Category: Funding

Categories
Education Funding Policy Systems

Jail Costs versus Hospital Costs.

We received the State of Washington Voters’ Pamphlet in the mail today. One of the initiatives, I-1401, concerns “trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction”.

Have no fear: This post is unrelated to trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction.

The “Fiscal Impact Statement” includes a statement about jail costs (highlighted for emphasis):

jailcost

“No wonder why people with psychiatric conditions end up in jail!” I exclaimed. “It’s so much cheaper for them to be there!”

Information about hospital costs are public. This page shares inpatient hospital rates for people who have Medicaid insurance in August 2015. All the hospitals in Washington State are listed in the leftmost column. One of the columns has the title “Psych_ Per Diem”. That column tells you how much money each hospital is paid if a patient with Medicaid is admitted there for psychiatric reasons. First, you will note that hospitals are paid[1. Forgive the passive voice when I write “hospitals are paid”. In Washington, hospitals send bills for Medicaid patients to the state. The state pays the hospital bill. The state then turns around and sends a bill to the region that the patient “belongs” to. The region then pays that state bill. The region gets money to pay that bill from a mix of federal and state Medicaid dollars, which ultimately come from taxpayers. Confusing, right?] different amounts. That alone is fascinating—what accounts for that? who decides how much money each hospital will receive?

More to the point, it costs anywhere between $711.55 and $1788.93 per day for an adult with Medicaid to stay in a hospital. The average cost of incarceration in Washington is $88 per day. Thus, it is at least eight times cheaper for someone to stay in jail than in a psychiatric hospital.[2. This page shares inpatient hospital rates for people who don’t have any insurance. Note that the rates are lower compared to the Medicaid rates. They are nonetheless still much higher than the daily jail rate.]

On the one hand, the differences in cost aren’t surprising: Hospitals often have more staff, equipment, and services. On the other hand, we also know that jails are often the largest psychiatric hospitals in any given region. For example, in Seattle, the jail has about 120 psychiatric beds. The largest psychiatric hospital in Seattle has about 61 beds.

I really want to believe that no one intentionally designed the system this way. Surely no person or system could be so heinous and miserly to funnel people into jail instead of a psychiatric hospital. Right?

Right?

But, then the disgust kicks in: What if the costs were reversed? What if it cost $88 a day for someone to stay in a psychiatric hospital and $712 a day for someone to stay in a jail? Would we see as many people with psychiatric conditions in jail? Of course not.[3. To be clear, we should also help people stay out of psychiatric hospitals, too. Inpatient services should be available if people need them, but let’s focus on prevention and help people stay in their communities. Being in a hospital generally sucks.]

It shouldn’t be all about money, but when the cost differences are that big, money has undue weight. If we actually want to help people with psychiatric conditions, we must pay for services. Otherwise, we will only see more and more of them in jail.

Categories
Education Funding Homelessness Observations Policy Systems

Asylums are not the Answer.

The New York Times recently featured an op-ed from a psychiatrist, Dr. Montross, who argues for the return of the asylum.

I understand her frustrations: I have worked with homeless individuals in both New York and Seattle who, if they were in psychiatric institutions, would not have had to worry as much about their safety, getting food, or sleeping at night. Many of the patients I now see in jail should undoubtedly be in a psychiatric institution (though not necessarily for a long period of time).

However, I disagree with her assertion that we should return to the era of the asylum.

President Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act into law in 1963. The goal of this legislation was to move people out of long-term psychiatric institutions, such as state hospitals, and help them integrate into the community by enrolling them in outpatient services. This is what “deinstitutionalization” refers to.

The Community Mental Health Act, however, only provided funds for the construction of the community mental health centers. The law made no provisions to fund the services that would occur in these buildings.

What we see now—the “transinstitutionalization” of people with severe psychiatric conditions into homelessness and jails—is a consequence of this lack of funding and support for patient care services.

Think of it this way: A city wants to improve its public transportation system. The city passes a law that provides funds to buy a lot of buses. However, the law provides no money to hire and retain bus drivers. There is also no money to hire and retain mechanics for bus maintenance.

The people of the city are frustrated: “Our public transportation system sucks! The city should build a subway system!”

The bus system never got a fair chance.

We also moved away from asylum care for good reasons: Conditions in psychiatric institutions were often terrible. It was not uncommon for state psychiatric hospitals to have insufficient staff for the number of patients in the institution. In Alabama in 1970, one psychiatric institution had one physician for every 350 patients, one nurse for every 250 patients and one psychiatrist for every 1,700 patients.

