Literature Collection

This report reflects significant input from hundreds of Maryland stakeholders, and the committed efforts of many individuals across the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Department). It builds upon work conducted by the Department in 2011 that culminated in a consultant report. The 2011 Consultant Report recommended that Maryland should better align and integrate behavioral health services.The recommendation of a model that improves the integration of Medicaid-financed behavioral health services, presented in this report, represents a major milestone. Significant work still lies ahead. The Department greatly appreciates the contributions of everyone who has participated thus far and we look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders in the coming months to improve health care in Maryland.

Patient-centered medical homes based at federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) can benefit patients with complex health needs, such as severe mental illness (SMI). However, little is known about FQHC characteristics associated with changes in health care expenditures and utilization for individuals with SMI. Using North Carolina Medicaid claims and FQHC data from the Uniform Data System, multivariate regression identified FQHC characteristics associated with total expenditures, medication adherence and emergency department utilization among adults with SMI, controlling for time-invariant differences by health center. Few of the FQHC-level factors affected the outcomes-not even offering on-site behavioral health services. Although the FQHCs in the analysis sample exhibited considerable variation in the provision of specialty behavioral services and in staffing configurations, it may be the case that the examination of average effects across a heterogeneous group of adults with SMI mask benefits of FQHCs to certain subgroups. These findings support the conclusion that there is no "one-size-fits-all" model that works best for this diverse patient population. Study results are relevant for practices embarking on expanded medical home services for people with SMI.

To identify whether medical homes in FQHCs have advantages over other group and individual medical practices in caring for people with severe mental illness. Models estimated the effect of the type of medical home on monthly service utilization, medication adherence, and total Medicaid spending over a 4-year period for adults aged 18 or older with a major depressive disorder (N = 65,755), bipolar disorder (N = 19,925), or schizophrenia (N = 8501) enrolled in North Carolina's Medicaid program. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) were used to adjust for nonrandom assignment of patients to practices. Generalized estimating equations for repeated measures were used with gamma distributions and log links for the continuous measures of medication adherence and spending, and binomial distributions with logit links for binary measures of any outpatient or any emergency department visits. Adults with major depression or bipolar disorders in FQHC medical homes had a lower probability of outpatient service use than their counterparts in individual and group practices. The probability of emergency department use, medication adherence, and total Medicaid spending were relatively similar across the three settings. This study suggests that no one type of medical practice setting-whether FQHC, other group, or individual-consistently outperforms the others in providing medical home services to people with severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess primary care contributions to behavioral health in addressing unmet mental healthcare needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of 2016 to 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey of non-institutionalized US adults. We performed bivariate analysis to estimate the number and percentage of office-based visits and prescription medications for depression and anxiety disorders, any mental illness (AMI), and severe mental illness (AMI) by physician specialty (primary care, psychiatry, and subspecialty) and medical complexity. We ran summary statistics to compare the differences in sociodemographic factors between patients with AMI by seeing a primary care physician versus those seeing a psychiatrist. Binary logistic regression models were estimated to examine the likelihood of having a primary care visit versus psychiatrist visit for a given mental illness. RESULTS: There were 394 023 office-based visits in the analysis sample. AMI patients seeing primary care physician were thrice as likely to report 1 or more chronic conditions compared to those seeing psychiatrist. Among patients with a diagnosis of depression or anxiety and AMI the proportion of primary care visits ([38% vs 32%, P < .001], [39% vs 34%, P < .001] respectively), and prescriptions ([50% vs 40%, P < .001], [47% vs 44%, P < .05] respectively) were higher compared to those for psychiatric care. Patients diagnosed with SMI had a more significant percentage of prescriptions and visits to a psychiatrist than primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians provided most of the care for depression, anxiety, and AMI. Almost a third of the care for SMI and a quarter of the SMI prescriptions occurred in primary care settings. Our study underscores the importance of supporting access to primary care given primary care physicians' critical role in combating the COVID-19 related rise in mental health burden.