Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch
The Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch is part of the Division of Prevention, Traumatic Stress, and Special Programs at the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). CMHS is leading the effort to transform mental health systems and the way mental health services are perceived, accessed, delivered, and financed. A major way that the Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Development Branch (PIPPDB) supports transformation is through their grants and other programs that promote mental health for children, youth, and families and prevent mental and behavioral disorders for those who are at-risk.
PIPPDB currently has projects that focus on:
Youth Violence Prevention
The interdepartmental Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (SS/HS) is designed to prevent school violence and foster the healthy development of children. The SS/HS Initiative is an unprecedented collaborative grant program supported by three federal agencies – the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Justice. The SS/HS Initiative seeks to develop real-world knowledge about what works best to promote safe and healthy environments in which America’s children can learn and develop. It is a unique Federal program designed to prevent violence and substance abuse in our Nation’s youth, schools, and communities.
Complementing SS/HS is PIPPDB’s Youth Violence Prevention Program that provides support for grantees to form and expand on community collaborations dedicated to the prevention of youth violence, substance abuse, suicide, and other mental health and behavioral problems.
Targeted Capacity Expansion grants for the Prevention Early Intervention Grant Program aim to develop mental health prevention and early intervention services targeted to infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-age children, and/or adolescents in both mental health settings and other settings that serve this population.
PIPPDB has also developed the 15+ Make Time to Listen, Take Time to Talk campaign based on the premise that parents who talk with their children about what is happening in their lives are better able to guide their children and this can be instrumental in building a healthier and safer environment for children. The initiative has been adapted to address the prevention of bullying and the climate of fear created by bullying through a national education and dissemination project.
Suicide Prevention
Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization have revealed the magnitude and impact of suicide, citing it as the cause of death for 30,000 Americans annually and over one million people worldwide. These reports, as well as the President’s New Freedom Commission Report and the Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, call for aggressive efforts to reduce the loss of life and suffering related to suicide.
The Branch supports several key initiatives designed to improve public and professional awareness of suicide as a preventable public health problem and to enhance the capabilities of the systems that promote prevention and recovery, including:
Cooperative Agreements for State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program. Three-year grants to support States and tribes in developing and implementing statewide or tribal youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies, grounded in public/private collaboration.
Campus Suicide Prevention Grants. Three-year grants to institutions of higher education to enhance services for students with mental and behavioral health problems that can lead to school failure, depression, substance abuse, and suicide attempts.
Cooperative Agreement for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC). Funds the continuation of a Federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to State, tribal, and local grantees in the implementation of the suicide prevention strategy; create standards for data collection; and collect, evaluate, and disseminate data related to specific suicide prevention programs.
Networking and Certifying Suicide Prevention Hotlines. This grant provides funding to manage a toll-free national suicide prevention hotline network utilizing a life affirming number which routes calls from anywhere in the United States to a network of local crisis centers that can link callers to local emergency, mental health and social service resources.
Linking Adolescents at Risk to Mental Health Services Grant Program. This initiative is one of SAMHSA's Service-to-Science Grants programs. The purpose of the Adolescents at Risk program is to evaluate voluntary school-based programs that focus on identification and referral of high school youth who are at risk for suicide or suicide attempts. Eligible applicants are local educational agencies or nonprofit entities in conjunction with local educational agencies.
Collectively, these initiatives will further awareness of suicide, will promote suicide prevention and intervention efforts, and will reduce the numbers of lives lost and disrupted by suicide.
Showing posts with label BBs Approved. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBs Approved. Show all posts
March 22, 2010
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
Online CEUs
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
CHAIR: Spero M. Manson, Ph.D., University of Colorado.
ACCESS, BARRIERS, and QUALITY
Pathways into, through, and out of service systems are issues of critical importance when addressing access to care, adequacy or appropriateness of care, as well as quality. This panel addressed these issues examining the impact of race, ethnicity, and cultural attitudes.
David T. Takeuchi, Ph.D.,
Indiana University
Dr. Takeuchi discussed the importance of race as a separate and independent factor in children's mental health status, as well as access to and quality of care. Over the past two decades, it has been common to advocate for a more universal approach to resolving the disparities found among racial groups. Despite one's position regarding whether race has or has not declined in significance in American society, an advocacy for policies that attempt to reduce socio-economic status (SES) differentials is seen as a more effective public policy strategy to gain acceptance among all racial groups and, equally important, policy makers.
While this approach is popular and well meaning, it tends to ignore an evolving body of research that finds race to have a strong effect on mental health variables, independent of SES. For example, a recent study assessing health outcomes for 50 states found a strong association between racial composition and health. The greater the minority composition, the poorer the child health profiles. When race was included in analytical models, income and equality did not have a significant association with child health outcomes. Another significant variable linked to improved child health outcomes was the willingness of states to fund social welfare programs. These analyses suggest that simply focusing on income inequality will not resolve racism and its consequences. Racism is a continuous problem and creates a social environment characterized by alienation, frustration, powerlessness, stress and demoralization, all of which can have pernicious consequences on mental health. There are programs that are trying to make health systems more equitable through education, and attempting to reduce stereotypes and prejudice by providing information about different racial groups. Research indicates, however, that individuals who have preexisting racist beliefs may actually have these beliefs reinforced through such educational programs.
In order to address ethnic and racial inequities in children's mental healthcare, racism must be viewed in a broader context, focusing on institutional racism and the racial hierarchy of society and its systems, including healthcare. It is unclear how to do this, but two examples to consider would be Native Americans' building casinos to address economic inequity; and Native Hawaiians' current effort to achieve sovereignty. These are two natural situations in which it can be seen how health outcomes will be influenced.
Margarita Alegría, Ph.D.,
University of Puerto Rico
Dr. Alegría discussed challenges in advancing equity in mental healthcare for children of color. She presented three arguments for increased focus on racial and ethnic differences. First, race, ethnicity and culture of children play a major role in shaping the care provided to them by health institutions. Racial, ethnic and cultural differences influence the expression and identification of the need for services. Studies have shown ethnic and racial differences in youths' self-reports of problem behaviors, caregivers' value judgments of what is normative behavior, and caregiver expectations of the child. Ethnic and racial bias in who gets identified, referred and treated within certain institutions has also been documented. For example, African American youth are more frequently referred for conduct problems to corrections rather than psychiatric hospitals, even with lower or equal measures of aggressive behavior. Quality of care is also impacted. For example, ADHD is less often treated by medications in minority groups than in white populations. There is also increased probability of misdiagnoses among minority individuals, affecting subsequent care.
Second, there are challenges in identifying the mechanisms by which ethnicity, race, and culture account for disparities in behavioral and emotional problems and service delivery. Understanding these mechanisms has important implications for how to intervene correctly. Factors that mediate such challenges may be related to lack of early detection by providers and parents; untrained and culturally insensitive providers; and lack of parent and provider knowledge of efficacious treatments. For example, Latino youths have the highest rate of suicide, yet they are less likely to be identified by their caregivers as having problems. Disparities in services may be due to different barriers such as insurance status and settings where mental healthcare is delivered. Minority children tend to receive mental health services through the juvenile justice and welfare systems more often than through schools or special settings.
Third, efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and service delivery are constrained by profound socio-environmental, institutional, and market forces. For example, managed care, by targeting medical necessity, may be constrained in obtaining the complexity of funding streams that are necessary to service minority children in the schools, juvenile justice settings or welfare agencies. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for near poor families may not prove sufficient to increase mental health service usage, if it is not tied to increased provider availability and provider payment incentives to treat minority populations within depressed inner-city communities. Thus, a critical analysis of how residential, institutional, and market policies may create disparities is needed, and more importantly, how these policies are implemented in ways that result in disparities. There is a need to address these disparities by moving beyond the healthcare sector, examining neighborhoods where minority children live (areas of economic disadvantage, concentration of violence in certain areas), addressing the institutions with which minority children interact (i.e., the referral bias in the various systems), and addressing the role of managed care and the lack of culturally competent providers in the various systems.
