JAMA Psychiatry recently posted commentary on a form of patient dumping that I described in a previous post as Greyhound therapy. The authors' post an impressive chart of state mental health budget cuts and some of the associated problems. Their solution to the problem "opening a dialogue among providers, funding agencies, and Congress" is a non solution that suggests a lack of appreciation for the details of the problems and how the system of care for people with serious mental illnesses has been systematically dismantled and is no longer capable of providing quality or innovative psychiatric care. To illustrate my point consider the following 8 points:
1. The myth of dangerousness is all encompassing. At some point the government and the managed care industry wanted to make the rationale for admissions to psychiatric units as difficult as possible to ration inpatient psychiatric care. The standard question is: "Is this person a danger to themselves or anyone else." This bias has completely disrupted inpatient care. We now have desperate people who should have been admitted who are lying about suicidal ideation in order to get admitted. We have people who don't need to be admitted saying they are suicidal and getting admitted. The point is that this criteria is irrelevant for a whole range of indications for inpatient treatment. As an example, anyone with a familiy member who has severe mental illness recognizes that there are times when they are completely unable to function due to their illness. Leaving that person at home to fend for themselves in that condition is not only a bad idea it is inhumane and yet they may not meet somebody's criteria for "dangerousness".
2. Length of stay in all community based psychiatric units is based on DRG payments. That means there is a set reimbursement for a diagnosis related stay independent of how long the patient is in the hospital. As an example a psychosis DRG is one of the commonest DRGs and the last reliable figure I have is that it pays $4,500 per DRG. That is set by the federal regulatory agency for Medicare reimbursement but practically every managed care and insurance company pays the same way either per admission or per discharge. If the patient stays 5 days that is nearly the mythical "$1,000/day" that most people believe the hospital is reimbursed. If the stay is 30 days that is $150/day and less that the cost of most board and care homes. This is a strong financial incentive for the hospital to discharge the patient as soon as possible.
3. Despite an emphasis on biological treatments in inpatient settings, there really are no biological treatments that work in the 5 days. That is the length of stay most hospitals want their patients discharged in. Most inpatient experts will tell you that severe mental illnesses (as opposed to crisis intervention) often require at least 2 - 4 weeks for stabilization.
4. Available social service providers have no incentive to assist the hospital with placement irrespective of whether there is adequate housing or not. The hospital is the least expensive place to house the patient, even if they are stable for discharge.
5. The economic incentives result in a large patient population that circulates from homelessness to emergency departments to inpatient care. These same incentives result in the patient being exposed to no single environment that results in their stabilization. In fact providing thousands of dollars of discharge medications to people who will probably never take them is a massive inefficiency that creates an illusion that inpatient treatment has done something. My personal conversations and correspondence with many outpatient psychiatrists confirms that most of them consider inpatient care to be a complete waste of time and they acknowledge that they have no good place to send their patients anymore for stabilization.
6. The same managed care companies that denied hospital claims many years ago currently own the facilities. They now have case managers essentially running their inpatient treatment and telling the physicians there when a patient must be discharged. If the doctors working in that environment don't go along they can be forced out or placed in an uncomfortable enough position that they quit. Managed care companies frequently have proprietary and arbitrary guidelines that dictate when people are discharged. It is not a coincidence that the suggested lengths of stay are expected to maximize profits and have nothing to do with quality psychiatric care.
7. Utilization reviewers still exist. Their job is basically to argue with inpatient physicians and harass them enough so that they discharge the patient. These physicians were supposed to be "peers" but in my experience talking with them over the years, it was apparent that I was not talking with anyone who had actually worked in an inpatient unit. Their job was clearly to force me to get the person out of the hospital or play the trump card by denying payment and getting the hospital to force me to get the patient out. You might ask yourself why they are necessary if their company is paying a fixed fee for inpatient care and I think that is a good question.
8. The trivial reimbursement for inpatient care deincentivizes access to other assessment and treatment modalities that the patient may need such as specialty consultation, brain imaging, and electroencepaholgraphy. Patients may be told to come back for outpatient appointments when the treating psychiatrist knows that patient will not return for the necessary appointments and will probably be readmitted soon with the exact same medical problem.
All of these issues combined are why people are discharged to the street or put on a bus. You can see that the common theme here is actually the rationing of services by the government and managed care industry as well as psychiatry's inability to deliver the quality of care that psychiatrists are trained to provide in this restricted environment. The suggested solutions in the authors article seem to be written by Joint Commission bureaucrats and will have little impact.
