Happy Labor Day 2020

Over the years that I have been writing this blog - I have written a Labor Day greeting to my physician colleagues generally documenting the lack of progress on the work environment. This posts range from discussions about the importance of knowledge workers and their characteristics to how physicians are treated. The most important one of those characteristics is that they cannot be treated like production workers. That is of course the way most physicians are treated these days and it is not a new development. Another important dimension has been the intrusion of business interests on the physician-patient relationship. Those business interests rationed the level of care in order to make corporate profits and prevented physicians from providing the best possible care. All of these intrusions happen across the board but my particular specialty is affected more than others. I learned just this year that when managed-care companies decided to target psychiatry 30 years ago, their goal was double their stock price. No access or quality goal - just more money in the pockets of shareholders and company officials. The end result has been a seriously eroded practice environment, decreased access, County jails being used as psychiatric hospitals, lack of availability of substance use treatment and detoxification, and very brief hospital stays where hardly any treatment is provided or the patient ends up being committed and staying far too long on a short stay unit that almost resembles a jail. None of this is good news for laboring physicians and none of it is changing. 

There was one recent bright spot. The headline in Psychiatric News on August 21 announced that the APA Presidential Task Force on Assessment of Psychiatric Bed Needs in the United States had been created by Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH the president of the APA. Dr. Geller correctly identified a current “public mental health crisis” but he failed to describe its chronicity. There are apparently 30 members on this task force and they will be delivering a white paper in December that “includes a workable model for determining hospital bed needs within a community that can be refined and updated over time”. There are six subgroups including a modeling subgroup. There is a panel describing “how we got here” and stating “inpatient care falls prey to economic forces, ideology”. Nowhere in the article did I see the words “managed-care”. Instead - I see a number of managed-care friendly quotes especially from the panel. The APA has a long history of task forces and boards with so many conflicts of interest that either nothing gets done or something gets done that is in direct opposition to the needs of clinical psychiatrists who go to work every day and typically have to tolerate a very difficult work environment. 

I have written about how other groups have assessed the bed problem. An obvious but innovative way is to look at the beds necessary to prevent committed patients from staying long periods of time in acute care hospitals, the beds necessary to prevent emergency department bottlenecks, and beds necessary to prevent patients with obvious severe mental illness from being incarcerated for minor offenses. Another obvious deficiency in practically all cities is treatment for substance use problems. We need acute detox and people are often sent to a nonmedical detox unit until they develop medical complications. Adequate environments to accomplish all these tasks are needed and support the physicians doing it are critical. I will be interested in the eventual white paper but considering the APA track record against 30 years of managed-care, utilization review, and prior authorization I am not optimistic at all. 

I can’t let this catastrophic year slide without commenting on telepsychiatry. As readers can tell from my previous posts I am fairly enthusiastic about it even though I do prefer talking to people in person. I also take my own vital signs and do brief examinations as necessary and that just can’t happen over a computer network. I suppose there are people who have much better integration with the EHR, clinical systems, and electronic prescribing than my current system and I think that is where hope lies. I have three state-of-the-art computers that are much faster than medical software I am using. There are still plenty of glitches and communication problems that need to be solved but I am hopeful that they eventually will be. There is an associated regulatory burden and that is a wildcard when the pandemic recedes. Specifically will there be a rollback and telemedicine and less development. I am hopeful that better systems and more integrated systems will evolve to the point that there are no delays and the physician work environment is much more seamless. Like most things that physicians deal with we still have to dedicate our time to support software that is supposed to be supporting us. 

The tide has turned on the burnout industry. I am seeing more and more colleagues not accepting blame for their burnout. Burnout is not a yoga or meditation deficiency. It is a direct product of an inadequate and at times hostile work environment. The pandemic highlighted many deficiencies and many questionable administrative decisions. Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) - still loom largely in the background. Dr. Geller has apparently stated one of his goals is to get rid of MOC but I will believe it when I see it. I recently read a document that the APA gets to million-dollar year payment from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) - the MOC body. That is a significant conflict of interest from the membership perspective. The ABPN is currently collecting $500/yr from all of its certification holders in additional to fees necessary to access required reading. If 30,000 psychiatrists are paying these fees every year, that exercise generates $150M for the ABPN very ten years. There is no evidence anywhere that investing this significant time and effort produces a superior psychiatrist. The ABPN response is” “The public demands it!” In fact, the public still doesn’t know the difference between a psychiatrist, psychologist, or nurse practitioner. Burnout will end when physicians can stop doing the work of billing and coding specialists, typists and other clerical workers, IT workers, and surrogate employees of pharmaceutical benefit managers and managed care companies. No physician can be expected to do all of that additional work and work a full time stressful job. That is the real unstated problem of burnout. 