Suggestions to address these disparities include: (1) Ensure that efforts focus not only on equalizing access to treatment, but also on equalizing outcomes of care; (2) Aggressively monitor institutional progress towards an equitable and compassionate system of mental healthcare for children of color; and (3) Move beyond policy interventions in the healthcare system to more socio-educational approaches, where government agencies are not agents of control but agents of support.
Kenneth B. Wells, M.D., M.P.H.,
UCLA/RAND
Dr. Wells presented new preliminary data from three national surveys on access to specialty mental healthcare. The findings demonstrated high levels of unmet need for specialty care for children and adolescents and substantial ethnic disparities in access to such care. Detailed findings will be presented in a forthcoming article. Dr. Wells also drew attention to key issues in formulating public policy to address unmet need for child services. One set of issues relates to children in the public sector, where differences within and across states in implementation of policies to cover uninsured children result in children with varying degrees of vulnerability to unmet need for mental healthcare. Policies that guarantee coverage for uninsured children across diverse populations and geographic areas are needed to address this problem. Another set of issues applies to the private sector, where there has been much debate about the feasibility of implementing parity for mental health and physical health services for both children and adults; yet prior studies suggest that children have more to gain from parity, as they tend to be high utilizers if they use services and more quickly reach plan limits on coverage (Sturm, 1997). Thus achieving parity of coverage in the private sector may be especially important for addressing the unmet need for child mental health services. Yet, Dr. Wells indicated that the meaning of parity is changing under managed care, as the defined benefit does not necessarily directly correspond to the level of care provided under management policies (Burnam and Escarce,1999). Finally, Dr. Wells provided an example of the promise of quality improvement for mental disorders for adults, Partners in Care; in that study, depressed primary care patients from clinics using quality improvement programs had better one-year clinical outcomes and retention in employment than similar patients in clinics without quality improvement programs (Wells, et. al., 2000). These kinds of studies should be developed for children and adolescents with major mental disorders, as we develop practice-based solutions across public and private sectors to address unmet mental healthcare needs of diverse child and adolescent populations.
Suggestions for future research include: (1) Develop access and mental health quality of care indicators for children and adolescents; (2) Profile unmet need for under- and uninsured subgroups in particular areas, in light of disparity in coverage and implementation across federal and state programs; and (3) Monitor access and quality of care for children and adolescents nationally. Suggestions for policy changes include: (1) For the uninsured, replace existing programs or fill the diverse gaps in federal and state policies; (2) For the privately insured, start with parity of mental health coverage with medical conditions, and enforce tougher mandates for implementation. In addition, the management and quality under parity needs to be evaluated; and (3) For the publicly insured, implement quality improvement, and reduce delays and the financial barriers to mental healthcare.
REACHING OUT TO AND ENGAGING FAMILIES
This panel discussed the challenges affecting access to and coordination of mental healthcare for children and families, including the lack of availability of non-traditional services. One critical question addressed how to better engage families in evidence-based services and treatments.
Barbara J. Friesen, Ph.D.,
Portland State University
Dr. Friesen argued that effective mental health services require cultural competence, full family participation and appropriate services and supports. Family support and participation can provide benefits, including reduced need for inpatient treatment, shorter length of inpatient stay, better service coordination, increased likelihood that a child will return home following out-of-home placement, and increased caregiver satisfaction. When families were involved in the child welfare system, they were more likely to follow through with treatment and the caseworkers were more likely to provide appropriate care.
There are several significant barriers to family participation and effective treatment for children's psychiatric disorders. First, stigma attached to mental disorders results in families feeling at fault for their child's mental illness. Low-income families are most likely to receive disrespect from healthcare providers. Second, family and service providers lack information. Third, gaps in services are a major problem. Even when a family is armed with information about exactly what they are looking for, very often they cannot find it. Other practical, tangible barriers include cost; many families have gone bankrupt trying to care for their children. The most damaging policy is one in which parents need to give up custody in order to get services for their children. Distance can also be a barrier to care. Sometimes families must travel long distances to receive appropriate care for their child.
Suggestions for engaging families include: (1) Develop anti-stigma campaigns to educate the public and healthcare providers; (2) Train services providers in effective, family-centered treatment approaches; (3) Support family members and family organizations who can improve access to services through a variety of outreach and support roles; and (4) Evaluate these practices.
C. Veree’ Jenkins,
Family Involvement Coordinator, Family HOPE, West Palm Beach, Florida
Ms. Jenkins described her family's experience overcoming the ravages of the mental illness of her son, Joel. She called it the story of "J.O.E.L.: Joy Overcoming Everything Logical." She emphasized the importance of faith in dealing with a child's mental illness. Joel had a journey through mental illness, substance abuse, the juvenile justice system and early fatherhood. All along the way, no one ever asked the family their faith and what they believed in, said Ms. Jenkins. In a substance abuse treatment program, Joel had his bible taken from him, told it was a crutch preventing him from overcoming his substance abuse problems. But, Ms. Jenkins said, you need faith in God to make it through these systems; you put faith in the hands of the therapist managing your care and sometimes are let down. Finally, Joel went to the church where he found ‘wrap-around faith’ where they provided mentoring, counseling services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, helped him get a job, and get rid of his guns and provided other assistance. Ms. Jenkins encouraged consideration of faith-based organizations, which can provide safe havens, camps, music, art, and all sorts of activities that can be very helpful to a family in need. Joel is now drug, alcohol and cigarette free. He is a law-abiding citizen, married, a good parent, employed and owns his home. A recent graduate of the McCollough Seminary, he is Assistant Youth Pastor of his church. As a family, Joel, Ms. Jenkins and her husband work together to share their faith and hope with others.
Lynn Pedraza, Ed.S.,
Family Member
Ms. Pedraza described how her family, which includes biological, foster and adoptive children, encountered many challenges trying to navigate the multiple systems often involved in the care and treatment of children with mental disorders. So much of the mental health world operates from a deficit perspective requiring families to prove their needs, rather than strengths, to get services. Workers have coerced parents and threatened to take children away when families try to fight for appropriate services. Suggestions to engage families include: (1) Put mental health at the forefront of health policy decisions and research efforts; (2) Research should focus on the human side of mental health, the connections to others, trust, pleasure, joy and respect. In other words, examine what caring looks like and what happens when this caring is incorporated into mental health services; and (3) Researchers need to become involved with families and their children long enough and deeply enough to really understand the multiple factors that affect children and their families. Researchers need to listen to families.
DISCUSSANTS
Brenda Souto,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Ms. Souto described her experiences as a parent of a child with several disorders. She has been her son's case manager for 20 years and has had good experiences with psychiatrists and psychologists in Maryland, a parity-enforced state. Trying to find good services was another problem. She cited a report, Families on the Brink, that NAMI released a year ago, summarizing the stigmatization of families who often are blamed for no-fault brain disorders. She said the most unfortunate result of the lack of access to mental healthcare is when the family is forced to relinquish custody of their ill child to the state in order to get needed mental health services.
Carl Bell, M.D.,
Community Mental Health Council, Chicago
Dr. Bell described the insufficient infrastructure in the community health system. Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter pushed for a plan to increase the infrastructure. But the plan never came into being because Carter lost the presidency. Dr. Bell encouraged conference participants to make sure they take action to ensure the agenda moves forward. He is particularly interested in African Americans. In order to fix the problems of African Americans within these various systems, African Americans must be involved in the conversations. The black community trusts the community centers but not the universities. Black people are concerned about who is testing their children and why. Partnerships between community-based organizations and the universities is one way to make technical expertise available to train community-based staff. Such efforts are underway at Dr. Bell's agency and the University of Illinois in Chicago, but they are costly. Few community agencies have the resources needed to train their staff in evidence-based interventions. Community-based organizations need to receive funding to assist them in training their staff and such support is necessary to help infuse evidence-based interventions into community-based services.