Dr. Montross herself notes (emphases mine):

But as a result, my patients with chronic psychotic illnesses cycle between emergency hospitalizations and inadequate outpatient care. They are treated by community mental health centers whose overburdened psychiatrists may see even the sickest patients for only 20 minutes every three months.[2. Unfortunately, 20-minute appointments every three months for the sickest patients is also a common occurrence here in Washington.]

If that is the quality and quantity of care “the sickest patients” in outpatient settings receive, then of course “many patients struggle with homelessness” and “many are incarcerated.”

Dr. Montross calls for “modern” asylums, though it is unclear to me what incentives government has at this time to build and support institutions that “would be nothing like the one in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest'”. Asylums from years past did not receive sufficient funding to provide adequate care. Current outpatient centers often do not receive enough funding to provide adequate care. (How much longer must we wait before this changes?)

To be clear, I do believe there is a role for asylums in patient care. There is a small segment of the population with severe symptoms who would benefit from care in an institution. I’m talking about people who keep trying to jump off of buildings because they believe they can fly. Or people who cannot stop smashing their heads against the wall because they are trying to dislodge the computer chip they believe is in their heads. Or the people who eat their own feces and literally cannot use words to explain why.[1. As I have noted before: If you do not believe that these scenarios actually happen, I encourage you to volunteer at your local emergency department.] These individuals can and do recover; they are not necessarily destined to spend the rest of their lives in an asylum.

We also now have interventions such as assertive community treatment, assisted outpatient treatment[3. Assisted outpatient treatment is controversial, though preliminary data support its use. You can read an admittedly biased summary about it here.], and supportive housing/housing first. There is evidence that these intensive outpatient services keep people in the community and out of psychiatric institutions. What would happen if government and communities supported these interventions?

Modern psychiatric services—in an asylum or elsewhere—will not be modern at all if there are not enough staff to provide care for patients. It also will not be modern if the staff do not receive ongoing training and supervision for the care they provide. It cannot be modern if administrators do not understand the work and are unwilling to provide financial, technical, and emotional support to the front-line staff.

We must get away from the idea that where people receive services is more important than the quality of those services.

Categories
Education Funding Homelessness Medicine Nonfiction Policy Reading Reflection Systems

My Thoughts about Torrey’s “American Psychosis”.

This weekend I began and finished E. Fuller Torrey’s American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System. (That’s not an inflammatory title. At all.) Though I have read a few of his articles, I have avoided reading his books. Part of this was due to all the other books I have wanted to read; most of this was due to my discomfort with how he frequently presents people with severe mental illnesses as dangerous and violent. Torrey is probably best known for his arguments to change the law so that it is easier to hospitalize people against their wills.

You can see how that is controversial. What his Treatment Advocacy Center says is advocacy, others say is coercion and social control.

In this book Torrey presents a history of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and presents compelling arguments that it was flawed since its inception. He also argues that patients with severe psychiatric conditions now continue to suffer consequences from the Act.

Although I do not agree with all of Torrey’s opinions, I do agree that the current “mental illness treatment system” doesn’t work. People—social workers, patients, nurses, therapists, case managers, psychiatrists—are all doing the best that they can, but the system could improve. A lot.

Fuller offers ten solutions to make the “mental illness treatment system” better:

Public psychiatric hospitals cannot be completely abolished. A minimum number of beds, perhaps 40 to 60 per 100,000 population, will be needed. This is approximately four times more beds than we have available today.

Torrey argues that a small percentage of people, due to their chronic and severe psychiatric symptoms, will need to stay in hospitals for a long period of time.

I am torn about that: On the one hand, I have my own anecdotal experiences working with patients who, with the “right”[1. “Right” is a relative term and depends on the individual. I also recognize that my anecdotal experiences are just that: anecdotal.] support, were able to stay out of hospitals despite their significant symptoms. The lack of public hospital beds forced all of us—the patients and the supporting team—to figure out creative ways to keep patients out of the hospital.

On the other hand, people get caught up in where patients with severe psychiatric symptoms are. There is an underlying assumption that being in a [state] hospital is bad, an evil to be avoided at all costs. Yes, there were and are hospitals that do not provide good care. That does not mean all psychiatric hospitals are terrible. Some people who are in jails, on the streets, or sitting in emergency rooms night after night are those who could benefit from treatment in public psychiatric hospitals.