 Is there a high ground left for psychiatrists? I have often closed a post with the statement that: “Psychiatry needs to be focused on innovation and the future. The best position to be in is looking at everyone else in the rearview mirror?” Is there still a way to do that? I think that there is. A survey of many of my posts on this blog focus on what is really irrelevant criticism from the past. I have lived through the era of the biological psychiatrists versus the psychotherapists. I have lived through the era of brainless versus mindless psychiatry. I have survived the Decade of the Brain. It seems that both our detractors and internal critics tend to focus on false dichotomies or irrelevant history from the past. The way forward is to stay focused on modern theories and forget about the rest. 

 What will that take? I would suggest – a firm shift to an all-encompassing view of the field that makes us more resistance to petty criticism but at the same time more focused. When I say focused -  on clinical care, research, and theory. We have at least two models of that as elaborated by S. Nassir Ghaemi (1) and others. The most modern all-encompassing theory comes from Kandel as interpreted by Ghaemi (1). In his book, Ghaemi makes a compelling argument for pluralism as the defining approach in psychiatry over eclecticism and the biopsychosocial model of Engel. Pluralism essentially means that multiple methods are necessary to treat mental illness and that there are no single methods that will work. He cites several traditional theories in psychiatry about how to diagnose and treat mental illness as well as the theorist who suggest more than one approach is necessary. He provides a checklist (p. 308) to determine if you might be a pluralist. It contains questions like: “Can you accept the absence of a single overarching theory in psychiatry, yet also reject relativism and eclecticism?” Thinking about that question I don’t know why psychiatry would be different from the rest of medicine. Is there a single overarching theory in medicine? Why would we expect to see it in the most complex organ in the body? He is clear that he sees psychiatry stuck at the point of dogmatism and eclecticism.

He describes integrationism as an approach that removes the barrier between the mind and the brain as opposed to pluralists believing that there may be some differences between the mind and the brain. Integrationists believe that the brain is required for mental phenomenon but not sufficient. The brain can affect mental phenomena and mental phenomena can affect the brain. It is reminiscent of emergent properties that consciousness theorists tend to talk about. Stochastic factors or genetic factors in the brain that randomize expected behavioral outcomes may also prove to be important at some point. Ghaemi outlines a 5 principle integrationist model of psychiatry that looks at all mental processes/mental disorders being derived from the brain, the effect of genetic and environmental factors on the brain and these processes, and the effect of both biological and psychological treatment affecting the brain through mechanisms of brain change. 

 Although this all sounds fairly basic at this time – it is not. The discovery of brain plasticity or experience dependent changes in the brain was a major revolution in seeing the brain as a dynamic organ that could be altered easily by practicing the violin or lifting weights or talking to a therapist. There are ways to measure these changes. Everyone trained as a physician and a psychiatrist – sees the effects of structural changes in the brain from observing the effects of trauma, various brain diseases, and global brain dysfunction. An integrationist approach is practically intuitive but the model is not widely taught as the basis for clinical work. With that model there would be more uniformity in clinical approaches to the patient and standardization of clinical care. Patients could expect more than just a discussion of medication for example. They could expect psychotherapeutic discussions along with the medication and possibly more time and more visits with their psychiatrist. Instead of the rare research paper discussing this type of session – exchanges about it and innovation would be commonplace. It would also help to establish the necessary environment (physical, administrative support) for this kind of work to be done. 

Labor Day is a reminder for me that where we labor and what we can do for our patients is meaningful. A better work model might help that irrespective of political success in changing the system or not. The work model itself can also be invigorating if it includes elements of clinical work and basic science and helps us to make continuous sense of what we are seeing and expected to treat. 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References: 

1.  S. Nassir Ghaemi. Concepts of Psychiatry – A Pluralistic Approach to the Mind and Mental Illness. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore; 2003. 