Michael M. Faenza, MSSW,
National Mental Health Association
Mr. Faenza noted that this session's presentations demonstrate children's mental health as a social justice issue. The disparities in access and treatment highlight the social injustice issues that come into play in children's services. He highlighted challenges in diagnosing mental disorders in children, and a need for more research in diagnosis and treatment. Because so much negative public attention is focused on overprescription of psychotropic medications and overdiagnosis in young children, particular sensitivity around such issues is needed to prevent the damage that such publicity could do. The prevalence of mental disorders and substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system suggests a starting point for change in operative services systems for children.
Phillipa Hambrick,
Family Member
Ms. Hambrick described her experiences as a grandmother and mother, providing family care to four grandchildren in need of mental health services for ADHD and major depression. She had difficulty getting services for these children, due to distance or because the children were put on a waiting list for services. The children eventually received services through the school system and through youth and family services. But such services must be expanded and made more comprehensive, she said. If she were to move, her children would lose the services because they would be in a different jurisdiction.
Health Service Disparities: Access, Quality, and Diversity
CHAIR: Spero M. Manson, Ph.D., University of Colorado.
ACCESS, BARRIERS, and QUALITY
Pathways into, through, and out of service systems are issues of critical importance when addressing access to care, adequacy or appropriateness of care, as well as quality. This panel addressed these issues examining the impact of race, ethnicity, and cultural attitudes.
David T. Takeuchi, Ph.D.,
Indiana University
Dr. Takeuchi discussed the importance of race as a separate and independent factor in children's mental health status, as well as access to and quality of care. Over the past two decades, it has been common to advocate for a more universal approach to resolving the disparities found among racial groups. Despite one's position regarding whether race has or has not declined in significance in American society, an advocacy for policies that attempt to reduce socio-economic status (SES) differentials is seen as a more effective public policy strategy to gain acceptance among all racial groups and, equally important, policy makers.
While this approach is popular and well meaning, it tends to ignore an evolving body of research that finds race to have a strong effect on mental health variables, independent of SES. For example, a recent study assessing health outcomes for 50 states found a strong association between racial composition and health. The greater the minority composition, the poorer the child health profiles. When race was included in analytical models, income and equality did not have a significant association with child health outcomes. Another significant variable linked to improved child health outcomes was the willingness of states to fund social welfare programs. These analyses suggest that simply focusing on income inequality will not resolve racism and its consequences. Racism is a continuous problem and creates a social environment characterized by alienation, frustration, powerlessness, stress and demoralization, all of which can have pernicious consequences on mental health. There are programs that are trying to make health systems more equitable through education, and attempting to reduce stereotypes and prejudice by providing information about different racial groups. Research indicates, however, that individuals who have preexisting racist beliefs may actually have these beliefs reinforced through such educational programs.
In order to address ethnic and racial inequities in children's mental healthcare, racism must be viewed in a broader context, focusing on institutional racism and the racial hierarchy of society and its systems, including healthcare. It is unclear how to do this, but two examples to consider would be Native Americans' building casinos to address economic inequity; and Native Hawaiians' current effort to achieve sovereignty. These are two natural situations in which it can be seen how health outcomes will be influenced.
Margarita Alegría, Ph.D.,
University of Puerto Rico
Dr. Alegría discussed challenges in advancing equity in mental healthcare for children of color. She presented three arguments for increased focus on racial and ethnic differences. First, race, ethnicity and culture of children play a major role in shaping the care provided to them by health institutions. Racial, ethnic and cultural differences influence the expression and identification of the need for services. Studies have shown ethnic and racial differences in youths' self-reports of problem behaviors, caregivers' value judgments of what is normative behavior, and caregiver expectations of the child. Ethnic and racial bias in who gets identified, referred and treated within certain institutions has also been documented. For example, African American youth are more frequently referred for conduct problems to corrections rather than psychiatric hospitals, even with lower or equal measures of aggressive behavior. Quality of care is also impacted. For example, ADHD is less often treated by medications in minority groups than in white populations. There is also increased probability of misdiagnoses among minority individuals, affecting subsequent care.
Second, there are challenges in identifying the mechanisms by which ethnicity, race, and culture account for disparities in behavioral and emotional problems and service delivery. Understanding these mechanisms has important implications for how to intervene correctly. Factors that mediate such challenges may be related to lack of early detection by providers and parents; untrained and culturally insensitive providers; and lack of parent and provider knowledge of efficacious treatments. For example, Latino youths have the highest rate of suicide, yet they are less likely to be identified by their caregivers as having problems. Disparities in services may be due to different barriers such as insurance status and settings where mental healthcare is delivered. Minority children tend to receive mental health services through the juvenile justice and welfare systems more often than through schools or special settings.
Third, efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and service delivery are constrained by profound socio-environmental, institutional, and market forces. For example, managed care, by targeting medical necessity, may be constrained in obtaining the complexity of funding streams that are necessary to service minority children in the schools, juvenile justice settings or welfare agencies. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for near poor families may not prove sufficient to increase mental health service usage, if it is not tied to increased provider availability and provider payment incentives to treat minority populations within depressed inner-city communities. Thus, a critical analysis of how residential, institutional, and market policies may create disparities is needed, and more importantly, how these policies are implemented in ways that result in disparities. There is a need to address these disparities by moving beyond the healthcare sector, examining neighborhoods where minority children live (areas of economic disadvantage, concentration of violence in certain areas), addressing the institutions with which minority children interact (i.e., the referral bias in the various systems), and addressing the role of managed care and the lack of culturally competent providers in the various systems.
Suggestions to address these disparities include: (1) Ensure that efforts focus not only on equalizing access to treatment, but also on equalizing outcomes of care; (2) Aggressively monitor institutional progress towards an equitable and compassionate system of mental healthcare for children of color; and (3) Move beyond policy interventions in the healthcare system to more socio-educational approaches, where government agencies are not agents of control but agents of support.
Kenneth B. Wells, M.D., M.P.H.,
UCLA/RAND
Dr. Wells presented new preliminary data from three national surveys on access to specialty mental healthcare. The findings demonstrated high levels of unmet need for specialty care for children and adolescents and substantial ethnic disparities in access to such care. Detailed findings will be presented in a forthcoming article. Dr. Wells also drew attention to key issues in formulating public policy to address unmet need for child services. One set of issues relates to children in the public sector, where differences within and across states in implementation of policies to cover uninsured children result in children with varying degrees of vulnerability to unmet need for mental healthcare. Policies that guarantee coverage for uninsured children across diverse populations and geographic areas are needed to address this problem. Another set of issues applies to the private sector, where there has been much debate about the feasibility of implementing parity for mental health and physical health services for both children and adults; yet prior studies suggest that children have more to gain from parity, as they tend to be high utilizers if they use services and more quickly reach plan limits on coverage (Sturm, 1997). Thus achieving parity of coverage in the private sector may be especially important for addressing the unmet need for child mental health services. Yet, Dr. Wells indicated that the meaning of parity is changing under managed care, as the defined benefit does not necessarily directly correspond to the level of care provided under management policies (Burnam and Escarce,1999). Finally, Dr. Wells provided an example of the promise of quality improvement for mental disorders for adults, Partners in Care; in that study, depressed primary care patients from clinics using quality improvement programs had better one-year clinical outcomes and retention in employment than similar patients in clinics without quality improvement programs (Wells, et. al., 2000). These kinds of studies should be developed for children and adolescents with major mental disorders, as we develop practice-based solutions across public and private sectors to address unmet mental healthcare needs of diverse child and adolescent populations.
Suggestions for future research include: (1) Develop access and mental health quality of care indicators for children and adolescents; (2) Profile unmet need for under- and uninsured subgroups in particular areas, in light of disparity in coverage and implementation across federal and state programs; and (3) Monitor access and quality of care for children and adolescents nationally. Suggestions for policy changes include: (1) For the uninsured, replace existing programs or fill the diverse gaps in federal and state policies; (2) For the privately insured, start with parity of mental health coverage with medical conditions, and enforce tougher mandates for implementation. In addition, the management and quality under parity needs to be evaluated; and (3) For the publicly insured, implement quality improvement, and reduce delays and the financial barriers to mental healthcare.