As someone who has worked in all three systems—jails, homeless services, and emergency/crisis centers—I must say that the stability and structure of a [state] hospital is much more therapeutic and safe than the chaos often inherent in the other sites.

Lack of awareness of illness (anosognosia) must be considered when planning any mental illness treatment system and provision made for the implementation of some form of involuntary treatment, such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) or conditional release for approximately 1% of all individuals with severe mental illnesses who are living in our communities.

Prior to reading this book I had never considered the comparison of anosognosia in people with dementia with the anosognosia of people with psychiatric conditions. People readily commit people with dementia (who can be as violent, though perhaps without the same sense of purpose, as people with psychosis) into homes and institutions without discussions about their civil liberties. Why don’t we do the same with people who are psychotic?

The conditions are different, of course.[2. We will put aside commentary about Kraeplin’s dementia praecox for now.] Dementia is a global phenomenon; it affects nearly all spheres of a person’s existence. Psychosis is often sphere specific. There are people with psychotic conditions who pay their rent, buy food, take showers, and spend time with friends and family… and earnestly argue that cameras are monitoring them, that chips were implanted into their bodies in the past, and the FBI is trying to kill them.

The system often tries to avoid admitting people with dementia into hospitals for psychiatric reasons. Why? Because, at this time, we have no interventions or expectations that people with dementia will get better.

We admit people with psychiatric conditions into hospitals because we expect people will recover.

Community treatment of mentally ill individuals will only be successful if carried out by community mental illness centers, not in community mental health centers. The change of one word is crucial to the success of any such program. Mental illness centers may be freestanding or integrated as part of medical centers.

The italics are Torrey’s, not mine. You now see why Torrey calls it the “mental illness treatment system”.

While I agree that words matter, I don’t think using the word “illness” will endear the system to either patients or those who work in them. There is already stigma attached to psychiatric conditions. Who wants to walk into a “mental illness treatment facility”? Furthermore, when we do understand etiologies of psychiatric conditions, why not invest energy in prevention?

There are dialysis centers, children’s hospitals, and heart and vascular institutes. If a name change is indicated, why not “mental treatment system” or “mental institute”? Some people will maintain their mental health; others will receive active treatment for mental illness.

Continuity of care, especially continuity of caregivers, is essential for good psychiatric care of individuals with serious mental illnesses.

This is true for anyone for any condition (cardiologists and people who have had heart attacks; students and teachers; parents and children; etc.).

We must create a system where staff retention is a priority. So many people leave community psychiatry because they burn out and don’t receive support. Patients should leave us because they recover and become independent; we should not leave them.

In addition to medication, individuals with serious mental illnesses need access to decent housing, vocational opportunities, and opportunities for socialization. The clubhouse is the best model for meeting these needs.

Note that Torrey argues that medication is the anchor for psychiatric treatment. Others disagree. I think it depends on the person and situation.

Clubhouses don’t receive the attention they should. They’re inspiring. Fountain House in New York City is the original clubhouse. One of the primary arguments against clubhouses is that they do not foster integration with people who don’t have psychiatric conditions. We all, however, are free to choose who we want to spend our time with and people with psychiatric conditions are no different. If they want to spend time at the clubhouse, they can. If they don’t, they won’t.

To protect vulnerable mentally ill individuals living in nursing homes and board-and-care homes, there must be periodic, unannounced inspections by an independent state agency. Evaluations and corrective actions must be made public.

I agree.

My work has not brought me into nursing homes and adult family homes (what “board-and-care homes” are called here in Washington State). Torrey presents heartbreaking anecdotes and data about the treatment people did not receive and the abuses they experienced in these facilities. (They mirror reports that came out of some state hospitals in the past.)

Unfortunately, people with psychiatric conditions generally don’t pull at heartstrings the way kids with cancer do. I worry that, given the relative apathy to the number and conditions of people who are homeless, the public may not have any reaction upon learning what happens in adult family homes.

For-profit funding of public mental illness services has been tried and does not work.

I agree.

Torrey and I share the same perspective: If the organization’s goal is to make a profit, money will always trump patient care. People with significant psychiatric conditions will somehow exit the system[3. And by “exit the system”, I mean patients are actively pushed out, not let back in, or made to jump through hoops that they cannot get through in order to receive services.] because they often require resources—time, money, energy—that are antithetical to saving or earning money.

This is why I am biased against for-profit correctional systems.