Graphic Reference: 

Carpenter, F. G. (ca. 1920) Paris, France. France Paris, ca. 1920. [Photograph] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2001705736/. No known copyright restrictions.

MPS Meeting on Emergency Department Congestion

From the Flyer for this Meeting - Not an indication that MPS has anything to do with the opinions that follow. 

I attended the Minnesota Psychiatric Society 2019 Fall Program last weekend. The theme was addressing Minnesota’s Mental Health Access Traffic Jam: Coming Together to Build a Better Roadmap. That traffic jam has been there for the duration of my career in Minnesota and that is approaching 30 years. 

When I looked at the agenda and the speakers my first association was “stakeholders”. That jargon has found its way into the administration of medical and psychiatric systems over the past 20 years. It is basically a codeword to suggest that administrators, politicians, and everybody in between somehow has a “stake” in medical care and the relationship of physician has with the patient and their family is peripheral to all of these outsiders.  Nothing could be farther from reality – but that is the attitude we have to deal with from politicians and administrators.

The keynote speaker was the director of Psychiatric Emergency Services at the Denver Health Medical Center – Scott Simpson, MD. He was not able to make and his presentation was given by a colleague - Kristie M Ladegard, MD. Denver Health is a 525 bed Level I Trauma center. Psychiatric Emergency Services has a 17-bed psychiatric unit and a 60-bed detox unit.  The Emergency department also has mobile crisis services and consultation services.  For the last data they had in 2013 a little over half of their emergency visits were for “depression, anxiety, or stress reactions”. About 40% were for substance use disorders. An additional 20% were for psychosis or bipolar disorder. As expected, suicidal ideation led to a more complicated disposition plan. The incidence of delirium in elderly patients remaining in the emergency department and the high mortality rate of missed delirium was discussed. Factors leading to boarding in the emergency department were discussed. An interesting approach to substance use treatment was the “No Wrong Door” approach. Using approach intake for substance use treatment occurred right in the emergency department or at other points of contact within the medical system.  Medication Assisted Treatment for opioid use disorder was also started in the ED, with buprenorphine inductions. That resulted in a greater number of inductions and greater percentage of people retained in treatment.

Emergency services lecture also talked about four goals of implementation including access, quality, cost, and provider resiliency. The most interesting method discussed knew the end of the lecture was Dr. Simpson’s paper on single session crisis intervention therapy (1). The specific techniques are given in the open access paper in reference number one, and they should be familiar to people who are involved in crisis intervention especially with people who are suicidal in those situations. It was part of the overall message that I don’t think is emphasized enough. That message is-interventions need to be incorporated into the clinical assessment and not compartmentalized into the few minutes at the end. Experienced clinicians should be able to forgo entire sections of a standard template if an intervention is necessary and they can use the time to provide it.

There was a complementary panel in the afternoon that consisted of two psychiatrists and two emergency medicine physicians in a dialogue about what each discipline wanted to tell the other. Early in my career it was often a source of conflict. There always questions about “inappropriate admissions” psychiatry. Those questions faded away without any psychiatric presence in the emergency department. People were admitted to my service irrespective of their associated medical complexity. It was often my job to determine whether or not they needed to be transferred to a medical or surgical service. With this panel there was not a lot of controversy. Much of the concern had to do with nursing home and group home patients being sent to the ED with no hope that they could be placed anywhere quickly. The ED physicians had a very valid argument that it is no environment for boarding people until placements are available. The spaces are confining and there is very little to do. Communication about these patients and what the outpatient staff’s expectations are is critical. One of the psychiatric panelists pointed out during the session that all of the presentations indicated that additional beds within the system were necessary - but the state and managed care representatives were denying that basic fact.  This was later denied by a state representative who tried to say that there are a lot more beds that are not being counted but the basic fact is that just in terms of state hospital beds Minnesota ranks 49/50 states.