REACHING OUT TO AND ENGAGING FAMILIES
This panel discussed the challenges affecting access to and coordination of mental healthcare for children and families, including the lack of availability of non-traditional services. One critical question addressed how to better engage families in evidence-based services and treatments.
Barbara J. Friesen, Ph.D.,
Portland State University
Dr. Friesen argued that effective mental health services require cultural competence, full family participation and appropriate services and supports. Family support and participation can provide benefits, including reduced need for inpatient treatment, shorter length of inpatient stay, better service coordination, increased likelihood that a child will return home following out-of-home placement, and increased caregiver satisfaction. When families were involved in the child welfare system, they were more likely to follow through with treatment and the caseworkers were more likely to provide appropriate care.
There are several significant barriers to family participation and effective treatment for children's psychiatric disorders. First, stigma attached to mental disorders results in families feeling at fault for their child's mental illness. Low-income families are most likely to receive disrespect from healthcare providers. Second, family and service providers lack information. Third, gaps in services are a major problem. Even when a family is armed with information about exactly what they are looking for, very often they cannot find it. Other practical, tangible barriers include cost; many families have gone bankrupt trying to care for their children. The most damaging policy is one in which parents need to give up custody in order to get services for their children. Distance can also be a barrier to care. Sometimes families must travel long distances to receive appropriate care for their child.
Suggestions for engaging families include: (1) Develop anti-stigma campaigns to educate the public and healthcare providers; (2) Train services providers in effective, family-centered treatment approaches; (3) Support family members and family organizations who can improve access to services through a variety of outreach and support roles; and (4) Evaluate these practices.
C. Veree’ Jenkins,
Family Involvement Coordinator, Family HOPE, West Palm Beach, Florida
Ms. Jenkins described her family's experience overcoming the ravages of the mental illness of her son, Joel. She called it the story of "J.O.E.L.: Joy Overcoming Everything Logical." She emphasized the importance of faith in dealing with a child's mental illness. Joel had a journey through mental illness, substance abuse, the juvenile justice system and early fatherhood. All along the way, no one ever asked the family their faith and what they believed in, said Ms. Jenkins. In a substance abuse treatment program, Joel had his bible taken from him, told it was a crutch preventing him from overcoming his substance abuse problems. But, Ms. Jenkins said, you need faith in God to make it through these systems; you put faith in the hands of the therapist managing your care and sometimes are let down. Finally, Joel went to the church where he found ‘wrap-around faith’ where they provided mentoring, counseling services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, helped him get a job, and get rid of his guns and provided other assistance. Ms. Jenkins encouraged consideration of faith-based organizations, which can provide safe havens, camps, music, art, and all sorts of activities that can be very helpful to a family in need. Joel is now drug, alcohol and cigarette free. He is a law-abiding citizen, married, a good parent, employed and owns his home. A recent graduate of the McCollough Seminary, he is Assistant Youth Pastor of his church. As a family, Joel, Ms. Jenkins and her husband work together to share their faith and hope with others.
Lynn Pedraza, Ed.S.,
Family Member
Ms. Pedraza described how her family, which includes biological, foster and adoptive children, encountered many challenges trying to navigate the multiple systems often involved in the care and treatment of children with mental disorders. So much of the mental health world operates from a deficit perspective requiring families to prove their needs, rather than strengths, to get services. Workers have coerced parents and threatened to take children away when families try to fight for appropriate services. Suggestions to engage families include: (1) Put mental health at the forefront of health policy decisions and research efforts; (2) Research should focus on the human side of mental health, the connections to others, trust, pleasure, joy and respect. In other words, examine what caring looks like and what happens when this caring is incorporated into mental health services; and (3) Researchers need to become involved with families and their children long enough and deeply enough to really understand the multiple factors that affect children and their families. Researchers need to listen to families.
DISCUSSANTS
Brenda Souto,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Ms. Souto described her experiences as a parent of a child with several disorders. She has been her son's case manager for 20 years and has had good experiences with psychiatrists and psychologists in Maryland, a parity-enforced state. Trying to find good services was another problem. She cited a report, Families on the Brink, that NAMI released a year ago, summarizing the stigmatization of families who often are blamed for no-fault brain disorders. She said the most unfortunate result of the lack of access to mental healthcare is when the family is forced to relinquish custody of their ill child to the state in order to get needed mental health services.
Carl Bell, M.D.,
Community Mental Health Council, Chicago
Dr. Bell described the insufficient infrastructure in the community health system. Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter pushed for a plan to increase the infrastructure. But the plan never came into being because Carter lost the presidency. Dr. Bell encouraged conference participants to make sure they take action to ensure the agenda moves forward. He is particularly interested in African Americans. In order to fix the problems of African Americans within these various systems, African Americans must be involved in the conversations. The black community trusts the community centers but not the universities. Black people are concerned about who is testing their children and why. Partnerships between community-based organizations and the universities is one way to make technical expertise available to train community-based staff. Such efforts are underway at Dr. Bell's agency and the University of Illinois in Chicago, but they are costly. Few community agencies have the resources needed to train their staff in evidence-based interventions. Community-based organizations need to receive funding to assist them in training their staff and such support is necessary to help infuse evidence-based interventions into community-based services.
Michael M. Faenza, MSSW,
National Mental Health Association
Mr. Faenza noted that this session's presentations demonstrate children's mental health as a social justice issue. The disparities in access and treatment highlight the social injustice issues that come into play in children's services. He highlighted challenges in diagnosing mental disorders in children, and a need for more research in diagnosis and treatment. Because so much negative public attention is focused on overprescription of psychotropic medications and overdiagnosis in young children, particular sensitivity around such issues is needed to prevent the damage that such publicity could do. The prevalence of mental disorders and substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system suggests a starting point for change in operative services systems for children.
Phillipa Hambrick,
Family Member
Ms. Hambrick described her experiences as a grandmother and mother, providing family care to four grandchildren in need of mental health services for ADHD and major depression. She had difficulty getting services for these children, due to distance or because the children were put on a waiting list for services. The children eventually received services through the school system and through youth and family services. But such services must be expanded and made more comprehensive, she said. If she were to move, her children would lose the services because they would be in a different jurisdiction.
March 07, 2010
Models of Preventive Services
Models of Preventive Services
Two well-known models of preventive services are used when referring to behavioral programming for public health or mental health promotion and substance use prevention. They are reviewed briefly here.
The Public Health Model
Public health traditionally defines preventive services as “primary,” “secondary,” or “tertiary.” Primary preventive services, such as immunizations and programs related to tobacco, diet, and exercise, are intended to intervene before the onset of illness to prevent biologic onset of illness. Secondary preventive services include screening to detect disease before it becomes symptomatic, coupled with follow-up to arrest or eliminate the disease. The Pap test and mammography are medical examples of secondary prevention. Tertiary prevention refers to prevention of complications in persons known to be ill. Prevention of stroke through effective treatment of hypertension is an example of tertiary prevention. Much of disease management is tertiary prevention. In the public health model, the three levels of prevention are separate and distinct.
The Continuum of Health Care Model According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
When dealing with substance use and other behavioral disorders in clinical settings, the levels of prevention are less distinct than with physical illnesses. The tasks of identifying risk factors and detecting earlystage disease are usually accomplished by patient or family interview. Initial management of both risk and early stage disease is often conducted via patient and family counseling by the primary care provider. Thus, the continuum of the health care model is more practical than the public health model when dealing with preventive behavioral health services.
The continuum of health care model is drawn from a 1994 report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994), as originally proposed by Gordon (1983). It differs from the public health model in that it covers the full range of preventive, treatment, and maintenance services. There are three types of preventive services in the IOM model—universal, selective, and indicated. These do not correspond to the primary, secondary, and tertiary services in the public health model. Screening and follow-up preventive behavioral services correspond to secondary prevention within the public health model. Other preventive behavioral services, including most community-based services, correspond to primary or tertiary prevention.