This is a problem that can be solved by psychiatrists but it has to start with a quality approach. Inpatient specialty training in psychiatry with a focus on providing state of the art assessment and care is necessary. It is an ideal place to begin to attend to the cognitive dimension of psychotic disorders and mood disorders. Civil commitment laws need to be reformed with a focus on treatment rather than dangerousness. There needs to be an appropriate hand-off from the hospital team to a community team and a housing team. It is the time to stop demanding "cost effective" treatment from a system that has been practically rationed into non-existence. It is time to invest in quality to the point that patients with severe mental illness and their families can expect that there will be psychiatric services available as a resource on par with the cardiology services they expect for any middle aged person with chest pain.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
1. Das S, Fromont SC, Prochaska JJ. Bus Therapy: A Problematic Practice in Psychiatry. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Sep 25. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.2824. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 24068366.
Showing posts with label patient dumping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patient dumping. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Friday, May 3, 2013
Greyhound Therapy - suddenly wrong?
Without any disrespect to the famous long haul bus company, I wanted to comment on this story posted from the APA's Facebook feed. It is a story about a man, James Brown who was discharged unchanged from a psychiatric hospital in the state of Nevada and sent to California via bus with minimal resources. That was the discharge plan. Watch the actual clip to see what happened and watch the concerned discussion by the public official in this case. Diane Sawyer, et al were outraged. How could this possibly happen? How often does this happen? There was a happy ending to this story but how often does it go horribly wrong?
When I looked at this clip I was amazed for a couple of reasons. First off, it was on the APA's Facebook feed with a comment by the Medical Director. Without going into all of the details that I have posted so far on this blog, I will say that it is about time and leave it at that. The fact that nothing has been said to this point is also reflected in my second point and that is - this has been going on for over 20 years! Every place in this country with a major psychiatric hospital has been the recipient or point of origin for discharges by bus to another state. It is so common that I used to refer to it as Greyhound Therapy with my coworkers and everybody knew exactly what I was talking about.
At first blush putting somebody with a severe mental illness on a bus and sending them to another state - sometimes across a number of states seems inhumane. In some cases, the person himself may insist but if we are talking about the instance where the person is mentally ill and cannot care for themselves - I agree completely. It is inhumane and not really ethical from the standpoint of a physician. So how does it occur?
It basically occurs by taking a business approach to psychiatry. Rationing and cost center management coalesce into the perfect mechanism to get people out of psychiatric hospitals when they are at their most vulnerable. I have posted many times the concept of getting people out of the hospital before the hospital loses money on a DRG payment. That is generally within 3 - 5 days. That period of time is well below any acceptable time period necessary for the evaluation or treatment of severe psychiatric problems. Everyone agrees that hospital treatment like outpatient treatment means treating people with medications and in hospitals the medications are generally added faster and at much larger doses than in outpatient settings. Five days does not allow for any changes if there are side effects or inadequate treatment response or comorbid medical complications that may crop up. So doctors don't want to use this approach. Who does?
The main drivers are managed care companies and the government agencies that promote these tactics. So the psychiatrist doesn't want to discharge the patient in 5 days - get a managed care reviewer to say that the hospital stay is no longer "medically necessary" and will not be paid for. If the attending psychiatrist doesn't like that decision - he or she can appeal it to another reviewer within the same company. How do you think that will turn out? Of course you can always appeal to the state - right? The state has managed care rights embedded in their statutes. The appeal goes through a commission that is often staffed by insurance industry insiders and they are not there to advocate for patients or their physicians. In the case of psychiatrists who are unfortunate enough to work for managed care companies, they may find their discharge decisions commandeered by case managers and a medical director whose only jobs are to get people out of the hospital as soon as possible. Disagree with them and you might hear that the medical director will come down and take over discharging the patient. Or you might find yourself fighting a never ending series of political battles for not being a "team player." The discharge team may decide to do an end run around you entirely and that could involve putting somebody on a bus.
What about the psychiatrists working in these settings? Why don't they ever speak up? It should be obvious from the preceding paragraph that it could result in getting fired or forced out in one way or another. Every organization these days has policies that stifle disclosure from physicians working in those companies. All of the communication needs to go though an administrator who has the company's best interest at heart. The interest of the patient, the physician, and the physician-patient relationship is not a priority. Making money is the priority or in the case of health care, being "cost-effective".
We have a perfectly corrupted system of hospital care for people with severe mental illnesses. Businesses and governments can essentially do what they want. Many of these settings are so miserable that good psychiatrists avoid them. Patients churn in and out often with no changes or changes that are so abrupt that they are immediately rehospitalized.
