Remunerating private psychiatrists for participating in case conferences

ABSTRACT : BACKGROUND : On 1 November 2000, a series of new item numbers was added to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, which allowed for case conferences between physicians (including psychiatrists) and other multidisciplinary providers. On 1 November 2002, an additional set of numbers was added, designed especially for use by psychiatrists. This paper reports the findings of an evaluation of these item numbers. RESULTS : The uptake of the item numbers in the three years post their introduction was low to moderate at best. Eighty nine psychiatrists rendered 479 case conferences at a cost to the Health Insurance Commission of $70,584. Psychiatrists who have used the item numbers are generally positive about them, as are consumers. Psychiatrists who have not used them have generally not done so because of a lack of knowledge, rather than direct opposition. The use of the item numbers is increasing over time, perhaps as psychiatrists become more aware of their existence and of their utility in maximising quality of care. CONCLUSION : The case conferencing item numbers have potential, but as yet this potential is not being realised. Some small changes to the conditions associated with the use of the item numbers could assist their uptake.

Evaluating a GP consultative psychiatric service in an Australian metropolitan hospital district

Objective: The aim was to develop a psychiatric assessment and advisory service for local general practitioners (GPs). Method: In July 2001, five full-time psychiatrists at Royal Brisbane ­Hospital each dedicated a 1-h appointment per week in their hospital private practice clinic to assess patients referred by local GPs. The 'Psych Opinion' clinic was advertised through the Division of General Practice Newsletter. After 12 months, the referrals to the clinic had been disappointing so two surveys were carried out: one to the GPs who had used the service and the other to those who had not referred. Results: Feedback from the GPs who had used the service showed a high level of satisfaction with the service. The second survey of the GPs who had not referred showed a strong endorsement of the concept but there was poor awareness of the service's existence. Conclusions: This model offers a way for public sector psychiatrists to provide timely assessments to local GPs without additional funding. There is strong support and willingness from the GPs to refer. However, the need to actively market the service both initially and on an ongoing basis is ­highlighted.

Utilising survey data to inform public policy: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders

Background Mental health survey data are now being used proactively to decide how the burden of disease might best be reduced. Aims To study the cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatments for mental disorders and the proportion of burden avertable by each. Method Data for three affective, four anxiety and two alcohol use disorders and for schizophrenia were compared in terms of cost, burden averted and efficiency of current and optimal treatment. We then calculated the burden unavertable given current knowledge. The unit of health gain was a reduction in the years lived with disability (YLDs). Results Summing across all disorders, current treatment averted 13% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$30 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at current coverage could avert 20% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$18 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at optimal coverage could avert 28% of the burden, at AUS$16 000 per YLD gained. Sixty per cent of the burden of mental disorders was deemed to be unavertable. Conclusions The efficiency of treatment varied more than tenfold across disorders. Although coverage of some of the more efficient treatments should be extended, other factors justify continued use of less-efficient treatments for some disorders. Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer

The ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Psychosocial Care of Adults with Cancer’ was launched by the Federal Minister of Health on 14th August 2003.1 Developed by the National Breast Cancer Centre and the National Cancer Control Initiative and approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council in April 2003, these guidelines are the first of their kind for health professionals who treat, or are involved with cancer patients at all stages of care from diagnosis, through to treatment and palliation. The guidelines are aimed particularly at general practitioners, and cancer specialists such as radiation and medical oncologists, surgeons, nurses, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The guidelines are based on comprehensive and systematic reviews of the international research literature and an extensive consultative process to ensure their clinical relevance. They were informed by a multidisciplinary steering group with expertise across a wide range of cancers and health professions and included consumer representation.

A transdisciplinary approach to adolescent forensic mental health

Objective: To examine new strategies which may be implemented to address the significant mental health and substance abuse problems of young people within the juvenile justice system. Method: Wide-ranging literature review of mental health problems within the juvenile justice population is given, illustrating the high prevalence of mental health problems within this cohort of young people. Reference is made to the differing demographics and agendas of the American justice system compared to that found in Australia. Results: It is suggested that new initiatives stemming from quality Australian studies are required in order to facilitate reform within adolescent forensic mental health. Psychiatrists need to be at the forefront of innovative policy delivery within the juvenile justice system. Conclusions: A transdisciplinary approach is required to meet the changing needs of young people within the juvenile justice system. Such a system of care recognizes that these young people and their families have multiple needs that cross traditional boundaries and a collaborative approach across agencies is essential at both the policy and practical level. Psychiatrists have an important role to play in the development of these services. A systemic process to address such needs is offered.

Adult mental health needs and expenditure in Australia

Background Relatively little international work has examined whether mental health resource allocation matches need. This study aimed to determine whether adult mental health resources in Australia are being distributed equitably. Method Individual measures of need were extrapolated to Australian Areas, and Area-based proxies of need were considered. Particular attention was paid to the prevalence of mental health problems, since this is arguably the most objective measure of need. The extent to which these measures predicted public sector, private sector and total adult mental health expenditure at an Area level was examined. Results In the public sector, 41.6% of expenditure variation was explained by the prevalence of affective disorders, personality disorders, cognitive impairment and psychosis, as well as the Area's level of economic resources and State/Territory effects. In the private sector, 72.4% of expenditure variation was explained by service use and State/Territory effects (with an alternative model incorporating service use and State/Territory supply of private psychiatrists explaining 69.4% of expenditure variation). A relatively high proportion (58.7%) of total expenditure variation could be explained by service utilisation and State/Territory effects. Conclusions For services to be delivered equitably, the majority of variation in expenditure would have to be accounted for by appropriate measures of need. The best model for public sector expenditure included an appropriate measure of need but had relatively poor explanatory power. The models for private sector and total expenditure had greater explanatory power, but relied on less appropriate measures of need. It is concluded that mental health services in Australia are not yet being delivered equitably.

