economic impact of an integrated behavioral health program kenneth kushner, phd professor,...
TRANSCRIPT
Economic Impact of An Integrated Behavioral Health Program
Kenneth Kushner, PhDProfessor, University of Wisconsin Department of Family Medicine
Neftali Serrano, PsyDDirector of Clinical Training, Center of Excellence for Integration,
North Carolina Foundation for Advanced Health Programs
Collaborative Family Healthcare Association 17th Annual ConferenceOctober 15-17, 2015 Portland, Oregon U.S.A.
Session # C1October 16, 2015
Faculty Disclosure
The presenters of this session• currently have or have had the following
relevant financial relationships (in any amount) during the past 12 months.
– Lead consultant, primarycareshrink.com
Learning Objectives
At the conclusion of this session, the participant will be able to:
• Describe the impact of insurance status on patient utilization of healthcare resources
• Describe the main conclusions of our study in terms of the effect of integrated behavioral health on overall inpatient and outpatient utilization
• Discuss the policy implications of the results of our study in the context of the larger literature on cost offset for mental health services
Bibliography / Reference
• Egede et al. Impact of Mental Health Visits on Healthcare costs in Patients with Diabetes and Comorbid Mental Health Disorders. PLoS One, 2014
• Park et al. Examining the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote the Physical Health of People with Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review. Public Health, 2013
• Salvador-Carulla, L & Hernandez-Pena, P. Economic Context Analysis in Mental Health Care. Usability of Health Financing and Cost of Illness Studies for International Comparisons. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Services, 2011.
• Serrano, N. and Monden, K.The effect of behavioral health consultation on the care/ Wisconsin Medical Journal, 2011.
• Reiss-Brennan, B. Cost and quality impact of Intermountain's mental health integration program. Journal of Healthcare Management, 2010
Learning Assessment
• A learning assessment is required for CE credit.
• A question and answer period will be conducted at the end of this presentation.
Does Integrated Behavioral Health Result in Cost Savings?
6
Medical Cost Offset
“At some point, the reduction in medical costs may offset the cost of providing mental health services”
Pallak, Cummings et al (1993)
7
Cummings and Follett (1967)• Found that overall utilization of (non-
psychiatric) inpatient and outpatient medical services declined significantly among patients who received psychotherapy in a pre-paid health plan.• Declines persisted after the initial interview,
most significantly 2 years afterwards.• Control patients, who did not receive
psychotherapy, showed no decrease utilization.
8
Cummings and Follette (1976)
• Found the overall costs of medical care of patients who received 1 to 8 managed mental health treatments declined significantly, compared to matched controls, in the year following the treatments.
• The declines persisted after 5 years.
9
Pallak, Cummings et al (1993)
• Tracked medical costs for Medicaid enrollees in Hawaii.
• They found declines in overall medical costs for those who received managed mental health services, but not for those receiving traditional, unmanaged mental health intervention.
10
Pallak, Cummings et al (1993-Cont.)
• Declines in the managed mental health care group were attributable to decreases in:• Inpatient medical services• Outpatient medical services• Drug prescription• ED visits
11
Subsequent Studies
• Chronic illness (Schlesinger et al, 1983)• Anxiety and Depression (Fifer et al, 2003;
Goldberg et al, 1996; Korff et al, 1998)• Cancer (Carlson and Butz, 2004)• Substance abuse (Polen et al, 2006)• Diabetes (2014)
12
Reviews
• Cummings, O’Donahue and Ferguson (2002)• Mumford et al (1998)• Olfson, Sing and Schlesinger (1999)• Shemo (1995)
13
Meta-analysis
• Chiles, Lambert and Hatch (1999).• Found that the average savings resulting from
psychological intervention to be 20%.• In 1/3 of the articles, the savings were
“substantial” even after the costs of providing psychological services were factored in.
14
Cost Offset and Integrated Behavioral Health?
15
Study Parameters
• 12,300 Patients From Four Medical Homes• Selected based on having at least one encounter in a medical
home with a mood disorder diagnosis between 2004-2012• Data obtained from three area hospitals and several
specialty mental health providers• The analysis segmented utilization into four categories:
emergency department, inpatient psychiatry, inpatient medical, outpatient specialty mental health
• The final analysis used three years of utilization pre/post, following patients from the initial three year period into the subsequent period
16
Sample Demographics
17
Clinics Arm NAge 2012 (sd)
% Femal
eAfr. Am. Am.
