NAMI and the Clinton Foundation Take The Bait On Managed Integrated Care

My views on "integrating" behavioral health and primary care are fairly well known.  They run counter to everyone including the American Psychiatric Association (APA) who has been promoting the advantages of "collaborative care".  I use quotes here to designate loosely defined terms that have multiple meanings to different special interest groups.  I should have also included the term behavioral health because outside of managed care companies, the word really has no meaning.  I got a post today in my Facebook feed that stated  The Benefits of Integrating Behavioral Health into Primary Care.  I encourage any interested readers to search directly for this page on the NAMI web site and take a look at the content.  It is in press release format that contains little detailed information.  It presents the chronic disease concept and how chronic diseases cause mental illnesses and make them worse.  It talked about practice models that look at putting therapists in clinics.  It talked about a model that brought a mental health clinician into immediate contact with a patient and clinician in a primary care physician's office, but stated that model lacked sustainable funding.   It talked about the promise of telemedicine.  Since this was a NAMI event, stigma and destigmatization were also on the agenda and the release ends in a global statement about how this will lead to everyone admitting that mental illness affects us all and at that point the stigma will evaporate.

With all of that good news, what do I have against this love fest for integrated care?  Just responding to the news release there are obvious problems with the ideas being mentioned.  The first is that many of these ideas have been around for at least 30 years.  I was hired as the medical director of a community mental health center in 1986 and part of what I was supposed to do was telemedicine through a cable TV and satellite hook-up in the town that I worked.  That never materialized.  Granted the resources today are much more sophisticated, but how many primary care clinics are really going to dedicate resources so that their patients will be seen in their clinic by an outside mental health clinician?  And what about the cost of those services?  There are currently networks of mental health clinicians eager to do telemedicine, but they are not eager to provide those services for nothing.  The economics of telemedicine is that it needs to be supported and there is no evidence that I am aware of that managed care companies support it.  The Veteran's Administration has supported it in some areas, but most health care facilities are not funded like the VA.

Putting therapists in clinics has occurred for more than the past 30 years.  Part of the problem is what those therapists will be doing in those clinics.   Will they end up doing acute assessments for suicide or aggression risk?  If they do identify those problems, are patients going to be cared for in those clinics or sent somewhere else?  In today's landscape of having no functional psychiatric units, will the primary care clinic now start to accumulate people with acute, subacute, and chronic suicidal thinking? Will there now be security issues related to the same problem with aggression?  Is the expectation in these clinics going to be follow up in 3-6 months like many other medical problems?  Will there ever be any effective therapy done?  Psychotherapy after all is probably a better treatment than all of those patients being put on antidepressants for acute adjustment disorders and grief.  Most people in those circumstances notice little effects from the medication.  Psychotherapy is after all a better treatment than benzodiazepines for most people put on those medications for situational anxiety and insomnia.  Therapists can do great work, but they are also rapidly saturated when they have to see patients for 6 - 10 sessions in follow up.  Is there really a managed care company who is going to put enough therapists in a clinic to do some good or are they going to be there just for looks?  You know - look here is the therapist for our integrated model.  Isn't it great?

There seems to be a collective amnesia about how this integrated care model really works and what it is really about.  This is really about continuing to ration care for mental illness and psychiatric care.  Refreshers on that can be found here and here.  Giving everyone in a primary care clinic a very basic screening checklist for anxiety and depression is one of the basic paradigms for all of the integrated care advocates.  The patients mentioned in the press release will be especially likely to score positive on these screens.  That is true not because they magically developed a new anxiety or depressive disorder, but because they have complicated conditions that are associated with anxiety and depression.  If a person has paroxysmal atrial fibrillation when their heart rate suddenly accelerates to a rate of 220 beats per minute, they tend to get very anxious both during those episodes and anticipating the next one.  The same thing is true for patients with heart attacks and emphysema.  Is checklist screening a good enough approach for these patients?  Is following a certain protocol with antidepressants a good enough approach with these patients?  So far, the checklist implementation of the "integrated" approach is a low quality assembly line approach that guarantees more exposure to antidepressants  and a limited differential diagnosis of what else might account for any psychiatric symptoms.  At least one group has determined that broad "screening" for depression (also mentioned in the press release) - does the exact same thing and is generally not a good idea.