Personality disorders in the community: Results from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being Part III - Relationships between specific type of personality disorder, Axis 1 mental disorders and physical conditions with disability and health consultations

Background The aims of this study were threefold. First, to ascertain whether personality disorder (PD) was a significant predictor of disability (as measured in a variety of ways) over and above that contributed by Axis I mental disorders and physical conditions. Second, whether the number of PD diagnoses given to an individual resulted in increasing severity of disability, and third, whether PD was a significant predictor of health and mental health consultations with GPs, psychiatrists, and psychologists, respectively, over the last 12 months. Method Data were obtained from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, conducted between May and August 1997. A stratified random sample of households was generated, from which all those aged 18 and over were considered potential interviewees. There were 10 641 respondents to the survey, and this represented a response rate of 78%. Each interviewee was asked questions indexing specific ICD-10 PD criteria. Results Five measures of disability were examined. It was found that PD was a significant predictor of disability once Axis I and physical conditions were taken into account for four of the five disability measures. For three of the dichotomously-scored disability measures, odds ratios ranged from 1.88 to 6.32 for PD, whilst for the dimensionally-scored Mental Summary Subscale of the SF-12, a beta weight of -0.17 was recorded for PD. As regards number of PDs having a quasi-linear relationship to disability, there was some indication of this on the SF-12 Mental Summary Subscale and the two role functioning measures, and less so on the other two measures. As regards mental consultations, PD was a predictor of visits to GPs, psychiatrists and psychologists, over and above Axis I disorders and physical conditions. Conclusion The study reports findings from a nationwide survey conducted within Australia and as such the data are less influenced by the selection and setting bias inherent in other germane studies. However, it does support previous findings that PD is a significant predictor of disability and mental health consultations independent of Axis I disorders and physical conditions.

From complexity to category: Responding to diagnostic uncertainties of autistic spectrum disorders

Objective: Recent data from Education Queensland has identified rising numbers of children receiving diagnoses of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Faced with funding diagnostic pressures, in clinical situations that are complex and inherently uncertain, it is possible that specialists err on the side of a positive diagnosis. This study examines the extent to which possible overinclusion of ASD diagnosis may exist in the presence of uncertainty and factors potentially related to this practice in Queensland. Methods: Using anonymous self-report, all Queensland child psychiatrists and paediatricians who see paediatric patients with development/behavioural problems were surveyed and asked whether they had ever specified an ASD diagnosis in the presence of diagnostic uncertainty. Using logistic regression, elicited responses to the diagnostic uncertainty questions were related to other clinical- and practice-related characteristics. Results: Overall, 58% of surveyed psychiatrists and paediatricians indicated that, in the face of diagnostic uncertainty, they had erred on the side of providing an ASD diagnosis for educational ascertainment and 36% of clinicians had provided an autism diagnosis for Carer's Allowance when Centrelink diagnostic specifications had not been met. Conclusion: In the absence of definitive biological markers, ASD remains a behavioural diagnosis that is often complex and uncertain. In response to systems that demand a categorical diagnostic response, specialists are providing ASD diagnoses, even when uncertain. The motivation for this practice appears to be a clinical risk/benefit analysis of what will achieve the best outcomes for children. It is likely that these practices will continue unless systems change eligibility to funding based on functional impairment rather than medical diagnostic categories.

Diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders in Queensland: Variations in practice

Objective: For both paediatricians and child psychiatrists, referrals to assess possible autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) are increasing. This study examines current practices of medical specialists in the assessment of these disorders. Methods: An anonymous, self-report questionnaire was sent to all Queensland paediatricians and child psychiatrists. The survey elicited frequencies of consultation for ASD, diagnostic method, advice provided and perceived adequacy of training for this work. Results: Responses were received from 79 (85%) eligible paediatricians and 26 (58%) eligible child psychiatrists. For one-third of all clinicians, new consultations for possible ASD occurred as often as 2-3 times per week. Most specialists approached the clinical diagnosis of ASD by considering history from different sources and professional assessments. Paediatricians (86%) were more likely than child psychiatrists (62%) to request genetic studies for children with severe autism (P = 0.01). Both general paediatricians and developmental paediatricians perceived level of training for possible ASD consultations was significantly worse than child psychiatrists (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively), but no difference was found between paediatric groups (P = 0.27). Perceived adequacy of specialist training was not associated with length of experience in clinical practice. Conclusion: Medical practice in Queensland around diagnosis of ASD is characterized by considerable variability. There is still a long way to go if we are to achieve consistency around medical issues of organic diagnosis and practices impacting on health as well as consideration of differential developmental diagnoses. The finding that recently trained paediatricians felt just as unprepared for this work as their older colleagues suggests that the graduate training response to this 'new morbidity' has not been adequate.

Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.