Medicaid Shrinkage: Innovation or reaction?

Just one year ago, after passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), The National Council highlighted the expansion of Medicaid that would occur as a result of the ACA. To meet the law’s requirements to provide insurance coverage to the working poor who are generally not insured through their employment, do not have access to insurance groups, and cannot afford individual coverage, the Medicaid program would need to expand to provide the legally required coverage.

In November, the American electorate hired new Congressional representatives who are dead set on rolling back what they call “entitlement” programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and returning the Federal government to what they see as its proper role: funder of national security and protector of free markets (code words for defense and corporations). In this new/old world view, individual rights consist of the right to pursue happiness and to bear arms; communal responsibility for one another appears to be non-existent.

Where does that leave those with serious behavioral health issues and the people who treat them?

The National Council works to represent community behavioral health organizations and the people they serve. They view Medicare and Medicaid as crucial to the treatment and therefore to the survival of the seriously mentally ill since “Medicaid is the single largest source of funding for America’s public mental health system.” Since early March, The Council has reported regularly on the threatened slashing of the Medicaid and Medicare systems.

In early March, The Council reported that a group of governors testified about their need for greater “flexibility” in their Medicaid programs. This group especially wanted to be exempted from the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement under ACA that prohibits the states from rolling back Medicaid eligibility. President Obama said he would support allowing states to opt out of the law’s requirements if they could guarantee an alternative method of providing universal coverage.

On April 4, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his committee’s plan for the 2012 budget that includes a dramatic restructuring and slashing of both Medicaid and Medicare. On April 7, the National Council released a fact sheet on the potential impact of the funding decreases promised by the budget blueprint. Under Congressman Ryan’s proposal, Medicaid would be converted to a block grant program beginning in 2013 and Medicare would be converted to a privatized voucher system starting in 2022. The House of Representatives voted to adopt this framework. While it is highly unlikely the Senate will accept the blueprint, they will need to come up with one of their own and then work to reconcile it with the House’s plan.

In a Health IT newsletter by Mercom Capital Group, it was reported that on April 14, 2011, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “announced four initiatives to give states more flexibility to adopt innovative new practices and provide better, more coordinated care for people with Medicaid and Medicare while helping reduce costs for states and families.” In Florida which has been providing some Medicaid services through managed care contracts, the legislature is close to mandating managed care for the entire program in spite of poor reviews for the pilot programs. “At the workshop in Hollywood, a succession of doctors, care providers, advocates and Medicaid patients all had the same message: Managed care has been a disaster.”

As a small business owner who buys health insurance in the private marketplace for a very small group of employees, these proposals are extremely frightening. My health insurance premium at age 60 is already more than the proposed Medicare plan would pay once I become eligible at age 65, and my premiums will certainly not get any lower if I need to buy insurance in the private marketplace. If I, as a pretty healthy 60 year old, am so concerned about these changes to Medicare, I can only imagine the panicky reactions being experienced by those persons represented by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) who are dependent upon Medicaid and Medicare to pay for their treatment.

How do you see these proposed changes impacting you and your organization? Do you agree with this method of limiting spending? What ideas do you have for controlling the growth of costs of Medicaid and Medicare? How do you propose that we proceed?

Please share your comments below.

Trauma-informed Care . . . for most of your clients

On February 24, 2011 I received an email letter from Linda Rosenberg, National Council President and CEO. The letter was entitled Trauma-informed Care: A Call to Arms. I was delighted to read it.

In my previous life, when I worked as a psychologist, I practice Feminist Therapy. Somehow, my practice had developed into one in which I saw mostly women. By the time I retired from practice in 1993, some 90% of my clientele were the survivors of some form of abuse. After 18 years out of direct service delivery, it has become obvious that women and girls do not begin to be the only people who are abused during their lives. Boys and men also suffer physical, emotional and sexual abuse. And every person who is abused experiences an impact on their lives from that abuse. Those who are abused repeatedly feel the greatest impact.