Figure 1. Continuum of Health Care
Source: Reprinted with permission from Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders. Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
In the IOM model, a “universal” preventive measure is an intervention that is applicable to or useful for everyone in the general population, such as all enrollees in a managed care organization. A “selective” preventive measure is desirable only when an individual is a member of a subgroup with above-average risk. An “indicated” preventive measure applies to persons who are found to manifest a risk factor that puts them at high risk (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994). All these categories describe individuals who have not been diagnosed with a disease.
Universal interventions, on a per-client basis, are relatively inexpensive services offered to the entire population of a lifestage group. They are conducted as a primary prevention or screening to identify sub-populations and individuals who need more intensive screening, preventive, or therapeutic services. A clinical example would be the provision of prenatal care as a universal service for all pregnant women. A behavioral health example would be the use of a simple screening protocol to identify depression in all adult patients at all primary care visits.
Selective interventions are more intensive services offered to subpopulations identified as having more risk factors than the general population, based on their age, gender, genetic history, condition, or situation. For example, more intensive breast cancer screening is provided for women with a family history of breast cancer. A behavioral health example would be offering smoking cessation programming to all smokers.
Indicated interventions are based on higher probability of developing a disease. They provide an intensive level of service to persons at extremely high risk or who already show asymptomatic, clinical, or demonstrable abnormality, but do not meet diagnostic criteria levels yet. Case management and intensive in-home assessment, health education, and counseling are examples of indicated interventions (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994).
Sometimes a universal service is a screening procedure provided to all, or a primary prevention procedure such as vaccinations for children. The selective service involves diagnostic procedures to confirm or deny a diagnosis, and the indicated service involves much more intensive, individualized services for those at highest risk.
The efficacy and cost-efficiency of preventive services depend on the entire array of universal, selective, and indicated service components. They also depend on the ability of the health care system to target and limit the more costly indicated interventions to those who could most benefit from them.
Appendix C to this report provides a more detailed presentation of the following policy, management, planning, and evaluation issues:
Translation of preventive behavioral research into health care practice
Assessment of the need for preventive services
Assessment of the efficacy of preventive services
Infrastructure and service components for preventive services
“General” vs. “Targeted” Services
Within this monograph, services are also classified into one of two categories, “general” and “targeted,” depending on the evidence base and the nature of the service. Those designated as “general” are supported by the evidence base as being appropriate for universal implementation by all health care systems. Services that are classified here as “targeted” appear to be appropriate for selected populations (e.g., selective or indicated populations if applying the IOM model), or they have a developing research base that is promising. “Targeted” services might also be social or educational interventions that could be provided by nonmedical staff to secure educational and social benefits.
C. Clinical vs. Community Preventive Services
Most preventive behavioral services are delivered in school and community settings, not health care settings (Schinke, Brounstein, & Gardner, 2002; DHHS, 1999). In a 1998 review of indicated preventive behavioral services for children and adolescents, Durlak and Wells (1997) used meta-analysis to review 177 programs—73 percent were in a school setting, compared with 23 percent that were mainly in medical settings. In a similar review published 1 year later by the same authors (Durlak & Wells, 1998), none of the programs was in a medical setting.
This report has been prepared to summarize and analyze the most promising preventive interventions (based on rigorous research studies) for consideration by health care organizations. Only interventions deliverable by health care systems are reviewed in this report. Most community preventive services are oriented toward school-age children, adolescents, and young adults—age groups with relatively low exposure to health care delivery settings. Such services generally are provided by and through schools and community organizations.
Health care settings, however, are effective in reaching pregnant women, infants, adults with major chronic medical illnesses, and those in need of surgical procedures. For example, these settings provide a place to address the behavioral needs of these patients through behavioral screening and preventive services, with follow-up in prescribed regimens of care. In this way, clinical preventive services for depression and substance abuse can reduce emergency room use and hospitalization (Olfson, Sing, & Schlesinger, 1999). Psychoeducational services also can speed recovery of postsurgical patients (Egbert, Battit, Welch, & Bartlett, 1964; Mumford, Schlesinger, & Glass, 1982).
It may not be incumbent upon health care delivery systems to provide highly specialized social and educational support services (Devine, O’Connor, Cook, Wenk, & Curtin, 1988), but health care delivery systems do have a role to play. Through their mental health and social work staff, they maintain working relationships with communitybased, social service, educational, and even correctional agencies to ensure they meet the needs of members of the health care delivery system.
D. Health Care Delivery System Provision of Preventive Behavioral Services
The need for behavioral services is substantial. Many who could benefit from treatment for these disorders do not receive care (Woodward et al., 1997; Harwood, Sullivan, & Malhorta, 2001).
Some of the lack of development of behavioral health services within health care delivery systems may be owing to the perception that mental health and substance use disorder services may be “softer” and therefore less effective than conventional medical therapy. However, the efficacy and cost-efficiency of these services is well established and has been recommended by multiple national organizations since at least the early 1990s (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 1996, 2002a, 2003).
The 1994 IOM report was titled Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders—Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994). A 1998 follow-up report, Preventing Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems in Managed Care Settings (Mrazek, 1998), was completed in collaboration with the National Mental Health Association (NMHA). This report recommended widespread implementation of primary preventive programming to address five problem areas within health care systems:
Prevention of initial onset of unipolar major depression across the life span
Prevention of low birthweight and prevention of child maltreatment in children from birth to 2 years of age whose mothers are identified as being at high risk
Prevention of alcohol or drug abuse in children who have an alcohol- or drugabusing parent
Prevention of mental health problems in physically ill patients (comorbidity prevention)
Prevention of conduct disorders in young children
The 1999 Surgeon General Report was titled Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (DHHS, 1999). Although the major focus of this report was care and management of mental disorders, all major preventive services were included.
SAMHSA published two recent prevention-related health care reports. The 2000 literature review titled Preventive Interventions Under Managed Care (Dorfman, 2000) used broader definitions of “prevention” and “mental health services” and recommended six interventions for managed care plans:
Prenatal and infancy home visits
Targeted cessation education and counseling for smokers—especially those who are pregnant
Targeted short-term mental health therapy
Self-care education for adults
Presurgical educational intervention with adults
Brief counseling and advice to reduce alcohol use
This new literature review retains four of the above services and omits numbers three and four on short-term mental health therapy and self-care. The companion document published in 2002 was titled Estimating the Cost of Preventive Services in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Under Managed Care (Broskowski & Smith, 2002). This report provided cost data for each of the services recommended in the 2000 literature review. It also featured, for each set of recommended services, a range of costs and options based on case mix and private versus public insurance coverage. It estimated the cost to managed care organizations (MCOs) to implement recommendations for four possible scenarios ranging from most expensive to least expensive, given drivers such as enrollment mix, staffing, staff salaries, and fixed and variable expenses. This report did not consider savings in other health care expenses. Even with the most expensive of cost profiles, the report did conclude that all six services could be fully implemented at a marginal cost of less than a 1 percent increase in cost, per member per month.
During this period, SAMHSA and the National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA)–sponsored Health Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) program have attempted to bring preventive behavioral services to the attention of the managed care community. In response to market pressures to demonstrate high scores on HEDIS measures, the managed care community has taken giant strides to improve the care of patients with depression and has taken steps to enhance member adherence to prescribed regimens of care for diabetes.
In 1998, SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention created the National Registry of Effective Programs (NREP) as a resource to help professionals in the field become better consumers of prevention programs (Schinke et al., 2002). NREP reviews and screens evidence-based programs (conceptually sound and/or theoretically driven by risk and protective factors) that, through an expert consensus review of research, demonstrate scientifically defensible evidence. NREP initially focused on substance use prevention but has expanded to include mental health; co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders; adolescent substance use treatment; mental health promotion; and adult mental health treatment. Many programs focus on school and family, but increasingly, programs from community coalitions and environmental programs are being identified as well implemented, well evaluated, and effective.