This is really all about the money.  Managed care organizations and governments are still very interested in providing the appearance of care for mental disorders and that is about it.  In order to believe that they have some grander plan, an extremely naïve approach is required.  The last thirty years of managed care would need to be ignored.  That history would include the elimination of functional detoxification units for addictive disorders, the general elimination of psychotherapy, restricted access to psychiatrists and limiting psychiatric treatment to a 20 minute "med check", the elimination of functional inpatient units where difficult problems can be treated in a safe and humane environment, the elimination of resources to treat patients with severe aggressive behavior, and restricted access to medications that people may need due to their unique treatment requirements.  The basic concept that managed care was invented and supported by the federal and state governments would also need to be ignored.  The ultimate result of having record numbers of people with mental illnesses incarcerated rather than receiving appropriate care for mental illness cannot be ignored.  Even as I typed this paragraph additional evidence was building to support my theory that this is a huge subsidy for the insurance industry.  A colleague recently posted that there is no "out of network benefits" in New York State and she discusses the ramifications for psychiatric care and psychotherapy.  I see this as a flat out continuation of government sanctioned rationing of psychiatric services by the managed care industry.  They may want you to go to an integrated care clinic, complete a checklist and take an antidepressant rather than seeing your regular outpatient psychiatrist who is providing more than a medication.

Handing someone a depression checklist when they come in to a primary care clinic to get their blood pressure checked is reminiscent of the 1990s approach to pain as the "fifth vital sign", and we all know how well that turned out.

A final word about the stigma buzzword.  What is more stigmatizing - giving you the medical resources that you need for recovery or having you come to a primary care clinic where those resources will probably not be available and practically nobody in the clinic has experience working mental health problems?

That is the basic case against integrated care or what is sometimes referred to as collaborative care.  At this point like everyone else I will be leaning back and watching it unfold.  The insurance industry and government has so much power they can essentially do whatever they want now.  We seem to have a national political forum in health care that leads to an endless stream of bad ideas.  And it seems like we always listen to that endless stream of bad ideas rather than anyone who might know what they are talking about.
    

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Managed Care - A Variant of Looterism?

I follow several economic and financial blogs and I came across this piece on looterism yesterday.  For those of you not interested in clicking on the blog post, looterism is defined as maximizing private benefit irrespective of a goal of creating value or "private benefit regardless of the damage."  The author is focused on economic examples like banking corruption.  If you actually follow the politics and corruption in our financial system there turn out to be endless examples.  Dao references an earlier paper that nicely describes the current dynamic of maximizing extractable value rather than net economic worth so that the current creditors are left holding the bag.

I can't think of  better example of looterism than managed care.  Starting at the top end, what exactly occurs when a managed care company decides that they are not going to pay for an inpatient hospitalization for a patient with suicidal thinking.  It gets more complicated in a hurry if that person has no housing, a history of actual suicide attempts, and a substance abuse problem.  What happens if they say that they can be seen in an outpatient visit despite the fact that visit is two weeks away and it will involve a 15 minute conversation and a prescription that  also may not be covered by the managed care company?  I am a psychiatrist - so all of these denials are abhorrent to me, but what is the economic analysis of this situation?

The economic analysis is straightforward.  The managed care company is not creating any value.  Their product is supposed to be patient care and the situation as I described it is anything but patient care.  Managed care advocates might say they are creating value by being better stewards of the resources.  That is quite a stretch when they have essentially destroyed inpatient psychiatric care by promoting their mantra that a person needs to be "dangerous to oneself or others" in order to get admitted.  Forget the notion that things are out of control at home and nobody has slept for a week.  If the patient doesn't use the suicide word in the emergency department they are not getting in.

That completely artificial barrier to hospitalization has destroyed inpatient psychiatric care as a resource.  People come in a crisis and many leave in the same crisis.  There is no time for stabilization or a thoughtful analysis of the problem.  Short crisis stays and inadequate reimbursement has a corrosive effect on staff morale, resources for the physical plant, and the quality of care delivered.    Less and less value is created.