There was a Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) team representative there as well. There are currently 56 ACT teams in 43 counties in the state of Minnesota. There are approximately 90 patients per team. The FACT team specializes in seeing patients with severe mental illness who also have probation officers. The leader that team talk briefly about forensic cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Therapy focuses on a number of maladaptive cognitions that typically promote repetitive criminal behavior. One example was the error of “super optimism” or “negative consequences of this behavior do not apply to me”. Since the therapy for repetitive criminal behavior is generally considered futile to try to locate literature on this type of therapy but was not successful. The psychiatrist who headed the FACT team also talked about the importance of “felony-friendly housing” and “felony-friendly supportive services”. Both of the social features are critical for stabilizing people in the community but these resources are rare.

On the darker side there were presentations from both the MN Department of Human Services and managed care representatives.  Not a great deal of detail was provided by DHS.  They briefly described improvement in the physical environment of their forensic units.  They gave the current bed capacity of Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center (AMRTC) – the largest non-forensic state hospital.  They described the number of facilities for the treatment of psychiatric and substance use disorders as including AMRTC, 6 much smaller Community Behavioral Health Hospitals (CBHHs), 5 Community Addiction Recovery Enterprise (CARE) programs, and 4 Minnesota Specialty Health System (MSHS) Programs.  AMRTC has a 96-bed capacity and has been under significant stress since a Priority Admission Statute allowed county sheriffs to send patients who were incarcerated but mentally ill as direct admissions. That results in longer lengths of stay for committed patients in community hospitals.  Compared with previous statistics provided by Kylee Ann Stevens, MD - Chief Medical Officer, Minnesota Department of Human Services, the bed capacity at AMRTC has decreased from 110 to 96 beds.  A newer Child and Adolescent Behavioral Unit is being built but there is no net increase in bed capacity.  There was no comparable data to the January 2018 post beyond that.

The DHS presentation emphasized the 40% of the patients at AMRTC Did Not Meet Criteria (DNMC) to be there. As a Medicare PRO reviewer for Minnesota and Wisconsin one of my jobs was to review patient stays in their hospitals and determine if they were actively being treated or it was more of a rehabilitative stay. The point at which clear progress was not occurring was an endpoint beyond which hospital care was no longer covered. The problem is that this is an almost totally subjective determination in patients with chronic mental illnesses.  If for example a person is highly aggressive and no medical treatments have worked – is that an acceptable end point to say they should no longer be hospitalized. I don’t think that it is. I have concerns about the robustness of the 40% figure for DNMC.  They presented some graphs of a Continuous Improvement Project that increased patient flow and decreased the DNMC to 19%.  Some external validation that large community acute care hospitals like Regions and Hennepin County medical Center were noticing the effect of this project would have been useful.

DHS also presented a few slides about “innovation” within the system.  They discussed Lean Six Sigma training as adding value in that it provides business skills to clinicians and leads to innovation. I remember they told me the same thing when we got that training in the managed care company where I worked. The problem is that managed care companies don’t really want to hear any ideas from physicians at least none that are not reflected back from management.   There were three bullet points on Michael’s Game, Ligature Mitigation, and Harnessing the Power of the EHR.  They suggested the Michael’s Game was useful to treat delusions for the purpose of competency restoration.  The only available literature I could find suggests it is useful to try cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in people with psychosis, especially if there is little familiarity with the technique. Ligature Mitigation is basically a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate to ensure the safety of the inpatient environment by policies and environmental inspection.  It seems more like a requirement than innovation.  In terms of the power of the electronic health record – I think there is finally a consensus that it is more of a burden than anything else. If there is some power there within the state hospital system – please demonstrate that.

There were a number of other speakers from the managed care industry and affiliated organizations.  There were diagrams about patient flow in the ED and what service availability can do to reduce ED congestion.  There were no inpatient psychiatrists there. The people with the most insight into the problem were absent.  After being an inpatient psychiatrist myself for 22 years I thought about why that might be.  Inpatient docs after all are subjected to all of the unrealistic expectations of everyone else.  Toward the end of my inpatient career I was being sent patients with severe medical problems and either no psychiatric disorders or stable psychiatric disorders.  I was getting these folks because everybody knew that they would get the care they needed – and the case managers who were ordering hospitalists to discharge people would be out of the loop. Inpatient psychiatry became a place where in addition to acute care psychiatry – everybody’s problems could be worked out there. And I had the added advantage of a case manager sitting in my team meeting reporting back to administrators on whether I got people out in 4 or 5 days.  The discharge process was intolerable because there were no discharge resources.  The availability of state hospital beds and group home beds were all shut down by many of the agencies represented in the room. Managed care was responsible for the intolerable work environment and a policy of discharging people before they were stable in order to optimize billing.  Basically, many of the people in the room who created the problem were now saying they could solve it. And I have heard these refrains for the past 20 years.