NREP evaluates programs for substance abuse prevention and treatment, co-occuring disorders, and mental health treatment, promotion, and prevention. After receiving published and unpublished program materials from candidates, NREP reviewers, drawn from 80 experts in relevant fields, rate each program according to 18 criteria for methodological rigor, and they also score programs for adoptability and usefulness to communities (Schinke et al., 2002). Based on the overall scoring, NREP categorizes programs as Model Programs, Effective Programs, Promising Programs, or Programs with Insufficient Current Support. Those wishing to learn more about Model Programs can visit www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov. At this site, there is also a link providing detailed information about NREP and the process for submitting a program for NREP review.
Despite these efforts, behavioral services— both preventive and therapeutic—still are not adequately identified, provided, or arranged by primary care practitioners. They also are not adequately promoted by health care systems. Brief screening instruments for alcohol and drug problems, for example, have been available for a number of years but are not widely used by practicing physicians (Duszynski, Nieto, & Vanente, 1995; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2000). In a 2002 review, Garnick et al. (2002) conducted a telephone survey covering 434 MCOs in 60 market areas nationwide and secured useful responses from 92 percent of them. Only 14.9 percent of MCOs required any alcohol, drug, or mental health screening by primary care practitioners. Slightly more than half distributed practice guidelines that addressed mental illness, and approximately one third distributed substance use disorder practice guidelines.
DHHS’s 2003 campaign, Steps to a Healthier U.S., focuses on chronic disease prevention and health promotion with the goals of decreasing both the prevalence of certain chronic diseases and the risk factors that allow conditions to develop. This initiative aims to bring together local coalitions to establish model programs and policies that foster health behavior changes, encourage healthier lifestyle choices, and reduce disparities in health care.
In early 2003, SAMHSA published a review of the delivery of behavioral services by managed care organizations, based on 1999 data. This report, The Provision of Mental Health Services in Managed Care Organizations (Horgan et al., 2003), showed substantial variability from plan to plan, as well as substantial variability among health maintenance organizations (HMOs), pointof- service (POS) plans, and preferred provider organizations (PPOs). All MCOs provided behavioral services, but these services usually had limits and copayments that were more restrictive than for comparable medical services. Fewer than 10 percent required screening for behavioral disorders in primary care settings (Horgan et al., 2003).
Another SAMHSA report, also published early in 2003, offers some insight into discrepancies in coverage, comparing medical to behavioral services and discrepancies in policy and coverage, comparing therapeutic to preventive services. This report, titled Medical Necessity in Private Health Plans: Implications for Behavioral Health Care (Rosenbaum, Kamoie, Mauery, & Walitt, 2003), noted that services are covered by health insurance plans only if they are considered a “medical necessity.” The term medical necessity was defined differently for different services within each health plan, with due consideration given for each of the following five domains:
Contractual scope—whether the contract provides any coverage for certain procedures and treatments, such as preventive and maintenance treatments that are not necessary to restore a patient to “normal functioning.” This dimension preempts any other coverage decision.
Standards of practice—whether the treatment (as judged by the health plan) accords with professional standards of practice.
Patient safety and setting—whether the treatment will be delivered in the safest and least intrusive manner.
Medical service—whether the treatment is considered medical as opposed to social or nonmedical.
Cost—whether the treatment is considered cost-effective by the insurer (Rosenbaum et al., 2003).
The medical necessity report noted that Federal or State regulation is limited in covering how health insurance plans define medical necessity (Rosenbaum et al., 2003). This SAMHSA update is intended to build upon the reports noted above to further enhance implementation of preventive behavioral services in health care settings.
Two well-known models of preventive services are used when referring to behavioral programming for public health or mental health promotion and substance use prevention. They are reviewed briefly here.
The Public Health Model
Public health traditionally defines preventive services as “primary,” “secondary,” or “tertiary.” Primary preventive services, such as immunizations and programs related to tobacco, diet, and exercise, are intended to intervene before the onset of illness to prevent biologic onset of illness. Secondary preventive services include screening to detect disease before it becomes symptomatic, coupled with follow-up to arrest or eliminate the disease. The Pap test and mammography are medical examples of secondary prevention. Tertiary prevention refers to prevention of complications in persons known to be ill. Prevention of stroke through effective treatment of hypertension is an example of tertiary prevention. Much of disease management is tertiary prevention. In the public health model, the three levels of prevention are separate and distinct.
The Continuum of Health Care Model According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
When dealing with substance use and other behavioral disorders in clinical settings, the levels of prevention are less distinct than with physical illnesses. The tasks of identifying risk factors and detecting earlystage disease are usually accomplished by patient or family interview. Initial management of both risk and early stage disease is often conducted via patient and family counseling by the primary care provider. Thus, the continuum of the health care model is more practical than the public health model when dealing with preventive behavioral health services.
The continuum of health care model is drawn from a 1994 report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994), as originally proposed by Gordon (1983). It differs from the public health model in that it covers the full range of preventive, treatment, and maintenance services. There are three types of preventive services in the IOM model—universal, selective, and indicated. These do not correspond to the primary, secondary, and tertiary services in the public health model. Screening and follow-up preventive behavioral services correspond to secondary prevention within the public health model. Other preventive behavioral services, including most community-based services, correspond to primary or tertiary prevention.
Figure 1. Continuum of Health Care
Source: Reprinted with permission from Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders. Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
In the IOM model, a “universal” preventive measure is an intervention that is applicable to or useful for everyone in the general population, such as all enrollees in a managed care organization. A “selective” preventive measure is desirable only when an individual is a member of a subgroup with above-average risk. An “indicated” preventive measure applies to persons who are found to manifest a risk factor that puts them at high risk (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994). All these categories describe individuals who have not been diagnosed with a disease.
Universal interventions, on a per-client basis, are relatively inexpensive services offered to the entire population of a lifestage group. They are conducted as a primary prevention or screening to identify sub-populations and individuals who need more intensive screening, preventive, or therapeutic services. A clinical example would be the provision of prenatal care as a universal service for all pregnant women. A behavioral health example would be the use of a simple screening protocol to identify depression in all adult patients at all primary care visits.
Selective interventions are more intensive services offered to subpopulations identified as having more risk factors than the general population, based on their age, gender, genetic history, condition, or situation. For example, more intensive breast cancer screening is provided for women with a family history of breast cancer. A behavioral health example would be offering smoking cessation programming to all smokers.
Indicated interventions are based on higher probability of developing a disease. They provide an intensive level of service to persons at extremely high risk or who already show asymptomatic, clinical, or demonstrable abnormality, but do not meet diagnostic criteria levels yet. Case management and intensive in-home assessment, health education, and counseling are examples of indicated interventions (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994).
Sometimes a universal service is a screening procedure provided to all, or a primary prevention procedure such as vaccinations for children. The selective service involves diagnostic procedures to confirm or deny a diagnosis, and the indicated service involves much more intensive, individualized services for those at highest risk.
The efficacy and cost-efficiency of preventive services depend on the entire array of universal, selective, and indicated service components. They also depend on the ability of the health care system to target and limit the more costly indicated interventions to those who could most benefit from them.
Appendix C to this report provides a more detailed presentation of the following policy, management, planning, and evaluation issues:
Translation of preventive behavioral research into health care practice
Assessment of the need for preventive services
Assessment of the efficacy of preventive services
Infrastructure and service components for preventive services
“General” vs. “Targeted” Services
Within this monograph, services are also classified into one of two categories, “general” and “targeted,” depending on the evidence base and the nature of the service. Those designated as “general” are supported by the evidence base as being appropriate for universal implementation by all health care systems. Services that are classified here as “targeted” appear to be appropriate for selected populations (e.g., selective or indicated populations if applying the IOM model), or they have a developing research base that is promising. “Targeted” services might also be social or educational interventions that could be provided by nonmedical staff to secure educational and social benefits.