Eventually, staff with expertise can no longer tolerate the environment - especially when they are seeing more people and they are less able to help them given the managed care restraints.  These staff leave and move to a more suitable patient care environment.  The loss of knowledge workers creates even less value but it is a critical strategy in extracting value from mental health services and putting it somewhere else.  If knowledge workers can't be demoralized managed care can always come up with a strategy to simply not pay them or pay them very little.  The outpatient equivalent of inpatient care is seeing high volumes of outpatients - often for the sake of producing billing documents.  The associated appointments are often low in value.

I would say that looterism is alive and well in the medical industry.  You don't have to look very far in the health care economics field or your own health plan.  The associated marketing campaigns that talk about high quality care associated with looterism should be cautiously approached.  But that is a story for a different day.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Francisco Dao. Looterism: The Cancerous Ethos That is Gutting America.  August 7, 2012.

Mismanagement of Knowledge Workers

In a previous post,  I discussed Drucker's concept of “knowledge workers” and how that concept applied to psychiatrists and physicians. The basic concept is that knowledge workers know more than their managers about the service they provide, work quality is more characteristic than quantity, and they are generally considered to be an asset of corporations.  I pointed out that physician knowledge workers are currently being managed like production workers and referred to common mistakes made in managing physicians and psychiatrists. Today I will tell attempt to describe how some of that mismanagement occurs using examples that psychiatrists have discussed with me over the past several years.

Inpatient psychiatry has taken a severe hit over the past 20 years in terms of the quality of care. Many people have talked with me about the discharge of symptomatic patients occurring in the context of high volume and low quality. Depending on the organization, a psychiatrist may be expected to run an outpatient clinic in addition to a busy inpatient service or in some cases provide all the medical services to the inpatients with minimal outside consultation. Most hospital care is reimbursed poorly despite political suggestions to the contrary. Psychiatric DRGs are typically 20% less than medical surgical DRGs and they are not adjusted for complex care. Administrators generally "manage" psychiatrists in a way to make sure that inpatient beds are covered. That frequently means that psychiatrists who prefer practicing in an outpatient setting end up doing some inpatient care. An outpatient clinic may be canceled so that a psychiatrist is available to run an inpatient unit. There have been situations where inpatient beds or whole units have been shut down for lack of psychiatric coverage. The only explanation given is that there is a "shortage" of psychiatrists.

I had the pleasure of running into one of my residency mentors in an airport last May. I let him know that I was just finishing up 21 years of inpatient work and moving on to something else. He smiled and said: "Three months wasn't enough?".  I always liked his sense of humor but there is also a lot of reality in his remarks.

I don't mean to imply that it is any easier on the outpatient side. If you are a manager, what could be easier than having a unit of production that you could hold your employees to? It turns out there is something easier and that is being able to set the value of that unit of production. That is what RVU based productivity is all about. A standard managerial strategy these days is to have a meeting with an outpatient psychiatrist and show them how much they are "costing the clinic" based on their RVU production. Spending hours a day answering phone calls, doing prior authorizations, questions from other clinicians, curbside consultations, discussions with family members, and documenting everything doesn't count. I have had the experience calling a clinic at 7 PM and hearing keyboards clicking in the background. I have asked outpatient colleagues how they are able to produce outpatient documentation themselves and still get out of clinic on time. Now that I work in an outpatient setting myself, I know what they were telling me was accurate and that is the documentation gets deferred until later.

The mismanagement does not stop there. At some point in time medical schools decided that there were also going to start basing faculty salaries on clinical production. I suppose every medical school as a formula for converting teaching and research time into production units, but until I see those formulas my speculation is that any activity that does not result in billing leads to lower compensation. The days when physicians were hired as teachers and academicians seem to be gone.  Because of discriminatory reimbursement, departments of psychiatry will be disproportionately affected.