Linda’s letter presents a simple challenge: rather than ask clients what is wrong with them, she suggests that we ask what happened to them. This formulation was presented by a survivor named Tonier Cain who, after 83 arrests and 66 convictions, is now a team leader with SAMHSA’s National Center for Trauma Informed Care. She shares her story in speeches around the country and is the subject of the documentary “Healing Neen.”

The Adverse Childhood Experiences study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente reports the outcome of interviews with more than 17,000 individuals undergoing a comprehensive physical exam who chose to provide detailed information about their childhood experiences of abuse and family dysfunction. Almost two-thirds of the participants reported at least one experience; 20% reported three or more. The greater the number of adverse experiences, the greater the risk for health problems like alcoholism and alcohol abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, fetal death, illicit drug use, ischemic heart disease, liver disease, intimate partner violence, suicide attempts, and unintended pregnancies, with risk increasing directly based on experiences. Trauma-related difficulties take a huge toll on individuals and our society.

Ms. Cain is one of many survivors of abuse who have recovered from their trauma and continue to progress by helping others. . .a standard part of the “recovery” model of care. But the recovery model is not enough. It is essential that providers become informed about trauma and learn the most effective ways of intervening. A good resource to start down this path is the report Models for Developing Trauma-Informed Behavioral Health Systems and Trauma-Specific Services.

Is it time for you and your organization to focus on “what happened to you” rather than “what’s wrong with you?”

Please share your organization’s approach to trauma. This old feminist would love to hear some inspiring stories. And, if you do not use trauma-informed methods, please let us know the bases for that decision. Just enter your comments below.

Integrating Behavioral Health into the Healthcare Home

One of the many provisions included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care reform law) was the creation of pilot programs to integrate all health care services into a Health Home. The development of the ‘medical home‘ concept will be most important among those with complicated health concerns and in vulnerable populations. Those with significant health issues in addition to behavioral health disorders will be in special focus.

This attempt to integrate care will likely have major impacts on how behavioral health care services are provided to the seriously mentally ill and chemically dependent populations. The National Council has been actively involved in this movement and has received funds to found the Center for Integrated Health Solutions.

The National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare has won a competitive cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the Center for Integrated Health Solutions. The Center will address the comprehensive health needs of clients with mental illnesses and/or substance use disorders by improving the coordination of healthcare services in publicly funded community settings. The Center is funded jointly by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA).

In that role, on January 19, 2011, the National Council participated in an extremely informative webinar on current integration projects initiated by community behavioral health organizations. Each of the organizations that participated came to their ‘Health Home’ program in a different way and developed programs using different models. The presentation made clear that there are likely to be as many ways to accomplish the purpose of integrating health care for the most vulnerable populations as there are organizations that will provide that care. Even so, there are significant issues to be considered, challenges to be met, and goals to be accomplished for the establishment of a successful program.

A recording of this webinar is to be posted at http://coce.samhsa.gov/ at an indefinite date. Information about Co-Occurring Disorders Integration & Innovation can be obtained at contact@codimail.org

The hope that these programs can provide more effective health care at a lower cost is high. I am sure we will all be watching carefully to see how these and other initiatives progress.

I invite those  of you who have interest and experience with integrated care to share your perspectives. Your input will be valuable to your colleagues.

Healthcare Reform in 2011

Count on the National Council to keep us informed about Health Care Reform and how it might impact us as individuals or organizations. On January 6, 2011, The Council sent out their Public Policy Update giving a brief overview of the features of the law that will be implemented in 2011. Even as the new majority in the House of Representatives vows to repeal the law, very popular features go into effect.