C. Clinical vs. Community Preventive Services
Most preventive behavioral services are delivered in school and community settings, not health care settings (Schinke, Brounstein, & Gardner, 2002; DHHS, 1999). In a 1998 review of indicated preventive behavioral services for children and adolescents, Durlak and Wells (1997) used meta-analysis to review 177 programs—73 percent were in a school setting, compared with 23 percent that were mainly in medical settings. In a similar review published 1 year later by the same authors (Durlak & Wells, 1998), none of the programs was in a medical setting.
This report has been prepared to summarize and analyze the most promising preventive interventions (based on rigorous research studies) for consideration by health care organizations. Only interventions deliverable by health care systems are reviewed in this report. Most community preventive services are oriented toward school-age children, adolescents, and young adults—age groups with relatively low exposure to health care delivery settings. Such services generally are provided by and through schools and community organizations.
Health care settings, however, are effective in reaching pregnant women, infants, adults with major chronic medical illnesses, and those in need of surgical procedures. For example, these settings provide a place to address the behavioral needs of these patients through behavioral screening and preventive services, with follow-up in prescribed regimens of care. In this way, clinical preventive services for depression and substance abuse can reduce emergency room use and hospitalization (Olfson, Sing, & Schlesinger, 1999). Psychoeducational services also can speed recovery of postsurgical patients (Egbert, Battit, Welch, & Bartlett, 1964; Mumford, Schlesinger, & Glass, 1982).
It may not be incumbent upon health care delivery systems to provide highly specialized social and educational support services (Devine, O’Connor, Cook, Wenk, & Curtin, 1988), but health care delivery systems do have a role to play. Through their mental health and social work staff, they maintain working relationships with communitybased, social service, educational, and even correctional agencies to ensure they meet the needs of members of the health care delivery system.
D. Health Care Delivery System Provision of Preventive Behavioral Services
The need for behavioral services is substantial. Many who could benefit from treatment for these disorders do not receive care (Woodward et al., 1997; Harwood, Sullivan, & Malhorta, 2001).
Some of the lack of development of behavioral health services within health care delivery systems may be owing to the perception that mental health and substance use disorder services may be “softer” and therefore less effective than conventional medical therapy. However, the efficacy and cost-efficiency of these services is well established and has been recommended by multiple national organizations since at least the early 1990s (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 1996, 2002a, 2003).
The 1994 IOM report was titled Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders—Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research (Mrazek & Haggerty, eds., 1994). A 1998 follow-up report, Preventing Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems in Managed Care Settings (Mrazek, 1998), was completed in collaboration with the National Mental Health Association (NMHA). This report recommended widespread implementation of primary preventive programming to address five problem areas within health care systems:
Prevention of initial onset of unipolar major depression across the life span
Prevention of low birthweight and prevention of child maltreatment in children from birth to 2 years of age whose mothers are identified as being at high risk
Prevention of alcohol or drug abuse in children who have an alcohol- or drugabusing parent
Prevention of mental health problems in physically ill patients (comorbidity prevention)
Prevention of conduct disorders in young children
The 1999 Surgeon General Report was titled Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (DHHS, 1999). Although the major focus of this report was care and management of mental disorders, all major preventive services were included.
SAMHSA published two recent prevention-related health care reports. The 2000 literature review titled Preventive Interventions Under Managed Care (Dorfman, 2000) used broader definitions of “prevention” and “mental health services” and recommended six interventions for managed care plans:
Prenatal and infancy home visits
Targeted cessation education and counseling for smokers—especially those who are pregnant
Targeted short-term mental health therapy
Self-care education for adults
Presurgical educational intervention with adults
Brief counseling and advice to reduce alcohol use
This new literature review retains four of the above services and omits numbers three and four on short-term mental health therapy and self-care. The companion document published in 2002 was titled Estimating the Cost of Preventive Services in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Under Managed Care (Broskowski & Smith, 2002). This report provided cost data for each of the services recommended in the 2000 literature review. It also featured, for each set of recommended services, a range of costs and options based on case mix and private versus public insurance coverage. It estimated the cost to managed care organizations (MCOs) to implement recommendations for four possible scenarios ranging from most expensive to least expensive, given drivers such as enrollment mix, staffing, staff salaries, and fixed and variable expenses. This report did not consider savings in other health care expenses. Even with the most expensive of cost profiles, the report did conclude that all six services could be fully implemented at a marginal cost of less than a 1 percent increase in cost, per member per month.
During this period, SAMHSA and the National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA)–sponsored Health Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) program have attempted to bring preventive behavioral services to the attention of the managed care community. In response to market pressures to demonstrate high scores on HEDIS measures, the managed care community has taken giant strides to improve the care of patients with depression and has taken steps to enhance member adherence to prescribed regimens of care for diabetes.
In 1998, SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention created the National Registry of Effective Programs (NREP) as a resource to help professionals in the field become better consumers of prevention programs (Schinke et al., 2002). NREP reviews and screens evidence-based programs (conceptually sound and/or theoretically driven by risk and protective factors) that, through an expert consensus review of research, demonstrate scientifically defensible evidence. NREP initially focused on substance use prevention but has expanded to include mental health; co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders; adolescent substance use treatment; mental health promotion; and adult mental health treatment. Many programs focus on school and family, but increasingly, programs from community coalitions and environmental programs are being identified as well implemented, well evaluated, and effective.
NREP evaluates programs for substance abuse prevention and treatment, co-occuring disorders, and mental health treatment, promotion, and prevention. After receiving published and unpublished program materials from candidates, NREP reviewers, drawn from 80 experts in relevant fields, rate each program according to 18 criteria for methodological rigor, and they also score programs for adoptability and usefulness to communities (Schinke et al., 2002). Based on the overall scoring, NREP categorizes programs as Model Programs, Effective Programs, Promising Programs, or Programs with Insufficient Current Support. Those wishing to learn more about Model Programs can visit www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov. At this site, there is also a link providing detailed information about NREP and the process for submitting a program for NREP review.
Despite these efforts, behavioral services— both preventive and therapeutic—still are not adequately identified, provided, or arranged by primary care practitioners. They also are not adequately promoted by health care systems. Brief screening instruments for alcohol and drug problems, for example, have been available for a number of years but are not widely used by practicing physicians (Duszynski, Nieto, & Vanente, 1995; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2000). In a 2002 review, Garnick et al. (2002) conducted a telephone survey covering 434 MCOs in 60 market areas nationwide and secured useful responses from 92 percent of them. Only 14.9 percent of MCOs required any alcohol, drug, or mental health screening by primary care practitioners. Slightly more than half distributed practice guidelines that addressed mental illness, and approximately one third distributed substance use disorder practice guidelines.
DHHS’s 2003 campaign, Steps to a Healthier U.S., focuses on chronic disease prevention and health promotion with the goals of decreasing both the prevalence of certain chronic diseases and the risk factors that allow conditions to develop. This initiative aims to bring together local coalitions to establish model programs and policies that foster health behavior changes, encourage healthier lifestyle choices, and reduce disparities in health care.
In early 2003, SAMHSA published a review of the delivery of behavioral services by managed care organizations, based on 1999 data. This report, The Provision of Mental Health Services in Managed Care Organizations (Horgan et al., 2003), showed substantial variability from plan to plan, as well as substantial variability among health maintenance organizations (HMOs), pointof- service (POS) plans, and preferred provider organizations (PPOs). All MCOs provided behavioral services, but these services usually had limits and copayments that were more restrictive than for comparable medical services. Fewer than 10 percent required screening for behavioral disorders in primary care settings (Horgan et al., 2003).
Another SAMHSA report, also published early in 2003, offers some insight into discrepancies in coverage, comparing medical to behavioral services and discrepancies in policy and coverage, comparing therapeutic to preventive services. This report, titled Medical Necessity in Private Health Plans: Implications for Behavioral Health Care (Rosenbaum, Kamoie, Mauery, & Walitt, 2003), noted that services are covered by health insurance plans only if they are considered a “medical necessity.” The term medical necessity was defined differently for different services within each health plan, with due consideration given for each of the following five domains:
Contractual scope—whether the contract provides any coverage for certain procedures and treatments, such as preventive and maintenance treatments that are not necessary to restore a patient to “normal functioning.” This dimension preempts any other coverage decision.