Within psychiatry there used to be an interest in organizational dynamics and how they impacted patient care. The dynamics in most organizations today are set up to promote the business. That has produced a focus on high volume-low quality or in some cases supporting the specialty with the highest reimbursement and procedure rates.   Associated dynamics are in place to select and shape an idealized corporate employee who will modify his or her practice according to the whims of the Corporation. It may be hard to believe but large medical corporations everywhere are trying to figure out how to recruit young physicians who believe in their models. Physicians who don't accept these ideas frequently find that the company is not very friendly to them. There are always various political mechanisms for ousting any dissidents and there is minimal tolerance for debate.  The dissent can be as mild as asking why consultants with less expertise than the physicians in the practice are being called in to critique them and come up with a plan.

When it comes to physician mismanagement there are few businesses that can equal the government. RVUs, the Medicare Physician Payment Schedule, pay for performance, and various failed political theories like fraud as the cause for healthcare inflation, and managed care amplifying all of the above and focusing all of that irrational management directly on physicians.  The result is obvious as enormous inefficiencies, job dissatisfaction, and demoralization. Governments partnering with businesses and placing business practices like utilization review and prior authorization in state statutes increases the burden exponentially. At the heart of this conflict is a physicians training to be a scientific critical thinker and function autonomously with the businesses interest of making a buck. Despite all the lip service to quality, business decisions are always made on a cost rather than quality basis.

It is often difficult to see any light through the blizzard of government and business propaganda that passes for the management of physicians and psychiatrists. Psychiatry has bore the brunt of mismanagement over the past 20 years and that has well been well documented in the Hay group study showing the disproportionate impact of managed care on our field. Inpatient bed capacity has dwindled and the beds that have not been shut down are managed for high-volume low quality work. Outpatient clinics including those run by and nonprofits are managed according to the same model.  Businesses and governments have provided the incentives for this type of practice.  The available consultants in the field only know an RVU based productivity model and nothing else. Rather than treating psychiatrists as knowledge worker assets, the available jobs frequently reduce us to micromanaged clerical workers utilizing about 10% of our knowledge.  It should be no surprise that the environment makes it seem like anyone can do the job.

One of my favorite quotes from Peter Drucker was: "More and more people in the workforce and mostly knowledge workers will have to manage themselves".   After all, only  the knowledge worker knows how to best complete the job.  Every psychiatrist that I know, knows how to get the job done and it is often at odds with what we are allowed to do. The best pathway to do this is to optimize the internal states of the knowledge workers and create environment where they manage themselves.  There are very few environments available where that can happen today for psychiatrists.

George Dawson, MD

"The land of 10,000 90862s"

The title of this post is an inside joke for psychiatrists.  90862 is the billing code associated with a psychiatric visit that is commonly referred to as the "med check."  It is an example of what can happen to a profession when government bureaucrats and businesses run amok in determining what they think you do or what you should be doing when you provide patient care.

I first became aware of the political importance of this system in the 1990s, when I had to attend mandatory billing and coding seminars at my place of employment.   In those seminars I learned that the politicians and insurance companies were so desperate to use this arbitrary system that they told us we could go to federal prison for a long time if we submitted a "fraudulent" billing document.  The "fraudulent" document they were talking about was any bill connected to the document of a patient encounter that did not have enough bullet points to qualify for that level of billing.

That is an important concept so let me say it another way.  After every patient encounter, the physician needs to document a note about what happened and indicate a level of billing for that encounter.  When I first started training the note could be as little as one or two lines.  For example, at one point in my training I covered an entire surgical service with a team of doctors.  We could round on 25-30 patients with very complicated problems and write all of the documentation in about 2 hours.  The documentation was "Pain is well controlled, surgical site looks good, vital signs are stable."  We did not have to bother with any billing documents because a hospital billing specialist came by and confirmed that we had seen the patient and submitted the bill.

Somewhere  in the 1990s, a government initiative changed all of that.  The government decided that they needed a way to control the global budget for physician salaries and they decided to develop a system of codes for patient encounters that they assign relative values to and then multiply that by a certain number to set reimbursement for that code.  The entire system rests on the assumption that somebody can look at the description of a patient encounter as written in a note and audit the associated billing document.  It turns out that when this assumption was tested several years later - it was determined to be false, but that did not deter the federal government or the health insurance industry (see reference).