In selected cases, psychiatric information on mentally ill individuals who have a history of dangerousness should be made available to law enforcement personnel, because they are now the frontline mental health workers.

This point is tied to Torrey’s arguments that people with severe mental illnesses are dangerous. To Torrey’s credit, he does state that people with psychiatric conditions are vulnerable and are often victims of violence, but he spends a lot more time discussing the murders that people with psychiatric conditions have committed.

There are obvious privacy concerns about this. Are police officers familiar with HIPAA? How else might law enforcement officers use this information?

The single biggest problem with the present anarchic system of mental illness services is that nobody is accountable. It will be necessary to assign responsibility to a single level of government, and to then hold such individuals accountable, before any improvement can occur.

Torrey makes it clear that the federal government should not be the responsible party. I agree with that.

While I understand the Torrey’s sentiment, it is much easier said than done. The “mental illness treatment system” now spans multiple domains: the legal system, emergency departments, medical clinics, homeless shelters, law enforcement, mental “health” centers, hospitals, etc. Working with all these groups and aligning efforts to a set of goals will require significant culture change.

If you made it this far in the post, let me conclude by saying that, even if you don’t agree with Torrey’s thesis, this book is still an engaging and thoughtful read. I will confess that I began to feel hopeless and overwhelmed as he laid out all the failures of the system. However, he did finish the book with compelling solutions and highlighted that we can’t give up. This is not easy work, but it is meaningful work, and there is value both to individuals and the community if we take care of the vulnerable people in our lives.

Categories
Education Funding Homelessness Medicine Observations Policy Reading Systems

Thoughts on Stuff.

Recent things I have read that I have found interesting, curious, or vexing:

The Social Security Administration maintains a “compassionate allowances” list, which is a list of “medical conditions [that] are so serious that their conditions obviously meet disability standards”.[1. You can learn more about how diseases make it on to the “compassionate allowances” list here.] Cancers, genetic conditions, and diseases still known by eponyms make the list. (Medical types: This is your list of zebras, not horses.)

“Can you receive SSI (Supplemental Security Income)[2. The Social Security Administration mails a check of about $721 once a month to individuals who receive SSI. To receive SSI, you must have “limited income and resources” AND you must be disabled, blind, or age 65 and older. I got lost while digging through all the subsections, so I don’t know what the “limited” income is. “The limit for countable resources is $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple.”] while living in a public shelter for the homeless?” the Social Security Administration asks.

Answer: “Yes. You can receive up to the maximum SSI benefit payable in your State while living in a public shelter for up to 6 months out of any 9 month period.” (Emphasis mine.)

While it is true that most people are in the shelter system for less than three months, is it possible that some people who receive SSI will need more help over a longer period of time to get out of the system?

If someone must stay in a shelter, that usually means that he can’t pay rent. Most employers prefer to hire employees who have actual home addresses. No job means no income. No income means difficulties finding affordable housing. And it is mighty difficult to pay for housing and food with only $721 a month.

Psychiatry has little to offer in the realm of prevention.[3. Some would also argue that psychiatry has little to offer in the realm of treatment. In moments of frustration, I agree.] We have no medications to prevent schizophrenia, though omega-3 fatty acids might reduce the likelihood that a youth already showing some signs of psychosis will develop “full blown” psychosis. (Researchers are putting efforts into preventing psychosis, which is exciting.) Most people don’t go to therapy prior to experiencing uncomfortable and distressing emotions.

The WHO has a paper about social determinants of mental health that cover the entire lifespan. Frequent themes in the paper include providing education for women; attending to the mental health of mothers before, during, and after pregnancy; reducing poverty; and providing support to people in school and in work. The prevention of and reductions in psychiatric symptoms were not due to medical interventions.

Incorporating mental health into daily living helps people stay well and develop the resiliency to deal with crap. It’s not a separate thing. We know that people who have had adverse childhood experiences are more likely to have psychiatric and medical problems as adults. Exercise, spending time with friends and family, maintaining stable relationships, eating nutritious foods, learning about stuff, finding value in work and hobbies, avoiding conflict and trauma—all of these activities are useful in preventing major psychiatric conditions.

How many of us in psychiatry focus on these social determinants in our daily work? How have we let ourselves become “prescribers”? Can we change that so that we “prescribe” education and activity more often, and only prescribe medications in the most severe circumstances?[4. This is easier said than done, given that we cannot control the behavior of other people or systems. I also detest the word “prescriber”. That’ll be another post.]