In a form of ultimate irony, there was a rumor at the meeting that one of the Twin Cities metro hospitals was going to be shut down by the managed care company that owned it taking another 105 psychiatric and substance use beds off line.  Since this question entered the Q & A session it seemed more than a rumor.  There was no comment from the managed care people.  

Besides the ACT psychiatrists there was another bright spot.  Dave Hutchinson, the Hennepin County Sheriff described the progress he was making at the policing level. Deputies were getting crisis intervention training (CIT). He made the point that I think a many don’t consider – crisis calls about obvious psychiatric problems that are being observed by the public go to the police twenty-four hours a day. He described the toll on the police including the statistic that 80% of officers who are involved in the use of deadly force – never return to work.  The jail in Hennepin County – like everywhere is inhabited by a large number of people with mental illness. Sheriff Hutchinson was very clear about the fact that this is a suboptimal situation and he would prefer that these people are in settings where they can get adequate care.

At the end of the session, I met briefly with one of my former residents.  She was a panelist for the meeting. She asked me what she was missing: “It seems that all indications point to needing more beds.”  I reassured her that she didn’t miss a thing.  It was the elephant in the room.  I have seen two decades of smoke and mirrors about why more beds aren’t necessary. It doesn’t seem that the state of Minnesota is any closer to recognizing that this is a real problem. It doesn’t seem that professional psychiatric organizations are any closer to confronting managed care or opaque state bureaucracies about how they are at the minimum unhelpful to people with serious mental illnesses and at the maximum harmful.

    

George Dawson, MD,

References:

1:  Simpson SA. A Single-session Crisis Intervention Therapy Model for Emergency Psychiatry. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019;3(1):27–32. Published 2019 Jan 10. doi:10.5811/cpcem.2018.10.40443D

2: Khazaal Y, Favrod J, Libbrecht J, et al. A card game for the treatment of delusional ideas: a naturalistic pilot trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2006;6:48. Published 2006 Oct 30. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-6-48.   

3: Melnick ER, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky CA, et al. The Association Between Perceived Electronic Health Record Usability and Professional Burnout Among US Physicians [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 12]. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;S0025-6196(19)30836-5. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024



Supplementary:

There are many estimate of optimal bed numbers and Minnesota does not come close on a number of them.  The Treatment Advocacy Center has a number of documents on their site that list Minnesota as 40/50 in 24 hr hospital inpatient and rseidential treatment setting beds, 41/50 in inpatient beds, and estimates that the state needs to add 1,165 beds to the system to establish an adequate base rate of available beds.

This document from the Pew Charitable Trust looks only at state hospital beds and shows Minnesota at 3.5 beds per 100,000 population with a ranking of 49/50 states.  

At least two panels of experts have concluded that 50-60 publicly funded beds per 100,000 is necessary to provide the same level of medical services and wait times for psychiatric patients in emergency departments as medical/surgical patients. 

Governments and Psychiatric Beds

I read a paper yesterday (1) on psychiatric bed policy with a focus on OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations.  The OECD has extensive data collection on their member nations and one of the metrics they collect is the number of psychiatric beds per 100,000 inhabitants.  I have demonstrated some of this data before.  For the purpose of this post I downloaded it to create the two graphs above that were used in the paper. One of the authors main points was transinstitutionalization - in this case sending people with serious mental illnesses to jails rather than psychiatric hospitals.  They demonstrate the rough inverse correlation between psychiatric beds and the rate of incarceration.  Throughout my career available psychiatric beds has always been a problem.  It has been a favorite topic on this blog.  I was interested in whether or not this group of authors had anything new to say.

In their introductory section, they provide the back drop with the numbers.  The American state hospital psychiatric beds fell 97% from 558,922 in 1955 to 37,679 in 2016.  In Minnesota, the drop was about 98.5% from 11,449 in 1955 to 175 currently.  Using the OECD data, the average was about 99 beds per 100,000 population in 1998 to 71 per 100,000 in 2015.  Only Germany trended in the other direction by increasing the number of beds.