The 90862 is probably the most abused billing code in the psychiatric profession.  The interpretation of what constitutes an encounter that qualifies for this code varies from practice to practice and between organizations.  Patient experience varies from literally talking to a psychiatrist for 5 minutes with the goal of getting a prescription refill to a much richer encounter that includes a discussion of other current problems, additional medical diagnostic discussions and psychological advice.  In some cases, acute medical problems requiring emergency care have been identified in these sessions.  There is no doubt that a considerable amount of gaming occurs on the part of some clinicians and most insurance companies and government payers.

The only gaming possible by the clinician occurs at two levels.  The first is total time spent with the patient.  The folklore is that these are all 15 minute encounters.  Some clinicians insist on seeing patients in half hour blocks and others see 3 - 4 people per hour.  The second is total documentation.  You can literally do a few lines or you can write several paragraphs and stay after work just to do the documentation.  A lot depends on whether you think you will be audited and somebody will be making an arbitrary decision about whether your note qualifies for the charge that you assign to it.

There are myriad ways that a managed care company can game the system.  First of all, they can assign any level of reimbursement to any billing code that they want.  I quoted a New York Times article in another post as saying that a psychiatrist could see three patients for medications and get reimbursed at $50 per session, but the actual reimbursement can be less than half of that.  That same managed care company can also take any bills submitted for patient encounters with higher reimbursement levels and say: "we are only paying you for a 90862 no matter what you do."  If you happen to be working in an institutional setting, a managed care company can negotiate a per diem rate with your employer and not pay the 90862 billing at all.

Stated another way, a psychiatrist can see a patient with complex medical and psychiatric problems and get reimbursed at a level that might lead to them break even - to getting no reimbursement at all depending on the insurance company and contracting arrangements.  Within organizations the relative values for these codes are the basic way that physicians are manipulated to see more patients.  It is referred to as their "productivity" even though producing work for little or no reimbursement is not really productive activity.  The physician managers can demand that they see more and more patients to compensate for the poor or nonexistent rate of reimbursement by managed care companies.

Another artifact of this system is that procedures like surgeries, endoscopies, and angioplasties are reimbursed at a higher rates than a doctor talking with you and discussing the diagnosis and treatment.  That lead to a movement to reimburse the cognitive or nonproceduralist specialties at higher rates.  But given the amount of government payer and insurance company leverage it is impossible to make that happen.

Is there a solution to this problem that in effect makes physicians work impossibly harder to earn a professional salary?  The solution is as easy as considering how I pay my attorney, accountant, mechanic, plumber, electrician, and chimney sweep.  I pay them all by the hour.  In some cases there is an agreed fixed amount, but it is generally many times more than what I would get reimbursed for the lowest 90862 reimbursement.

Getting back to the title of this post, when I looked at the lowest current reimbursement for a 90862 and calculated how many of those bills would need to be submitted to make a professional wage, it came out to about 10,000 patient encounters per year.  Working 50 weeks per year that would mean seeing 40 established patients per day.  The only clinic where I have ever observed those numbers had three nurses rooming the patients and doing all of the documentation before they were briefly seen by a psychiatrist.

As I contemplated all of this I had the thought: "I am living in the 'Land of 10,000 lakes' - maybe we should just change that to the 'Land of 10,000 90862s.' "

George Dawson, MD

King MS, Lipsky MS, Sharp L. Expert agreement in Current Procedural Terminology evaluation and management coding. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Feb 11;162(3):316-20.

90862 Redux? An Update.

Managed Care 101 – The Prior Authorization Hoax

As managed care organizations worked on how they could prioritize pricing over medical decisions they came up with various plans to “manage” how physicians prescribed medications.  I was a member of two Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees (P & T) that  both had this as a goal.  One of those committees had a much stricter mandate in terms of saving money.  The basic strategy used by that committee was to place a drug “on formulary” or “off formulary”.  If it was “off formulary” it was not available to any doctors within the HMO to prescribe.