Someone pointed me to this article with the polarizing title: Bad Managers Talk, Good Managers Write. The author argues:

When managers write, you create work product — white papers, product requirement documents, FAQs, presentations — that lasts and is accessible to everyone in the organization. From marketing to sales to QA to engineering, everyone has a document off which they can work and consult.

The upshot is that the manager also takes public responsibility for what happens when the rest of the team executes on the point of view taken by the documents. That ratchets up accountability through the organization.

This is also the benefit of keeping a blog. You create a body of work that people can read, refer to, and learn from. More importantly, regardless of your work (whether it is your formal profession or what you do “on the side”), it gives you the opportunity to reflect on things that matter to you, clarify your thinking, express your ideas, and connect with interesting people, including yourself.

Categories
Education Funding Homelessness NYC Policy PPOH

Project for Psychiatric Outreach to the Homeless.

In New York, I worked for an organization called Project for Psychiatric Outreach to the Homeless (PPOH). It has a humble history: Over 20 years ago, a group of psychiatrists were sitting around and discussing the need for psychiatric services for the homeless. They decided to volunteer their time and skills to this population.

The organization grew and, for both administrative and financial reasons, eventually became part of another social service organization, CUCS. At this point, PPOH serves more formerly homeless individuals than people who are currently homeless.

PPOH is not a big outfit. By the time I left, there were about 12 full-time psychiatrists, several part-time and per diem psychiatrists, and a handful of psychiatric residents. As a group, we worked at nearly 60 sites in three boroughs of New York City.

The job is atypical in many ways. PPOH psychiatrists are paired with different social service agencies to provide psychiatric services. The rationale is that social service agencies often don’t have the resources to employ psychiatrists. Furthermore, these agencies often do not know how to provide the support and supervision to psychiatrists. What they do have, however, are patients who would benefit from psychiatric services, but the patients either cannot or will not visit a psychiatrist in a clinic or other typical setting.

Thus, PPOH brings psychiatrists to the patients.

Funding for PPOH differs from funding for “mainstream” psychiatric services. PPOH receives funding from state and city agencies (government money), grants (from organizations like Robin Hood and van Ameringen), and fees from the social service agencies themselves. These fees are usually lower than what it would cost to hire a per diem psychiatrist directly.

Because PPOH did not receive money from Medicaid, it did not have to follow Medicaid rules and regulations. (PPOH would not be able to fulfill its mission if it did accept Medicaid funds, as Medicaid has requirements that physicians see patients in a physical locations designated as clinics. This contradicts the organization’s mission. While at PPOH, I often saw patients on sidewalks under scaffolding, in their apartments, etc.)

I was one of the few psychiatrists in the group who worked with an agency who worked with Medicaid, though because of the nature of the program (an Assertive Community Treatment program; more on that later), the regulations had little effect on my actual clinical work. It did influence the documentation I had to provide.

PPOH does not have any contracts with insurance companies (as the target population often did not have traditional insurance), which also means that there were no negotiations about reimbursement rates or discussions about concessions to have access to the patients on an insurance panel.

Thus, I essentially had a job outside of the US healthcare system, which, in many ways, was appropriate: The population I worked with was also generally outside of the US healthcare system. Despite this, we often viewed ourselves as “hot spotters“, as a few of our patients often crossed into the US health care system through ERs and hospitals.

Because of this funding structure, I worked as a salaried employee. There were no productivity expectations or bonuses. While this arrangement can result in people slacking off, my boss chose his employees carefully to prevent this problem.

Psychiatrists who choose to work at PPOH, however, do not work there for the money. The median salary for a psychiatrist in New York is apparently $228,815. During my time at PPOH, over 90% of psychiatrists in New York earned more money than me.

(Yes, the specter of student loans continues to haunt me and, of course, it would be nice to make more money, but let’s be honest: I was earning enough money to live comfortably in New York. Not everyone who lives there can say that.)

In exchange, I had the time and opportunity to work with those who often do not receive care. Many of these individuals had significant psychiatric conditions that contributed to their lack of employment, homelessness, and poverty. I had more control over how often and how long I got to see patients. Patients had easier access to me and I had the flexibility in my schedule for urgent appointments.

The idealist in me finds the fiscal realities of health care demoralizing. I don’t like thinking about how economics affects the relationships I have with patients. I didn’t go into medicine to think about that stuff. However, I do firmly believe that physicians should have a basic understanding of their clinic or department budgets. Form follows function. And form follows funds.

Next: What my job at PPOH actually looked like.