Standards of practice—whether the treatment (as judged by the health plan) accords with professional standards of practice.
Patient safety and setting—whether the treatment will be delivered in the safest and least intrusive manner.
Medical service—whether the treatment is considered medical as opposed to social or nonmedical.
Cost—whether the treatment is considered cost-effective by the insurer (Rosenbaum et al., 2003).
The medical necessity report noted that Federal or State regulation is limited in covering how health insurance plans define medical necessity (Rosenbaum et al., 2003). This SAMHSA update is intended to build upon the reports noted above to further enhance implementation of preventive behavioral services in health care settings.
February 27, 2010
Questions to Help Children Talk About a Disaster
Emergency Mental Health and Traumatic Stress
Tips for Teachers
Questions to Help Children Talk About a Disaster
Disasters hit children hard. It is difficult for them to understand and accept that there are events in their lives that cannot be predicted or controlled. Perhaps worst of all, we as adults cannot "fix" a disaster, solve it, or keep it from happening again.
As a classroom teacher, you can play an important role in the healing process of children who are affected by a disaster. One technique you can use to help children cope and heal is to assist them in expressing their experiences and feelings by talking. This technique works best when you use "open-ended" questions that require more than a "yes" or "no" answer. There are many leading questions you can use to encourage children to talk, such as:
Where were you and what were you doing when the disaster happened?
What was your first thought when it happened?
What did other people around you do during/after the disaster?
Was anyone you know hurt or killed?
Did/do you dream about the disaster?
What reminds you of the disaster?
What do you do differently since the disaster?
How do you feel now?
How have you gotten through rough times before?
What, if anything, would you do differently if this happened again?
As the children begin to open up, encourage various views. Acknowledge their experiences and reassure them that what they are feeling is "normal." Play a guiding role, rather than trying to control the discussions.
Allow children with low language skills, shyness, or discomfort to be silent. It might be helpful to encourage peer support for these children. If a child has limited English-language skills, consider asking for a translator to help the child express him/herself. Create an atmosphere in which a child can feel comfortable sharing experiences and feelings in any language. The goal of the process is to help children feel better. If any of your students show serious signs of distress, consult a school counselor or mental health professional.
Tips for Teachers
Questions to Help Children Talk About a Disaster
Disasters hit children hard. It is difficult for them to understand and accept that there are events in their lives that cannot be predicted or controlled. Perhaps worst of all, we as adults cannot "fix" a disaster, solve it, or keep it from happening again.
As a classroom teacher, you can play an important role in the healing process of children who are affected by a disaster. One technique you can use to help children cope and heal is to assist them in expressing their experiences and feelings by talking. This technique works best when you use "open-ended" questions that require more than a "yes" or "no" answer. There are many leading questions you can use to encourage children to talk, such as:
Where were you and what were you doing when the disaster happened?
What was your first thought when it happened?
What did other people around you do during/after the disaster?
Was anyone you know hurt or killed?
Did/do you dream about the disaster?
What reminds you of the disaster?
What do you do differently since the disaster?
How do you feel now?
How have you gotten through rough times before?
What, if anything, would you do differently if this happened again?
As the children begin to open up, encourage various views. Acknowledge their experiences and reassure them that what they are feeling is "normal." Play a guiding role, rather than trying to control the discussions.
Allow children with low language skills, shyness, or discomfort to be silent. It might be helpful to encourage peer support for these children. If a child has limited English-language skills, consider asking for a translator to help the child express him/herself. Create an atmosphere in which a child can feel comfortable sharing experiences and feelings in any language. The goal of the process is to help children feel better. If any of your students show serious signs of distress, consult a school counselor or mental health professional.
January 27, 2010
Boundaries in Marriage
Boundaries in Marriage
3 Hours
AR, CA, CO, FL, HI, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, NV, NY, OH, OR, TX
Two lives becoming one: That’s the marriage ideal. But maybe you’ve discovered that it’s easier said than done. How do you solve problems? How do you establish healthy communication? How do you work out conflict and deal with the struggle of differing needs? In the process of knitting two souls together, it’s easy to tear the fabric. That’s why boundaries—the ways we define and maintain our sense of individuality, freedom, and personal integrity—are so important.
3 Hours
AR, CA, CO, FL, HI, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, NV, NY, OH, OR, TX
Two lives becoming one: That’s the marriage ideal. But maybe you’ve discovered that it’s easier said than done. How do you solve problems? How do you establish healthy communication? How do you work out conflict and deal with the struggle of differing needs? In the process of knitting two souls together, it’s easy to tear the fabric. That’s why boundaries—the ways we define and maintain our sense of individuality, freedom, and personal integrity—are so important.
January 25, 2010
Law and Ethics CEUs
Law and Ethics Ceus Click here for full course text
© 2009 by Aspira Continuing Education. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be transmitted or reproduced in any form, or by any means, mechanical or electronic without written permission of Aspira Continuing Education.
1. SCOPE OF PRACTICE
1A. MFT SCOPE OF PRACTICE
1B. LCSW SCOPE OF PRACTICE
2. UNPROFFESIONAL CONDUCT, NEGLIGENCE, LAW, ETHICS, AND STANDARD OF CARE
2A. UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND NEGLIGENCE
2B. LAW
2C. ETHICS
2D. STANDARD OF CARE
3. LEGAL ISSUES
3A. PRIVILEGE
3B. CONFIDENTIALITY
3C. EXCEPTIONS TO CONFIDENTIALITY: CHILD ABUSE, DEPENDENT ADULT & ELDER ABUSE , TARASOFF, DANGER TO SELF
3D. TREATMENT OF MINORS
3E. SEX WITH CLIENTS
3F. RECORD RETENTION AND STORAGE
3G. TERMINATION
3H. INFORMED CONSENT
3I. MALPRACTICE
4. HIPAA AND THIRD PARTY REIMBURSEMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
5. CONTINUING EDUCATION
6. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
6A. CAMFT ETHICAL STANDARDS PT II SECTION D
6B. REVISED CAMFT ETHICAL STANDARDS
6C. NASW ETHICAL STANDARDS
7. REFERENCES
© 2009 by Aspira Continuing Education. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be transmitted or reproduced in any form, or by any means, mechanical or electronic without written permission of Aspira Continuing Education.
1. SCOPE OF PRACTICE
1A. MFT SCOPE OF PRACTICE
1B. LCSW SCOPE OF PRACTICE
2. UNPROFFESIONAL CONDUCT, NEGLIGENCE, LAW, ETHICS, AND STANDARD OF CARE
2A. UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND NEGLIGENCE
2B. LAW
2C. ETHICS
2D. STANDARD OF CARE
3. LEGAL ISSUES
3A. PRIVILEGE
3B. CONFIDENTIALITY
3C. EXCEPTIONS TO CONFIDENTIALITY: CHILD ABUSE, DEPENDENT ADULT & ELDER ABUSE , TARASOFF, DANGER TO SELF
3D. TREATMENT OF MINORS
3E. SEX WITH CLIENTS
3F. RECORD RETENTION AND STORAGE
3G. TERMINATION
3H. INFORMED CONSENT
3I. MALPRACTICE
4. HIPAA AND THIRD PARTY REIMBURSEMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
5. CONTINUING EDUCATION
6. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
6A. CAMFT ETHICAL STANDARDS PT II SECTION D
6B. REVISED CAMFT ETHICAL STANDARDS
6C. NASW ETHICAL STANDARDS
7. REFERENCES
January 02, 2010
Continuing Education CEUS Hours MFT, LMFT, LCSW, LPC Licenses in many states including California, Florida, and Nevada
Visit Aspira Continuing Education and become a part of the Aspira family today!! All course material is free!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
