integrated

Start-Up and Ongoing Practice Expenses of Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration Interventions in the Advancing Care Together (ACT) Program

Author/s: 
Wallace, Neal T., Cohen, Deborah J., Gunn, Rose, Beck, Arne, Melek, Steve, Bechtold, Donald, Green, Larry A.

PURPOSE:

Provide credible estimates of the start-up and ongoing effort and incremental practice expenses for the Advancing Care Together (ACT) behavioral health and primary care integration interventions.

METHODS:

Expenditure data were collected from 10 practice intervention sites using an instrument with a standardized general format that could accommodate the unique elements of each intervention.

RESULTS:

Average start-up effort expenses were $44,076 and monthly ongoing effort expenses per patient were $40.39. Incremental expenses averaged $20,788 for start-up and $4.58 per patient for monthly ongoing activities. Variations in expenditures across practices reflect the differences in intervention specifics and organizational settings. Differences in effort to incremental expenditures reflect the extensive use of existing resources in implementing the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS:

ACT program incremental expenses suggest that widespread adoption would likely have a relatively modest effect on overall health systems expenditures. Practice effort expenses are not trivial and may pose barriers to adoption. Payers and purchasers interested in attaining widespread adoption of integrated care must consider external support to practices that accounts for both incremental and effort expense levels. Existing knowledge transfer mechanisms should be employed to minimize developmental start-up expenses and payment reform focused toward value-based, Triple Aim-oriented reimbursement and purchasing mechanisms are likely needed.

Clinician Staffing, Scheduling, and Engagement Strategies Among Primary Care Practices Delivering Integrated Care

Author/s: 
Davis, Melinda M., Balasubramanian, Bijal A., Cifuentes, Maribel, Hall, Jennifer, Gunn, Rose, Fernald, Douglas, Gilchrist, Emma, Miller, Benjamin F., DeGruy, Frank, III

PURPOSE:

To examine the interrelationship among behavioral health clinician (BHC) staffing, scheduling, and a primary care practice's approach to delivering integrated care.

METHODS:

Observational cross-case comparative analysis of 17 primary care practices in the United States focused on implementation of integrated care. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and integrated care experience. A multidisciplinary team analyzed documents, practice surveys, field notes from observation visits, implementation diaries, and semistructured interviews using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS:

Across the 17 practices, staffing ratios ranged from 1 BHC covering 0.3 to 36.5 primary care clinicians (PCCs). BHC scheduling varied from 50-minute prescheduled appointments to open, flexible schedules slotted in 15-minute increments. However, staffing and scheduling patterns generally clustered in 2 ways and enabled BHCs to be engaged by referral or warm handoff. Five practices predominantly used warm handoffs to engage BHCs and had higher BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios; multiple BHCs on staff; and shorter, more flexible BHC appointment schedules. Staffing and scheduling structures that enabled warm handoffs supported BHC engagement with patients concurrent with the identification of behavioral health needs. Twelve practices primarily used referrals to engage BHCs and had lower BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios and BHC schedules prefilled with visits. This enabled some BHCs to bill for services, but also made them less accessible to PCCs in when patients presented with behavioral health needs during a clinical encounter. Three of these practices were experimenting with open scheduling and briefer BHC visits to enable real-time access while managing resources.

CONCLUSION:

Practices' approaches to PCC-BHC staffing, scheduling, and delivery of integrated care mutually influenced each other and were shaped by the local context. Practice leaders, educators, clinicians, funders, researchers, and policy makers must consider these factors as they seek to optimize integrated systems of care.

Subscribe to integrated