Disparities in COVID-19-Related Psychological Distress Among Recipients of a State's Public Mental Health Services.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined changes in perceived anxiety, stress, and mental health symptoms (i.e., psychological distress) reported by recipients of New York State public mental health services during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as whether these changes varied by demographic characteristics or pandemic-related socioeconomic challenges. METHODS: A statewide survey of service recipients (N=3,483) was conducted (May 8-June 22, 2020). Descriptive analyses were summarized, and logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between increases in reported psychological distress and age, gender, region of residence, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic challenges, and alcohol or drug use. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of respondents (N=1,933) reported a slight or moderate increase in COVID-19-related psychological distress, and 15% (N=520) reported a substantial increase. In adjusted models, substantial elevations in psychological distress were associated with identifying as female (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.50-2.25), experiencing three or more pandemic-related socioeconomic challenges (AOR=2.41, 95% CI=1.91-3.03), and reporting increased use of alcohol or drugs (AOR=1.81, 95% CI=1.34-2.44). Compared with non-Hispanic/Latinx White service recipients, non-Hispanic/Latinx Black individuals had lower odds of reporting substantially increased psychological distress (AOR=0.59, 95% CI=0.45-0.76), as did non-Hispanic/Latinx Asian-descent individuals (AOR=0.28, 95% CI=0.12-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of recipients of New York State public mental health services, the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on psychological well-being was widespread and varied by gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic vulnerability. These relationships must be considered in ongoing efforts to provide optimal care for this population.

Providing Health Physicals and/or Health Monitoring Services in Mental Health Clinics: Impact on Laboratory Screening and Monitoring for High Risk Populations.

Providing physical health care in specialty mental health clinics is a promising approach to improving the health status of adults with serious mental illness, but most programs examined in prior studies are not financially sustainable. This study assessed the impact on quality of care of a low-cost program implemented in New York State that allowed mental health clinics to be reimbursed by Medicaid for provision of health monitoring and health physicals (HM/HP). Medicaid claims data were analyzed with generalized linear multilevel models to examine change over time in quality of physical health care associated with HM/HP services. Recipients of HM/HP services were compared to control clinic patients [Per protocol (PP)] and with non-recipients of HM/HP services from both intervention and control clinics [As-Treated (AT)]. HM/HP clinic patients, regardless of receipt of HM/HP services, were compared with control clinic patients [Intent-to-Treat (ITT)]. Analyses were conducted with adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics and prior year service use. The PP and AT analyses found significant improvement in measure of blood glucose screening for patients on antipsychotic medication and HbA1C testing for patients with diabetes (AOR range 1.26-1.33) and the AT analysis found significant improvement in cholesterol screening for patients on antipsychotic medication (AOR 1.24). However, ITT analysis found no significant changes in quality of care in HM/HP clinic caseloads relative to control clinics. The low-cost HM/HP program has the potential to benefit patients who receive supported services, but its impact is limited by remaining barriers to service implementation.

Predictors of Receipt of Physical Health Services in Mental Health Clinics.

To inform efforts to improve physical health care for adults with serious mental illness, this study examines predictors of provision and receipt of physical health services in freestanding mental health clinics in New York state. The number of services provided over the initial 12-months of implementation varied across clinics from 0 to 1407. Receipt of services was associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, frequent mental and physical health visits in the prior year, and prescription of antipsychotic medications. Additional support may also be needed to enable clinics to target patients without established patterns of frequent mental health or medical visits.

Differences in Medicaid Antipsychotic Medication Measures Among Children with SSI, Foster Care, and Income-Based Aid.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about antipsychotic prescribing for children, particularly those enrolled in Medicaid and with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), continue despite recent calls for selective use within established guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To (a) examine the application of 6 quality measures for antipsychotic medication prescribing in children and adolescents receiving Medicaid and (b) understand distinctive patterns across eligibility categories in order to inform ongoing quality management efforts to support judicious antipsychotic use. METHODS: Using data for 10 states from the 2008 Medicaid Analytic Extract (MAX), a cross-sectional assessment of 144,200 Medicaid beneficiaries aged < 21 years who received antipsychotics was conducted to calculate the prevalence of 6 quality measures for antipsychotic medication management, which were developed in 2012-2014 by the National Collaborative for Innovation in Quality Measurement. These measures addressed antipsychotic polypharmacy, higher-than-recommended doses of antipsychotics, use of psychosocial services before antipsychotic initiation, follow-up after initiation, baseline metabolic screening, and ongoing metabolic monitoring. RESULTS: Compared with children eligble for income-based Medicaid, children receiving SSI and in foster care were twice as likely to receive higher-than-recommended doses of antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 2.3-2.6; AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.4-2.6, respectively) and multiple concurrent antipsychotic medications (AOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 2.0-2.4; AOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 2.0-2.4, respectively). However, children receiving SSI and in foster care were more likely to have appropriate management, including psychosocial visits before initiating antipsychotic treatment and ongoing metabolic monitoring. While children in foster care were more likely to experience baseline metabolic screening, SSI children were no more likely than children eligible for income-based aid to receive baseline screening. CONCLUSIONS: While indicators of overuse were more common in SSI and foster care groups, access to follow-up, metabolic monitoring, and psychosocial services was somewhat better for these children. However, substantial quality shortfalls existed for all groups, particularly metabolic screening and monitoring. Renewed efforts are needed to improve antipsychotic medication management for all children. DISCLOSURES: This project was supported by grant number U18HS020503 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Additional support for Rutgers-based participants was provided from AHRQ grants R18 HS019937 and U19HS021112, as well as the New York State Office of Mental Health. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of AHRQ, CMS, or the New York State Office of Mental Health. Finnerty has been the principle investigator on research grants/contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb and Sunovion, but her time on these projects is fully supported by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Scholle, Byron, and Morden work for the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a not-for-profit organization that develops and maintains quality measures. Neese-Todd was at Rutgers University at the time of this study and is now employed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The other authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Finnerty, Neese-Todd, and Crystal, assisted by Scholle, Leckman-Westin, Horowitz, and Hoagwood. Scholle, Byron, Morden, and Hoagwood collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Pritam, Bilder, Leckman-Westin, and Finnerty, with assistance from Scholle, Byron, Crystal, Kealey, and Neese-Todd. The manuscript was written by Leckman-Westin, Kealey, and Horowitz and revised by Layman, Crystal, Leckman-Westin, Finnerty, Scholle, Neese-Todd, and Horowitz, along with the other authors.

