Jeffrey A. Buck

Datapoints: Psychotropic Drug Prescriptions by Medical Specialty

1167 T important role of general practitioners in prescribing antidepressant medications and treating depression has been documented. However, the extent to which general practitioners are prescribing other types of psychotropic medications has received less emphasis. This study used data from August 2006 to July 2007 from the National Prescription Audit (NPA) Plus database of IMS to examine this question. IMS collects transaction information each month from approximately 36,000 retail pharmacies, representing about 70% of all retail pharmacies, which when weighted represent all prescriptions filled in retail outlets in the United States. Using a separate sample of retail pharmacy transactions that includes the physician’s Drug Enforcement Administration number, IMS assigns physician specialty information to obtain an estimate of the total number of prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies by medical specialty. As shown Figure 1, of the 472 million prescriptions for psychotropic medications, 59% were written by general practitioners, 23% by psychiatrists, and 19% by other physicians and nonphysician providers. General practitioners wrote prescriptions for 65% of the anxiolytics in the sample, 62% of the antidepressants, 52% of the stimulants, 37% of the antipsychotics, and 22% of the antimania medications. Conversely, psychiatrists and addiction specialists wrote prescriptions for 66% of the antimania medications, 49% of the antipsychotics, 34% of the stimulants, 21% of the antidepressants, and 13% of the anxiolytics. Pediatricians were included as general practitioners and wrote 25% of all stimulant prescriptions but only 3% of all other types of psychotropic medications (data not shown). Prescribing of psychotropic medications by nonpsychiatrists improves access to treatment. However, concerns remain about whether patients treated in the general medical setting are receiving treatment concordant with evidence-based guidelines, psychotherapy, adequate medication monitoring, and appropriate intensity of treatment. Psychotropic Drug Prescriptions by Medical Specialty

Future Funding For Mental Health And Substance Abuse: Increasing Burdens For The Public Sector

Spending on mental health (MH) and substance abuse (SA) treatment is expected to double between 2003 and 2014, to

Use of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Among High-Cost Medicaid Enrollees

239 billion, and is anticipated to continue falling as a share of all health spending. By 2014, our projections of SA spending show increasing responsibility for state and local governments (45 percent); deteriorating shares financed by private insurance (7 percent); and 42 percent of SA spending going to specialty SA centers. For MH, Medicaid is forecasted to fund an increasingly larger share of treatment costs (27 percent), and prescription medications are expected to capture 30 percent of MH spending by 2014.

Utilization of public mental health services by children with serious emotional disturbances.

Users of mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) services were examined among nonelderly high-cost Medicaid enrollees in 10 states in 1995. Although MH/SA service users constitute 11% of all Medicaid enrollees, they make up nearly a third of high-cost enrollees. Adults account for two thirds of this high-cost MH/SA group, and most frequently qualify for Medicaid through disability-related eligibility categories. In contrast, a majority of children in the high-cost MH/SA group are eligible for Medicaid through child-related categories, rather than disability. In diagnostic makeup, the high-cost group was somewhat more likely to have serious disorders than the general Medicaid MH/SA user population.

Transforming Mental Health and Substance Abuse Data Systems in the United States

The Integrated Database (IDB) was created to provide a broad picture of the use of state-funded mental health (MH) and substance abuse (SA) services. Assembled separately for three states (Delaware, Oklahoma, and Washington), the IDB links client-level and service-level data maintained by the state MH, SA, and Medicaid agencies. This study used the IDB to examine public MH services for children with serious emotional disturbances (SED) in 1996. Children with SED represented 9% to 22% of all children with MH service use. Between one half and two thirds of children with SED received psychotropic medication; 20% to 40% had a MH inpatient or residential stay. Medicaid was the primary funder of MH services for children with SED; only 2% to 12% of children with SED received services solely through the state MH agency.

National Estimates of Mental Health Insurance Benefits

State efforts to improve mental health and substance abuse service systems cannot overlook the fragmented data systems that reinforce the historical separateness of systems of care. These separate systems have discrete approaches to treatment, and there are distinct funding streams for state mental health, substance abuse, and Medicaid agencies. Transforming mental health and substance abuse services in the United States depends on resolving issues that underlie separate treatment systems--access barriers, uneven quality, disjointed coordination, and information silos across agencies and providers. This article discusses one aspect of transformation--the need for interoperable information systems. It describes current federal and state initiatives for improving data interoperability and the special issue of confidentiality associated with mental health and substance abuse treatment data. Some achievable steps for states to consider in reforming their behavioral health data systems are outlined. The steps include collecting encounter-level data; using coding that is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, including national provider identifiers; forging linkages with other state data systems and developing unique client identifiers among systems; investing in flexible and adaptable data systems and business processes; and finding innovative solutions to the difficult confidentiality restrictions on use of behavioral health data. Changing data systems will not in itself transform the delivery of care; however, it will enable agencies to exchange information about shared clients, to understand coordination problems better, and to track successes and failures of policy decisions.

Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California

This article presents estimates of the proportion of the U.S. population that had mental health benefits in 1999, of the extent of their coverage, and of the proportion that were enrolled in health plans subject to the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). Findings indicate that over three-quarters (76%) of the U.S. population had mental health benefits as part of their health insurance. Approximately 18% of the population had no mental health benefits, and for the remaining 6%, mental health benefits could not be determined. Of the 18% with no mental health benefits, most (84%) had no health insurance whatsoever, while the remainder (16%) had health insurance that did not cover mental health benefits. Estimates of the generosity of coverage indicate that 44% of the population had benefits that included prescription drugs, and that provided at least 30 inpatient days and 20 outpatient visits for psychiatric care. For 12% of the population, benefit generosity could not be determined. Finally, study results suggest that the MHPA affected only 42% of the U.S. population.

Mental Health Benefits in Employer-sponsored Health Plans, 1997–2003

OBJECTIVE This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with Californias mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law. METHODS This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of Californias parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis. RESULTS Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. Californias parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity. CONCLUSIONS Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits.

Utilization of public mental health services by adults with serious mental illness.

Data drawn from the Mercer National Survey of Employer-sponsored Health Plans in 1997 and 2003 indicate that a large majority of employers continue to provide some level of coverage for mental health (MH) services in their primary plans. However, a majority of plans continue to impose different benefit limitations for MH than for other medical treatment. Among plans with limitations on MH coverage, there was a sharp increase in the use of limits on inpatient days and outpatient visits between 1997 and 2003. The proportion of employers providing coverage for some MH services decreased; e.g., among small employers, 88% provided coverage for inpatient MH care in 2003, compared with 94% in 1997. These results suggest that parity legislation has had a noticeable but limited effect, but that, at least in the short-term, it is unlikely that universal parity in employer-based plans will be achieved through a legislative strategy.

Medicaid Beneficiaries Using Mental Health or Substance Abuse Services in Fee-for-Service Plans in 13 States, 2003

Public mental health (MH) services were examined for non-elderly adults with serious mental illness (SMI) using a database combining information from Medicaid, MH, and substance abuse agencies in three states. These data show that between 23% and 39% of those with SMI received MH services only through Medicaid. Relative use of community versus state hospitals for delivery of psychiatric inpatient care varied across the three states. However, state hospitals accounted for a large proportion of total inpatient days, due to high mean annual days of care. In two states, Medicaid paid for fewer psychiatric inpatient days than expected.