They do a fairly good job of analyzing the risks of the bed shortage.  They cite rehospitalizations, prolonged stay in emergency departments, pressure to discharge patients from inpatient setting, more frequent involuntary treatment, and associated staff burnout.  They make the argument that higher rates of suicide are noted in community treatment compared to hospitals where suicide is less likely.  They believe acute inpatient care is less available to the acutely suicidal patient and that may account for some increase in the suicide rate. Scandinavian registry studies are cited as providing some confirmatory data with one group of authors stating that the reduction in beds was the "most probable explanation for the rising mortality."  A similar study in Finland where more community resources were available and the beds were at OECD averages described fewer suicides.

Community treatment is typically cited as a reason for the bed reduction.  In the USA, rationing is more clearly the reason since the community resources are rarely developed to compensate for the bed loss.  It is also unstated that the two treatments are not equivalent.  They cite the UK as having extensive community resources that were not enough to overcome the drop in beds leading to higher rates of suicide, transfers out of the area where the patient lives, and involuntary treatment. From the graph, the UK has more beds than the OECD average.

The history of transinstitutionalization is briefly discussed.  The Penrose Hypothesis was developed by Lionel Penrose who pointed out the inverse relationship between mental hospital and prison populations in 1939.  Other authors like Harcourt look at historical data and note the same relationship but discuss it from the perspective of the institutionalized population.  At one point in his book Harcourt suggests that people in the military and in nursing homes may need to be counted as being institutionalized.  Inspection of the bar graphs at the top of this page does illustrate some clear trends but it also illustrates that the relationship is complex and not all of the variables have been studied.  They include a third graph of the Gini coefficient that I did not include.  The Gini coefficient is a measure of income disparity (approaching 0 means less disparity).  The 10/17 countries with Gini coefficients  > 0.3 had the lowest number of psychiatric beds. In other words, more income disparity translates to fewer psychiatric beds.

The statistics about the incarcerated mentally ill in the USA are reviewed and the numbers are significant.  Twenty percent of the incarcerated population or 350,000 people per day are estimated to have serious mental illness.

The problems that I have written about on this blogs for years are highlighted including the declining length of stay and what the authors called revolving door admissions.  They point out that schizophrenia has the second highest readmission rate at 1 month compared with any other diagnosis (congestive heart failure is first).  The lengths of stay are not generally long enough to allow for adequate stabilization of severe psychiatric disorders and they provide the references.  I see this population of people as a steady state group that goes from jail to homelessness to a short stay in the hospital.  Substance use disorders are generally not addressed or treated in a cursory manner. 

The paper's strength is that they provide an estimate of what a reasonable number of psychiatric beds is for a given populations.  The Royal College of Psychiatrists established a standard that would give psychiatric patients the same access to high quality medical care as medical and surgical patients.  That includes 4 hour maximum time to wait for admission.  They also said that bed occupancy should not exceed 85% to allow for emergency admissions and the length of stay figure should be 2-4 weeks to allow for real improvement.  Using those parameters a US expert consensus group estimated that 50-60 publicly funded beds per 100,000 population were necessary. In case there is any difficulty reading the above graph, the point plotted was 25 beds per 100,000 US inhabitants - well below the estimated number.  In my home state of Minnesota, that number falls off the precipice to 3 publicly funded beds per 100,000!

A closing example is given of the situation in South Australia.  Hospital beds were closed to a level of 32 per 100,000.  Acute care occupancy exceeded 100%, emergency departments waits went up, acuity increased with increasing risk of the need for physical restraint, and the burden of care was often transferred to relatives and friends.  Reforms were enacted that led to an increase to 35 beds per 100,000 with associated 2 week lengths of stay and decreased rates of suicide.

This is an excellent paper for psychiatric societies and psychiatrists to read.  It documents the problems that we all see on a daily basis and provides some clear answers. The answer does not lie with continued or more perfect rationing.  Unfortunately the people who run these systems - largely bureaucrats in large state human services departments, the politicians who influence those bureaucrats, and administrators of most health care systems all see rationing as their only solution to the problem.  They are incentivized to ration and we (and our patients) are left picking up the pieces.

We finally have a paper that is making a stand against all of this rationing.     
     