Impact of a mental health based primary care program on emergency department visits and inpatient stays.

OBJECTIVE: Integrating primary care services into specialty mental health clinics has been proposed as a method for improving health care utilization for medical conditions by adults with serious mental illness. This paper examines the impact of a mental health based primary care program on emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. METHOD: The program was implemented in seven New York City outpatient mental health clinics in two waves. Medicaid claims were used to identify patients treated in intervention clinics and a control group of patients treated in otherwise similar clinics in New York City. Impacts of the program were estimated using propensity score adjusted difference-in-differences models on a longitudinally followed cohort. RESULTS: Hospital stays for medical conditions increased significantly in intervention clinics relative to control clinics in both waves (ORs = 1.21 (Wave 1) and 1.33 (Wave 2)). ED visits for behavioral health conditions decreased significantly relative to controls in Wave 1 (OR = 0.89), but not in Wave 2. No other significant differences in utilization trends between the intervention and control clinics were found. CONCLUSION: Introducing primary care services into mental health clinics may increase utilization of inpatient services, perhaps due to newly identified unmet medical need in this population.

Integrating physical health: What were the costs to behavioral health care clinics?

OBJECTIVE: To inform providers and policy-makers about the potential costs of providing physical health care in mental health clinics. METHODS: Cost data were collected through interviews with 22 behavioral health clinics participating in New York State Office of Mental Health's health monitoring and health physicals programs. The interview data was combined with financial reporting data provided to the state to identify per interaction costs for two levels of physical health services: health monitoring and health monitoring plus health physicals. RESULTS: This study gives detailed information on the costs of clinics' health integration programs, including per interaction costs related to direct service, charting and administration, and total care coordination. Average direct costs per client interaction were 3 times higher for health physicals than for health monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of integrating physical care services are not trivial to mental health clinics, and may pose a barrier to widespread adoption. Provision of limited health monitoring services is less expensive for clinics, but generates proportionally large non-clinical costs than health physicals. The relative health impact of this more limited approach is an important area for future study. Also, shifting reimbursement to include health care coordination time may improve program sustainability.

Impact of a Mental Health Based Primary Care Program on Quality of Physical Health Care.

We examine the impact of mental health based primary care on physical health treatment among community mental health center patients in New York State using propensity score adjusted difference in difference models. Outcomes are quality indicators related to outpatient medical visits, diabetes HbA1c monitoring, and metabolic monitoring of antipsychotic treatment. Results suggest the program improved metabolic monitoring for patients on antipsychotics in one of two waves, but did not impact other quality indicators. Ceiling effects may have limited program impacts. More structured clinical programs to may be required to achieve improvements in quality of physical health care for this population.

Access to Psychosocial Services Prior to Starting Antipsychotic Treatment Among Medicaid-Insured Youth.

OBJECTIVE: To examine rates and predictors of receiving a psychosocial service before initiating antipsychotic treatment among young people in the Medicaid program. METHOD: A retrospective new-user cohort study of 8 state Medicaid programs focused on children and adolescents 0 to 20 years, initiating antipsychotic treatment (N = 24,372). The proportion receiving a psychosocial service in the 3 months before initiating antipsychotic treatment was calculated and stratified by socio-demographic and diagnostic characteristics arranged in 9 hierarchical groups, as follows: developmental, psychotic/bipolar, disruptive, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, obsessive-compulsive, stress, major depressive, anxiety, and other disorders. RESULTS: Less than one-half of youth received a psychosocial service before initiating antipsychotic treatment (48.8%). Compared to younger adolescents (12-17 years) initiating antipsychotic treatment (51.5%), corresponding younger children (0-5 years; 39.2%) and older adolescents (18-20 years; 40.1%), but not older children (6-11 years; 51.5%), were significantly less likely to have received a psychosocial service. In relation to youth diagnosed with psychotic or bipolar disorder (52.7%), those diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity (43.3%), developmental (41.4%), depressive (46.5%), or anxiety (35.6%) disorder were significantly less likely to have received a psychosocial service during the 3 months before antipsychotic initiation. By contrast, youth diagnosed with stress disorders (61.2%) were significantly more likely than those diagnosed with psychotic or bipolar disorders (52.7%) to have received a psychosocial service before starting an antipsychotic. CONCLUSION: A majority of Medicaid-insured youth initiating antipsychotic treatment have not received a psychosocial service in the preceding 3 months. This service pattern highlights a critical gap in access to psychosocial services.