Using information to guide managed behavioral health care

Commentary

Abstract

This evaluation of substance abuse and mental health treatment services in Arizona discusses and illustrates the use of data already collected by the State to manage and monitor the public behavioral health sector. The authors utilize a framework that focuses on rate-setting and financial incentives; provider profiling and education; and monitoring of data quality and system-wide performance. Information and analysis can contribute to key management activities and forces that guide behavior in the system toward optimal system performance. Using data from 33,208 Medicaid-covered and uninsured adults, service mix varied substantially by region; for example, spending on residential care ranged from 0% to 40% for substance abuse treatment clients. By focusing on a smaller group of client with functional assessments, it also appears that regional spending levels varied considerably, for reasons not explained by client demographics or clinical measures. Finally, longitudinal data show that the regional managed care organizations are moving in different directions with regard to client mix and spending priorities. All of this variation suggests that there may be considerable latitude to guide and improve system-wide performance.

Keywords

Behavioral Health Mental Health Treatment Substance Abuse Treatment Manage Care Organization Behavioral Health Care 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ellis RH, Wilson NZ, Foster FM. Statewide treatment outcome assessment in Colorado: the Colorado Client Assessment Record (CCAR).Community Mental Health Journal. 1984;20(1):72–89.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Provan KG, Carson LMP. Behavioral health funding for Native Americans in Arizona: policy implications for states and tribes.The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2000;27(1):17–28.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dutta A, Heda S. Information systems architecture to support managed care business processes.Decision Support Systems. 2000;30:217–225.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Croze C. Managed behavioral healthcare in the public sector.Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 2000;28(1):23–36.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohan L, Muse L, McInerney C. Managing smarter: a decision support system for mental health providers.The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 1998;25(4):446–491.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dansky KH, Gamm LD, Vasey JJ, et al. Electronic medical records: are physicians ready?Journal of Healthcare Management. 1999;44(6):440–455.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishman PA, Wagner EH. Managed care data and public health: the experience of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound.Annual Review of Public Health. 1998;19:477–491.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang CF, Kiser LJ, Bailey JE, et al. Tennessee's failed managed care program for mental health and substance abuse services.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279(11):864–869.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dickey B. Assessing cost and utilization in managed mental health care in the United States.Health Policy. 1997;41(suppl):S163-S174.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Masland MC, Piccagli G, Snowden L, et al. Planning and implementation of capitated mental health programs in the public sector.Evaluation and Program Planning. 1996;19(3):253–262.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beinecke RH, Callahan JJ, Shepard DS, et al. The Massachusetts Mental Health/Substance Abuse Managed Care Program: the providers' view.Administration & Policy in Mental Health. 1996;23(5):379–391.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ettner SL, Frank RG, McGuire TG, et al. Risk adjustment alternatives in paying for behavioral health care under Medicaid.Health Services Research. 2001;36(4):793–811.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reed SK. Serious mental illness and capitation financing.Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1994;12:379–388.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lohr KN, Schlenger WE, Luckey W. Quality assurance in behavioral health.New Directions for Mental Health Services. 1998;78:67–76.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mechanic D. The state of behavioral health in managed care.The American Journal of Managed Care. 1999;5(special issue):SP17-SP21.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salem-Schatz S, Moore G, Rucker M, et al. The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272(11):871–874.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Provan KG, Milward HB, Isett KR. Collaboration and integration of community-based health and human services in a nonprofit managed care system.Health Care Management Review. 2000;27(1):21–32.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubenstein LV, Jackson-Triche M, UnGtzer JG, et al. Evidence-based care for depression in managed primary care practices; a collaborative approach shows promise in improving care of depression in a variety of sites.Health Affairs. 1999;18(5):89–105.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mittman BS, Tonesh X, Jacobson PD. Implementing clinical practice guidelines: social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change.Quality Review Bulletin. 1992;18(12):413–422.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubenstein LV, Mittman BS, Yano EM, et al. From understanding health care provider behavior to improving health care: the QUERI framework for quality improvement. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.Medical Care. 2000;38(6, suppl 1):I129-I141.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller RH, Luft HS. Does managed care lead to better or worse quality of care? A survey of recent studies shows mixed results on managed care plan performance.Health Affairs. 1997;16(5):7–25.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donohue JM, Frank RG. Medicaid behavioral health carve-outs: a new generation of privatization decisions.Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2000;8(5):231–241.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenthal MB. Risk sharing in managed behavioral health care.Health Affairs. 1999;18(5):204–213.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O'Brien WH. The economics of managed care in behavioral health: basic concepts and incentives.The Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2000;23(2):255–267.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mechanic D. Lessons from the unexpected: the importance of data infrastructure, conceptual models, and serendipity in health services research.The Milbank Quarterly. 2001;79(3):459–477.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Heller Graduate SchoolBrandeis UniversityWaltham
  2. 2.the Schneider Institute for Health Policy in the Heller Graduate School at Brandeis UniversityWaltham

Personalised recommendations