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




Supplementary 1: Data for the top graph was downloaded directly from the OECD and accessed today (July 12, 2018).

Supplementary 2: Data on incarceration rates was taken from the Prison Policy Initiative and accessed today (July 12, 2018).

For both graphs click on them for expanded and improved resolution.




References:

1:  Allison S, Bastiampillai T, Licinio J, Fuller DA, Bidargaddi N, Sharfstein SS. When should governments increase the supply of psychiatric beds? Mol Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;23(4):796-800. doi: 10.1038/mp.2017.139. Epub 2017 Jul 11. PubMed PMID: 28696434.

2:  Osby U, Correia N, Brandt L, Ekbom A, Sparén P. Mortality and causes of death in schizophrenia in Stockholm county, Sweden. Schizophr Res. 2000 Sep 29;45(1-2):21-8. PubMed PMID: 10978869.

3: Bernard E. Harcourt, "From the Asylum to the Prison: Rethinking the Incarceration Revolution," 84 Texas Law Review 1751 (2005). Link

4:  Royal College of Psychiatrists. The Commission to review the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric care for adults.  OLD PROBLEMS, NEW SOLUTIONS: Improving acute psychiatric care for adults in England.  February 2016.  Link  This is a detailed look at bed capacity including current estimates and what can be done to improve it.

Bedless Psychiatry and A Recipe for Remaining Bedless

There is no better marker of the rickety psychiatric infrastructure in the USA than the lack of psychiatric beds.  A close second is how those beds are utilized to basically run patients in an out to maximize hospital profits. It seems like I have said it a thousand times on this blog but I will say it again - hospitals make money by getting psychiatric patients out in advance of the diagnosis related group (DRG) time limit.  These days that it is about 3-4 days. If management believes that the psychiatrist is not discharging people fast enough - they will turn up the heat on them to do so by using either a designated case manager or somebody who sits in team meetings and reports that psychiatrist to his or her superiors if the patients are not out by a maximum of about 6 days.

There are huge problems with that business approach to psychiatric care.  The first is patient complexity. Severe psychiatric disorders place people at risk for significant medical problems and often psychiatric care cannot proceed until those medical problems are stabilized.  During my career for example I had terminal cancer patients and patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension admitted directly to my care because they had a major psychiatric disorder.  Substance  use disorders complicate at least half of the admissions and psychiatric care typically has to wait until a patient is detoxified from an intoxicant.  Very ill patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders who received outpatient treatment cannot be treated and stabilized in 4-6 days.  Specific problems like suicide risk and delirium often take many weeks of care.  Although brief stays can be useful in the case of event or intoxicant related crises the length of stay on psychiatric units is basically an arbitrary number of days determined by bean counters rather than doctors. They do no reflect clinical reality.

That brings me to the commentary by Sisti, Sinclair, and Sharfstein (1).  They lost me then they had me and then they lost me completely.  My first criticism is the title "Bedless Psychiatry-Rebuilding Behavioral Health Service Capacity."  Ironic that the authors use the managed care buzzword "behavioral health" to suggest that the bed crisis can be addressed by the same carpetbaggers that designed the current system.  I can appreciate a political turn of a phrase as well as the next rhetorician, but in the case it falls very flat.  The only way to address the bed crisis and the destruction of the mental health care infrastructure in this country is to get rid of managed care and all of their buzzwords.  There is no way that companies paid well for rationing care and kicking unstable people out of psychiatric hospitals are going to solve that problem.

From there the authors do an adequate job of describing the problem of a sharp drop in bed capacity in addition to the absurdly short lengths of stay.  They depend on data that may have another agenda.  In a recent post in this blog, I looked at the drop in state hospitals beds in Minnesota and the Medical Directors commentary on why that will never be reversed.  The same organization that authored the report used by the authors to describe the drop in beds (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) is on record stating that "Building more inpatient bed capacity to meet demand is unsustainable".  State Mental Health Program Directors are all accountable to state politicians and generally run state mental health programs like managed care companies do.  They ration services and limit access to treatment. It is cost effective from their perspective to leave large blocks of people untreated. Better yet put them in jail and give them a baloney sandwich everyday instead of the à la carte fare that medical and surgical patients have come to expect in customer satisfaction based hospitals.  This conflict of interest and lack of interest in looking at whether bed capacities are too low is a bias that any reader of the report should be aware of.   They also consider OECD data and suggest that psychiatric bed capacity in the USA is 4th from the lowest bed capacity in the countries studied.

