Administering a National Program of Mental Health Peer Review

  • Sharon A. Shueman
  • Norman R. Penner


In 1977, the Department of Defense (DOD), through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS1), initiated contracts that were to result in revolutionary changes in both practice and attitudes within the nation’s two major mental health professions. CHAMPUS contracted with the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association to develop and assist in the implementation of two essentially independent national programs to monitor the adequacy and necessity of mental health services delivered to beneficiaries of the CHAMPUS program. Called peer review programs, these efforts were intended to provide the CHAMPUS claims processors (referred to as fiscal intermediaries, or Fls) with the expertise necessary to decide which cases of psychiatric or psychological treatment warranted professional evaluation for adequacy and necessity, and with the mechanism to obtain review of these cases from consultant psychologists and psychiatrists. These consultants would review written treatment plans describing the care delivered by members of their own profession and give the FI written evaluations that could be used by FI personnel in deciding whether or not to pay for the treatment. Those affected by this program would be primarily independent practitioners treating CHAMPUS beneficiaries on a fee-for-service basis.


Mental Health Service American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association Project Office Review Program 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, J. (1981). Assuring quality mental health services: The CHAMPUS experience. (ADM81-1099). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  2. Chodoff, P. (1972). The effect of third party payment on the practice of psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 540–545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., & Pizzirusso, D. (1982). Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: Experimental studies of the APA/CHAMPUS program. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 5, 415–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dall, O., & Claiborn, W. L. (1982). An evaluation of the Aetna pilot peer review project. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, and practice, 19, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donabedian, A. (1982). Criteria and standards of quality. Quality assessment and monitoring(Vol. 2). Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
  6. Harrington, B. S. (1984). Psychiatric practice must change to survive floundering economy. Psychiatric News, 19(6), 1, 22–23.Google Scholar
  7. Lassen, C. L. (1982). The Colorado Medicare Study: Perspectives of the peer review committees. Professional Psychology, 13, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Morton, S. I. (1982). Peer review: A view from within. Professional Psychology, 13, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Newman, D. E. (1974). Peer review: A California model. Psychiatric Annals, 4, 75–85.Google Scholar
  10. Rodriguez, A. R. (1983). Psychological and psychiatric peer review at CHAMPUS. American Psychologist, 38, 941–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sechrest, L., & Hoffman, P. O. (1982). Philosophical underpinnings of peer review. Professional Psychology, 13, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sharfstein, S. S., Muszynski, S., & Meyers, E. (1984). Health insurance and psychiatric care: Update and appraisal. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  13. Shueman, S. A., & Troy, W. G. (1982). Education for peer review. Professional Psychology, 13, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tryon, G. S. (1983). Pleasures and displeasures of full-time private practice. The Clinical Psychologist, 36(4), 45–48.Google Scholar
  15. Willens, J., & DeLeon, P. H. (1982). Political aspects of peer review. Professional Psychology, 13, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson, S. (1982). Peer review in California: Summary findings in forty cases. Professional Psychology, 13, 517–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon A. Shueman
    • 1
  • Norman R. Penner
    • 2
  1. 1.Shueman Troy and AssociatesPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.American Psychiatric AssociationUSA

Personalised recommendations