Starting in January 2011:

  • States may now amend their Medicaid programs to provide Health Homes and chronic disease management, including behavioral health services;
  • Closing the ‘Donut Hole’: Drug companies will grant a 50% discount on brand-name drugs for Medicare recipients who reach the donut hole in 2011;
  • Free Medicare Preventive Benefits including annual wellness visits are available;
  • A 10% increase in Medicare payments for primary care providers will start;
  • Insurance companies must spend at least 80-85% of consumers’ premiums on paying for patient care rather than administrative costs or profits;
  • CMS will begin to reform itself to accomplish delivery system and payment reforms that will save money and improve the quality of care; and
  • Long-term care insurance for the purchase of home- and community-based services will become available. Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) is a voluntary insurance purchase program.

The National Council has established a Mental Healthcare Reform blog that focuses on Healthcare reform. There you can find discussion of all of the changes as they occur along with implications of those changes. Don’t miss out on information your organization may need. Subscribe to the blog today.

Of the items listed above, only the first is likely to affect some behavioral health care providers in any significant way. Please let us know if your state is experimenting with medical/health homes within their Medicaid plan. How do you expect that to affect mental health providers?

Please share your thoughts . . . especially those of you who are participating in one of these pilot projects.

Primary and Behavioral Healthcare Integration

On Monday the National Council announced that they have won a competitive grant to provide training and technical assistance to move forward the process of integrating primary and behavioral health care services. They will provide support services and assistance to organizations that have received grants to develop integrated care within their organizations, as well as to other organizations seeking to move in this direction.

 One of the pushes in the ARRA stimulus funding and in the health care reform law (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was more efficient and cost effective provision of health services. One possible way to accomplish this for those who experience mental health and addiction problems is to integrate the care they receive for all illnesses, physical and behavioral. The National Council has been at the forefront of this movement. Their snagging of this grant demonstrates their commitment to the cause of integrating primary and behavioral health care for vulnerable populations. The press release indicates the following:

The Center will provide training and technical assistance to 56 organizations that have collectively been awarded more than $26.2 million in grants as well as to community health centers and other primary care and behavioral health organizations. According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, these grants are part of an unprecedented push by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to help prevent and reduce chronic disease and promote wellness by treating behavioral health needs on an equal footing with other health conditions.

When I have mentioned this topic in previous blog articles, the response has been disbelief that such integration will occur any time soon. After all, behavioral health private practitioners of our generation are not likely to dramatically change the way in which they practice, and now they mostly practice independently of medical settings.

In fact, it is even the case that many of our community-based behavioral health  organizations have a hard time seeing themselves moving toward providing primary care services for their consumers. At least one of our customers tried establishing a primary care facility as part of their organization a couple of years ago. The service did not take hold and they closed it. Perhaps they were too far ahead of the curve to be successful.

According to the National Council, the motivation to integrate general and behavioral health care among the chronically and seriously mentally ill is the significantly shorter lifespan experienced by those with serious mental illnesses.

According to a 2006 national survey, persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression have lower than average life expectancy and die, on average, at the age of 53 — often from untreated and preventable chronic illnesses like hypertension, diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. Lack of access to primary care and specialty medicine is a critical factor in these tragic outcomes. . . .

The average life expectancy of the population at large in the U.S. in 2006 reached an all time high of 78.1 years. This 25 year difference is unconscionable. It is believed by many in the public health and behavioral health communities that integrating health care services for the seriously mentally ill and chemically dependent populations will encourage treatment regimens that will benefit both physical and mental health.

Most of the organizations active in this integration movement are considered ‘safety net’ providers. Although part of an endangered system,  ‘safety net providers are providers that deliver a significant level of health care to uninsured, Medicaid, and other vulnerable patients.’ They are the health care safety net that is intended to keep vulnerable populations from falling through the cracks in our costly and difficult to navigate health care system.

Are any of our readers among the 56 organizations that have received grant funding to develop integrated physical and behavioral health services? Do you see this as a possible and worthwhile goal for private practitioners to move toward? What changes in training models and practice models would need to occur to integrate primary and behavioral health care?

Let us know your thoughts about these issues. Please enter your comments below.