There is a solution that can have immediate impact and potentially lead to reform. I applaud James Brown in this case for disclosing what happened to him and elegantly stating what he was deprived of. On the other hand, nobody should have to forfeit their confidentiality and talk about what continues to be a stigmatizing illness just because business friendly systems predictably fail to provide quality medical care and marginalize medical decisions. A whistleblower statute that protects any psychiatrist who reports that their patient was discharged against their recommendations and given a bus ticket is a quick solution. It should also apply when a managed care company is insisting that an unstable patient be discharged when they remain at high risk or have not been evaluated or treated. The ABC story here suggests that these discharged patients may be "dangerous to themselves or others". In fact, the majority of these cases are very vulnerable people who need help and protection. That help and protection is not coming from a government set up to protect the managed care industry and those forces that ration care for the mentally ill.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
ABC News. Man with Psychosis Recalls Nevada 'Patient Dumping'.
When I looked at this clip I was amazed for a couple of reasons. First off, it was on the APA's Facebook feed with a comment by the Medical Director. Without going into all of the details that I have posted so far on this blog, I will say that it is about time and leave it at that. The fact that nothing has been said to this point is also reflected in my second point and that is - this has been going on for over 20 years! Every place in this country with a major psychiatric hospital has been the recipient or point of origin for discharges by bus to another state. It is so common that I used to refer to it as Greyhound Therapy with my coworkers and everybody knew exactly what I was talking about.
At first blush putting somebody with a severe mental illness on a bus and sending them to another state - sometimes across a number of states seems inhumane. In some cases, the person himself may insist but if we are talking about the instance where the person is mentally ill and cannot care for themselves - I agree completely. It is inhumane and not really ethical from the standpoint of a physician. So how does it occur?
It basically occurs by taking a business approach to psychiatry. Rationing and cost center management coalesce into the perfect mechanism to get people out of psychiatric hospitals when they are at their most vulnerable. I have posted many times the concept of getting people out of the hospital before the hospital loses money on a DRG payment. That is generally within 3 - 5 days. That period of time is well below any acceptable time period necessary for the evaluation or treatment of severe psychiatric problems. Everyone agrees that hospital treatment like outpatient treatment means treating people with medications and in hospitals the medications are generally added faster and at much larger doses than in outpatient settings. Five days does not allow for any changes if there are side effects or inadequate treatment response or comorbid medical complications that may crop up. So doctors don't want to use this approach. Who does?
The main drivers are managed care companies and the government agencies that promote these tactics. So the psychiatrist doesn't want to discharge the patient in 5 days - get a managed care reviewer to say that the hospital stay is no longer "medically necessary" and will not be paid for. If the attending psychiatrist doesn't like that decision - he or she can appeal it to another reviewer within the same company. How do you think that will turn out? Of course you can always appeal to the state - right? The state has managed care rights embedded in their statutes. The appeal goes through a commission that is often staffed by insurance industry insiders and they are not there to advocate for patients or their physicians. In the case of psychiatrists who are unfortunate enough to work for managed care companies, they may find their discharge decisions commandeered by case managers and a medical director whose only jobs are to get people out of the hospital as soon as possible. Disagree with them and you might hear that the medical director will come down and take over discharging the patient. Or you might find yourself fighting a never ending series of political battles for not being a "team player." The discharge team may decide to do an end run around you entirely and that could involve putting somebody on a bus.
What about the psychiatrists working in these settings? Why don't they ever speak up? It should be obvious from the preceding paragraph that it could result in getting fired or forced out in one way or another. Every organization these days has policies that stifle disclosure from physicians working in those companies. All of the communication needs to go though an administrator who has the company's best interest at heart. The interest of the patient, the physician, and the physician-patient relationship is not a priority. Making money is the priority or in the case of health care, being "cost-effective".
We have a perfectly corrupted system of hospital care for people with severe mental illnesses. Businesses and governments can essentially do what they want. Many of these settings are so miserable that good psychiatrists avoid them. Patients churn in and out often with no changes or changes that are so abrupt that they are immediately rehospitalized.
There is a solution that can have immediate impact and potentially lead to reform. I applaud James Brown in this case for disclosing what happened to him and elegantly stating what he was deprived of. On the other hand, nobody should have to forfeit their confidentiality and talk about what continues to be a stigmatizing illness just because business friendly systems predictably fail to provide quality medical care and marginalize medical decisions. A whistleblower statute that protects any psychiatrist who reports that their patient was discharged against their recommendations and given a bus ticket is a quick solution. It should also apply when a managed care company is insisting that an unstable patient be discharged when they remain at high risk or have not been evaluated or treated. The ABC story here suggests that these discharged patients may be "dangerous to themselves or others". In fact, the majority of these cases are very vulnerable people who need help and protection. That help and protection is not coming from a government set up to protect the managed care industry and those forces that ration care for the mentally ill.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
ABC News. Man with Psychosis Recalls Nevada 'Patient Dumping'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)