The idea that all drugs within a class that had the same purported mechanism of action ruled the day.  As an example, all of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine) would be considered equivalent medications and the committee would decide to place the least expensive ones on the formulary.  At the time, the major controversy was fluoxetine because there was no generic brand available and the company that produced it was notorious for not negotiating prices with hospitals and health care systems.  There was an eventual appeal by psychiatrists who presented to the committee on the unique qualities of fluoxetine.  At the time it was the only medication studied in adolescent depression for example.  Eventually a rule was passed that it was nonformulary for any physician who was not a psychiatrist.

The total cost of the drug was more of a consideration than the absolute price.  Very expensive drugs were approved that had questionable endpoints based on the fact that utilization would be low and that advocates for a particular untreatable illness would want it.  So the decision of the committee and their mandate was to reduce the use of relatively more expensive drugs that would be used fairly frequently.  In some cases, the off formulary drugs were available by “prior authorization” meaning that the prescribing physician needed to usually write up an appeal and fax it to the pharmacy or health plan and in some cases make additional calls.

The health care business has a long history of introducing layers and layers of management driven largely by the amount of money involved.  If you can successfully insert more management for even a small percentage of the available health care dollars you will potentially have a multi billion dollar business.   The management of pharmaceuticals is no exception and the Pharmacy Benefit Manager or PBM was born.  The task of the PBM like the task of a P & T Committee is to control the prescribing physician and force them to choose a medication based on the lowest cost.  Individual variation between patients and all of the other variables that physicians have to take into account do not matter.  If the physician or the patient thinks that they do – it will take a prior authorization for the alternate medication.  

The PBM model was designed from the outset to take a central role in the management of prescription drugs by replacing the relationship that the patient has with their health plan, their pharmacist, and even their physician.  How do I know this?  Take a look at their game plan from an internal memo in the diagram below.  This diagram was taken from an internal memo from over 15 years ago.  The structure depicted in the diagram is the system of care that exists today and the one that 95% of patient have their benefits managed through 

The prior authorization fallacy is essentially the same as the utilization review fallacy.  The most charitable interpretation is that it assumes that a person who is not necessarily a physician and who has no personal responsibility for your care can substitute their judgment based on a cost consideration.    

The diagram is also instructive in the way that the prescribing decision (and the dispensing decision) is trivialized as a "habit" rather than a decision that takes into account the evaluation and personal knowledge of the individual patient.

Today all physicians are routinely subjected to prior authorization procedures that waste significant amounts of their time and the time of their staff in order to make seem like the PBM decision has some degree of medical legitimacy.  The cost to medical practices is huge and completely unnecessary.  If PBMs are really businesses there is really no legitimate reason that they need to include physicians in their decisions of what medication should be covered.  They just need to plainly state that to their patients and deal with the public relations problems instead of wasting about one million hours of physician time per week.  In the weeks that follow I will demonstrate just how far this business plan has infiltrated medicine and psychiatry and what the response has been to date.

George Dawson, MD

Managed Care 101 – The Utilization Review Hoax

I happened to start practicing psychiatry at a time when managed care was just starting to build momentum. From a political standpoint there was concern in the popular press that healthcare services were being over utilized. There is a famous study by the RAND Corporation looking into whether or not angiography and bypass surgery were being used to frequently to treat cardiovascular disease. There was a concern that medical and surgical procedures in general were being over utilized. This was part of the driving force for a large scale experiment called the Medicare PRO or Peer Review Organizations.

In the late 1980s and throughout much of the 1990s I was a physician reviewer for the Medicare PROs, first in Wisconsin and then in Minnesota. My job was to look at cases selected from all psychiatric hospitalizations in the state and determine whether the total length of time in the hospital was appropriate for the condition and whether or not there were any associated quality problems. There was an extensive list of quality problems that nurse reviewers would identify and forward to me for further assessment. Examples of quality problems ranged from death on a psychiatric unit to abnormal vital signs at the time of discharge to the appropriate monitoring of the therapy like lithium that require close monitoring. All physician reviewers working for this organization had to be carefully screened for conflicts of interest.  I could not review any case if I had any financial interest in the hospital or clinic where the incident occurred.

