Cost -effectiveness of services and treatments for ambulatory dually diagnosed CMHC clients: Implications for managed care

This paper reports a cost-effectiveness analysis of standard therapeutic interventions received by ambulatory dually diagnosed clients of a Community Mental Health Center (CMHC). For the purposes of this study dually diagnosed was defined as a DSM-III-R or IV diagnosis of a major mental disorder and a concomitant substance abuse disorder. The prevalence of dually diagnosed people among the mentally ill and their unique and problematic nature continues to challenge and encumber CMHCs and poses grave public health risks. An absence of research on these clients in community-based settings and the cost-effectiveness of their standard CMHC care has hindered the development of effective community-based intervention strategies. This exploratory and descriptive effort is a first step toward providing information on which to base programmatic management decisions.^ Data for this study were derived from electronic client records of a CMHC located in a large Southwestern, Sun-belt metropolitan area. A total of 220 records were collected on clients consecutively admitted during a two-and-one-half year period. Information was gathered profiling the clients' background characteristics, receipt of standard services and treatments, costs of the care they received, and length of CMHC enrollment and subsequent psychiatric hospitalizations. The services and treatments were compared with regard to their costs and predicted contributions toward maintaining clients in the community and out of public psychiatric hospitals.^ This study investigated: (1) the study groups' background, mental illness, and substance abuse characteristics; (2) types, extent, and patterns of their receipt of standard services and treatments; (3) associations between the receipt of services and treatments, community tenure, and risk of psychiatric hospitalization; and, (4) comparisons of average costs for services and treatments in terms of their contributions toward maintaining the clients in the community.^ The results suggest that substance abuse and other lifestyle factors were related to the dually diagnosed clients' admissions to the CMHC. The dually diagnosed clients' receipt of care was associated strongly with their insurability and global functioning. Medication Services were the most expensive yet effective service or treatment. Supported Education was the third most expensive and second most effective. Psychosocial Services, the second most expensive, were only effective in terms of maintaining clients in the community. Group Counseling, the fourth most expensive, had no effect on community maintenance and increased the risk of hospitalization when accompanied by Medication Services. Individual Counseling, the least expensive, had no effect on community maintenance. But it reduced the risk of hospitalization when accompanied by Medication Services. Networking/Referral, the fifth most expensive service or treatment, was ineffective.^ The study compared the results with findings in the literature. Implications are discussed regarding further research, study limitations, practical applications and benefits, and improvements to theoretical understandings, in particular, concepts underscoring Managed Care. ^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^