They go on to discuss the "types" of beds  and suggest that the notion that bed capacity may be too abstract.  They favor bed descriptions based on the function of the unit that they reside on - forensic, acute care, intermediate, and long term care.  They discuss beds in the grey zones between corrections and mental health.  For example in my discussion of the Minnesota situation, I did not include beds operated by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).  That program houses 726 clients at two large facilities or about three times the state bed capacity for all of the committed patients with mental illness in the state.  In a bizarre end run around psychiatry, sex offenders in the state are essentially granted mental illness status.  This occurs in order to allow the state to indefinitely commit them.  MSOP clients are essentially never discharged while committed patients back up and crowd local hospital psychiatric units and shut them to new admissions while they are waiting to be transferred into the state hospital system.  The argument about no new beds at the state level does not apply to sex offenders.

The authors close by saying the concept of a psychiatric "bed" may need to be "jettisoned" in order to more accurately address the needs of patients and system capacity.  They end with the idea that "targeted payment reforms" are necessary to increase psychiatric bed capacity.  I think that they have it wrong on both accounts.  We have had 30 years of "incentives" that really are not incentives.  The DRG payment itself was allegedly a payment for what was the average amount of care for a particular diagnosis.  Instead, it became a way that managed care companies could game the system while they rationed care.  It may not be as easy to determine (another bean counter bias) - but looking at the flow though systems and where services are short is a better idea.  Classic examples are outpatient psychiatrists who are not able to refer one of their outpatients to an inpatient unit in the same system for purposes of detox, electroconvulsive therapy, or stabilization.  Whenever that happens it should be taken as a sign that health plan needs to improve their bed capacity.

Bed quality is as least as important as bed inventory.  Beds are worth less if there are problems with the physical structure or staffing problems.  Beds are worth less if a therapeutic environment cannot be maintained. Beds that can contain aggressive behavior are generally at a premium because fewer people can work in that setting. In every state there are only a few psychiatric units that will address aggression as a psychiatric problem.  Specialty units to treat depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance use in addition to mental illnesses, or medically ill psychiatric patients are rare.  There appears to be no interest in either the quality or specialty side.  DRG payments create an incentive to get people out as soon as possible and provide the lowest level of quality.

A very basic comparison with any systems of high quality beds that address the medical problem with state of the art care is instructive. Any middle aged person in the US who presents to the emergency department with chest pain who has cardiac risk factors will be admitted to a telemetry unit, get the necessary blood testing, and (if all of those tests are negative) will probably get an echocardiogram and cardiac stress test before they leave the next day. That same person presenting to the emergency department with hallucinations or mania or severe depression or delusions will only be admitted unless they are determined to be "dangerous".  The standard definition of dangerousness being "imminent risk of harm to yourself or others."  Dangerousness is the managed care approach to psychiatric hospitalizations.  It contaminates emergency assessment and it contaminates what happens on the inpatient side.  When the overriding treatment dimension is dangerousness - inpatient units become holding tanks where nothing therapeutic occurs. Patients sit around and look at one another all day long waiting for someone to proclaim that they are no longer dangerous - so they can be discharged.  Beds that operate under this punitive model should probably not be counted. 

The authors' commentary seems to continue the same policy wonk approach that has contaminated practically all medical journals - basically a number of administrators sitting around and speculating.  Unfortunately we know that a lot of bad ideas get started this way. We also know that hypotheticals and incentives have have been the order of the day for a generation and that very process knocked out bed capacity and led to all of this low quality care.

To improve the bed capacity it will take a psychiatrist who is aware of the problems and how they can be addressed in each state.  Being on the ground as the inpatient beds and any quality they had were rationed away would be a plus.  Knowing how to build increased capacity and quality is the best possible approach. 


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Sisti DA, Sinclair EA, Sharfstein SS. Bedless Psychiatry—Rebuilding Behavioral Health Service Capacity. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online March 14, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0219

Graphics Credit:

The above picture of an abandoned state hospital bed is downloaded from Shutterstock per their standard licensing agreement.