At about the same time managed care companies were establishing utilization reviewers for their insured members. They had no quality focus or quality markers. Their only focus was whether or not one of their members was entitled to inpatient coverage or a specific course of outpatient therapy. There were no conflict of interest considerations because the reviewers were all paid by the managed care company and therefore their financial interests were aligned with the corporation.

You could consider the two different forms of utilization review to be the great experiments in the provision of medical care in the 1990s. More appropriately the Medicare PROs were probably the experimental side and the managed care utilization reviewers represented a business model that really required no experimentation. It seemed quite obvious that if you could deny care that you would make more money.  What happened to these two models over the next 10 years?

Despite the rigorous screening and structurally defined quality problems used by the Medicare PRO, at one point it was determined that the amount of over utilization found in the state of Minnesota was not enough to justify the cost of the program. After all of the hype in the press about how physicians and hospitals were providing unnecessary care, that was a stunning finding on such a large scale that it should not have been ignored. It essentially meant that from an objective scientific standpoint utilization review is unnecessary. Minnesota stopped its utilization effort and decided to partner on the quality side with health care organizations to improve the treatment of specific conditions.

Utilization review on the managed-care side has not only continued but flourishes despite the fact that there is no objective basis for it and that managed care organizations have complete control over reimbursement to physicians and hospitals and the reimbursement for psychiatric services is the absolute lowest.  The most recent development has been internalizing utilization review directly into the hospital and using care managers to force discharges from hospitals. These care managers often depend on a quasi-scientific set of guidelines or standards that frequently ignore the specific needs of patients

.

Psychiatry has been hit particularly hard by this quasi-quality approach that disproportionately rations care to psychiatric patients. We are currently seeing people with complex disorders like unstable bipolar disorder discharged from psychiatric hospital within a few days because the "crisis" is over and yet they are not able to function by themselves at home. We have allowed managed care organizations to essentially dictate a standard that suggests the only reason that a person should be a psychiatric unit is if they are "suicidal" or a threat to others.  There is broad interpretation of what "suicidal" means and of course the physician reviewer for the insurance company has never personally assessed the patient or their circumstances.  The vast majority of patients who would benefit from quality care in a hospital would not meet either of those criteria and frequently have no other resources.

The fallout from this approach has been tremendous. Psychiatric care in hospital settings is generally viewed as being very poor in quality. Many outpatient psychiatrists I have consulted with have told me that there is essentially no place that their unstable outpatients can be stabilized because they are frequently discharged from hospitals in a few days and the treatment has not been changed. There is little collaboration between inpatient and outpatient psychiatrists because of the need for high turnaround and the time constraints.  The actual inpatient environments are frequently so toxic that people with fairly severe problems don't want to be there.  Managed care is focused primarily on providing high-volume, low quality care by the application of a method that has no basis in reality.

Why I don't use the term "Behavioral Health"

It was obvious to me from day one that this was a business strategy.  When I worked in a hospital I wore a standard white coat and embroidered under my name was the word PSYCHIATRY.  I was after all a board certified psychiatrist and every other doctor in the place had their specialty under their name.  One day back in the early 1990s, my boss summoned me into his office and said that were were going to replace PSYCHIATRY with BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.  After all we did not want to alienate the non psychiatrists working in the department who work on our teams.

Something about that explanation did not add up.  The other specialists also worked on teams and did not change the name of their specialty to match  the function of the team.  Besides the term MENTAL HEALTH was a perfectly respectable term that all of us had worked under for decades.  What was the push for BEHAVIORAL HEALTH?

Now we all know that it was part of a business strategy to marginalize professionals and make it seem like a business strategy was somehow good for mental health and psychiatric treatment.

I told my boss that if I was board-certified in behavioral health it might make sense, but barring that I would stick to PSYCHIATRY.  He agreed but over the years that followed the term BEHAVIORAL HEALTH has penetrated the marketplace even in the public sector.  More importantly the associated management strategies have led to rationed care and access to care as well as lower quality of care for all person with mental health problems.

There has been some movement toward renaming BEHAVIORAL HEALTH UNITS to MENTAL HEALTH UNITS.  But I haven't seen that in the Twin Cities or Midwest yet.