Ind. White Hispanic None Commerci
al Medicaid
Medicare
Northeast C 2089 50.2 (15.0) 71.2 13.2 1.9 78.2 3.8 6.4 66.0 13.8 13.8
ACHC-S I 900 46.7 (13.2) 70.3 27.6 12.7 44.6 31.4 35.2 27.3 28.7 8.8
ACHC-E I 816 46.5 (12.8) 67.5 23.1 4.5 58.8 19.5 34.7 29.7 29.0 6.6
Wingra I 1458 48.1 (13.8) 71.1 25.2 4.8 60.0 15.2 11.9 52.7 24.0 11.3
Demographics Insurance
Pre Post N Pre Post NIntegrated Care
Control
None 2.91 3.10 774 2.34 2.25 134 6.5% -3.8%
Commercial
1.52 1.74 1257 1.11 1.23 1378 14.5% 10.8%
Medicaid 3.83 3.67 845 3.41 3.74 289 -4.2% 9.7%
Medicare 3.19 3.60 298 2.43 2.73 288 12.9% 12.3%
Total combined
2.63 2.76 3174 1.69 1.85 2089 4.9% 9.5%
Integrated Care Control % Change
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT UTILIZATION
*
*
Pre Post N % Change
None 3.55 3.08 348 -13.2%
Commercial 1.35 1.38 1538 2.2%
Medicaid 5.16 4.75 700 -7.9%
Medicare 2.93 3.30 330 12.6%
Total combined 2.70 2.61 2916 -3.3%
Integrated CareControl % Change
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT UTILIZATIONWingra Clinic Only, Pre/ Post
*
Pre Post N Pre Post NIntegrated Care
Control
None 2.95 4.97 774 3.51 3.92 134 68.47% 11.7%
Commercial
3.32 4.57 1257 4.13 4.79 1378 37.65% 16.0%
Medicaid 4.81 5.4 845 6.08 6.88 289 12.27% 13.2%
Medicare 7.1 8.29 298 7.13 10.27 288 16.76% 44.0%
Total combined
3.98 5.24 3174 4.78 5.78 2089 31.66% 20.9%
Integrated Care Control % Change
INPATIENT HOSPITAL UTILIZATIONNon-Psychiatric
*
*
*
*
Pre Post N % Change
None 4.10 5.68 348 38.5%
Commercial 3.56 4.01 1538 12.6%
Medicaid 5.80 6.84 700 17.9%
Medicare 7.16 7.61 330 6.3%
Total combined 4.57 5.29 2916 15.8%
Integrated CareControl
INPATIENT HOSPITAL UTILIZATIONWingra Clinic Only, Pre/ Post
UTILIZATION COMPARISONS
Higher Overall ED Utilization Lower Overall Inpatient Utilization
Pre Post0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5 Control PCBH
Pre Post0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5 Control PCBH
23
Financial Impact, ED Medicaid
24
Integrated Care Control
Pre 3.83 3.41
Post 3.67 3.74
(Savings) Cost (-$162,000) $334,600
Estimate over a three year period, assuming per ED visit mean cost of $1200, with equivalent samples of 845 patients
Pre Post3.15
3.3
3.45
3.6
3.75
3.9
Control Integrated Care
*Cost/Savings estimates obtained by establishing the difference in visits (with equalized samples using the highest sample size of the two groups) between pre and post and multiplying that difference in visits by $1200 or the mean ED visit cost.
Financial Impact, ED Overall
25
Integrated Care Control
Pre 2.63 1.69
Post 2.76 1.85
(Savings) Cost $495,144 $609,408
Estimate over a three year period, assuming per ED visit mean cost of $1200, with equivalent samples of 3174 patients
Pre Post0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
Control Integrated Care
*Cost/Savings estimates obtained by establishing the difference in visits (with equalized samples using the highest sample size of the two groups) between pre and post and multiplying that difference in visits by $1200 or the mean ED visit cost.
Financial Impact, Hospital Medicaid
26
Integrated Care Control
Pre 4.81 6.08
Post 5.4 6.88
(Savings) Cost $1,944,345 $2,636,400
Estimate over a three year period, assuming per hospital stay mean cost of $3900, with equivalent samples of 845 patients
Pre Post0
1.75
3.5
5.25
7
8.75
Control Integrated Care
*Cost/Savings estimates obtained by establishing the difference in visits (with equalized samples using the highest sample size of the two groups) between pre and post and multiplying that difference in visits by $3900 or the mean inpatient daily stay cost.
Financial Impact, Hospital Medicare
27
Integrated Care Control
Pre 7.1 7.13
Post 8.29 10.27
(Savings) Cost $1,383,018 $3,649,308
Estimate over a three year period, assuming per hospital stay mean cost of $3900, with equivalent samples of 298 patients
Pre Post0
2.75
5.5
8.25
11
Control Integrated Care
*Cost/Savings estimates obtained by establishing the difference in visits (with equalized samples using the highest sample size of the two groups) between pre and post and multiplying that difference in visits by $3900 or the mean inpatient daily stay cost.
Financial Impact, Hospital Overall
28
Integrated Care Control
Pre 3.98 4.78
Post 5.24 5.78
(Savings) Cost $15,597,036 $12,378,600
Estimate over a three year period, assuming per hospital stay mean cost of $3900, with equivalent samples of 298 patients
Pre Post0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
Control Integrated Care
*Cost/Savings estimates obtained by establishing the difference in visits (with equalized samples using the highest sample size of the two groups) between pre and post and multiplying that difference in visits by $3900 or the mean inpatient daily stay cost.
More Questions Than Answers
29
Why?• Why did the control group do better with the uninsured and
the commercial population whereas the intervention group did slightly better with the Medicaid and Medicare groups?
• Are there differences between the medical home patient samples that were not captured by the data?
• Are sample sizes and risk exposure different between the groups?
• As a medical home grows and it achieves greater samples of these insurance subgroups does utilization regress to the mean?
• Why is there some evidence for mitigation of ED visits and increased hospital visits?
30
Factors To Consider• The medical homes overall have
different proportions of the different payer status subgroups
• It is possible that the intervention group medical homes had more dual eligible patients represented in the Medicare subgroup
• It is also possible that the commercial and uninsured populations differed between the medical homes due to the nature of the underserved population of the FQHC
31
Do medical homes develop “orientations”?
Are there ways to quantify “harder" patients?
Is a commercial patient at an FQHC different than a commercial patient elsewhere?
What Does This All Mean?
• Don’t trust utilization outcomes research that does not identify medical home composition, especially insurance status
• The impact of integrated care programs appear to have differential impact on patient groups and perhaps medical homes
• Financial significance does not always equal statistical significance
• There appears to be a mitigating impact of integrated care on ED utilization, especially in high utilizing subgroups like Medicaid but no impact on hospital utilization (medical only)
• Significant implications for payment reforms based on quality outcomes 32
Session Evaluation
Please complete and return theevaluation form to the classroom
monitor before leaving this session.
Thank you!