total of 45 outpatients with diagnosed BD (type I) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition - Text Revision, were recruited for this 4-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on study. Treatment groups were (1) oral CYT + O3FA, (2) placebo + O3FA, and (3) placebo + placebo control. O3FA was given 2 g twice a day and CYT was administered as 1 g twice a day. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in the primary outcome: study retention. Clinical measures improved in all treatment groups, and there were no significant differences between groups, including change in probability of symptoms of depression or mania, change in positive ratings of depression or mania, or change in Global Assessment of Functioning scores. Neither CYT + O3FA nor placebo + O3FA treatment was superior to placebo treatment. Rather, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend for both groups treated with O3FA to do worse than the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite preclinical studies suggesting that the effect of O3FA might be augmented with pyrimidines, add-on CYT did not substantially improve mood symptoms in BD. In addition, although a power analysis indicated that the sample size would be adequate to see beneficial effects similar to those previously reported, O3FA treatment by itself was not superior to placebo for BD.