Category: Policy

Categories
Education Nonfiction Policy Reflection Systems

A Review of the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference.

Those of you who follow me on Twitter already know that I spent much of last week in Las Vegas. I attended the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference, “featuring the best in leadership, organizational development, and excellence in mental health and addictions practice.” Here are my reflections about the experience:

It was large. I have never attended a conference with 5000 other people. I already find Las Vegas overstimulating. Not being able to get away from thousands of people for hours on end was draining for me.

There were many sessions I wanted to attend, but could not. This, of course, was a function of the size of the conference. Humans, thus far, can only physically be in one place and mentally elsewhere. During this conference I often wished I could physically be in two places at once.

The sessions that most inspired me often had little to do with formal behavioral health. Nora Volkow, the director for the National Institute of Drug Abuse, gave a talk about the neurobiology of addictive behaviors. Did I learn anything new? No, only because I had learned this while in medical training. Did she present the information in an engaging and compelling way? Yes.

Charles Blow, an opinion writer for the New York Times, authored a memoir about his youth and past sexual abuse. During his talk he read from his book and shared his reflections about his experience. Did I learn anything new? Nothing obvious that would affect either my clinical practice or policy considerations. He won me over with his personal perspective, grace, and vulnerability.

Susan Cain spoke about introversion and leadership. Did I learn anything new? No, because I had already read her book. Was it nonetheless worthwhile to hear her speak in person? For me, yes.

The conference featured a large session called “Uncomfortable Conversations”. The intention was for Big Names in the field to discuss controversial topics. These included involuntary commitment, confidentiality laws that are specific to substance use disorder treatment that can interfere with clinical care, and the concept of cultural competency. Each pair, however, had less than ten minutes to discuss their issue. The moderator also seemed to speak more than each member of the pair. The session could have been thoughtful, though ended up feeling underdeveloped and unfocused.

Where were my psychiatrist colleagues? I understand that this is my own issue—after all, this was not a physician conference. The National Council, however, is supposed to be the leadership conference for community behavioral health. Are psychiatrists involved in leadership in community behavioral health? If not, why not? [1. As I have noted elsewhere: “Physicians, as a population, don’t advocate for ourselves as much as we should because we’re “too busy taking care of patients”. This is true. However, our busy-ness creates a vacuum where non-physicians step in and make decisions for us. We then express resentment that we have to follow the edicts of people who have never done the work. If we did a better job of regulating and advocating for ourselves, we might not be in this position.” Advocacy in this case is leadership.]

Only two “small” sessions I attended featured physician presentations. One involved the introduction of trauma-informed care into primary care settings. The other discussed a concrete integration of mental health, substance use, and primary care services. In both cases the physicians were family practice physicians. Which, to be clear, is fantastic. We must work across systems to provide good care for individuals and populations. I nonetheless felt both puzzled and disappointed with the lack of psychiatrist representation. [2. To be fair, Nora Volkow and several of the panelists for the “Uncomfortable Conversations” are trained as psychiatrists.]

There was a “medical track” meant for medical professionals. Few of those sessions discussed systems issues or leadership. I had planned to attend one that discussed guidelines for benzodiazepine use, though there was no room by the time I arrived. (One of my colleagues, a psychiatrist, later told me that many attendees were not doctors.)

The conference will be in Seattle next year. My colleagues and I are already discussing what we can present.

A lot of people want to do good. I often comment, “Life is terrible… and life is wonderful.” That people have done good work to help others and want to share what they learned in the process is remarkable. That people continue to strive to provide useful services to people who are suffering is humbling. That people are creating new programs to help solve problems, often rooted in inequality, a variety of disparities, and the randomness of existence, is inspiring.

When we have our heads down in our own work, we often forget that we are part of a system. Though I have critical opinions about the conference, I am grateful that I could attend. May we all seek inspiration and always learn from others.

Categories
Policy Systems

Guns, Mental Illness, and Background Checks.

To my knowledge, I’ve only had one “long-term” patient attempt suicide with a gun. [1. I have worked with other people who have tried to kill themselves with guns. They usually report that these attempts had occurred years ago. Other people told me that they owned guns, but had no desire to kill themselves in the time we worked together. Still others owned guns and were struggling with ideas of suicide. Thankfully, we were able to work through this together and these people chose life. Then there are people who own guns and want to kill themselves, but share neither detail with me. I don’t know who they are because I either (1) never meet them in the first place or (2) I never see them again.]

This Person Who Attempted Suicide with a Gun did not show up for an appointment one day. For reasons I could not explain, I had great concerns that This Person had attempted suicide. After leaving several phone messages, I got a phone call from This Person, who was in the hospital.

“I swallowed a bullet,” This Person said.

“What?”

“I don’t know how it happened, but I swallowed a bullet.”

When I later spoke to This Person’s hospital physician, I learned that This Person had not swallowed a bullet. A bullet had gone through This Person’s chest wall, through a lung, and out the back.

I told This Person what I had learned.

“It was my friend’s gun,” This Person said. “I went over when no one was at home.”

The New York Times has a short article about “Why People With Mental Illness Are Able to Obtain Guns“. [2. While the title of this article, “Why People With Mental Illness Are Able to Obtain Guns”, is simply an accurate description of the piece, I still feel annoyed with it. I think my reaction is due to the pairing of “mental illness” and “guns”. There is no reference that most deaths from guns are due to suicide. Where are the articles that pair guns with other conditions? “Why People With Substance Use Disorders Are Able to Obtain Guns”? “Why People With Incurable, Painful Diseases Are Able to Obtain Guns”? “Why People in Financial Ruin Are Able to Obtain Guns”?] One reason offered is “Their Mental Health Records Are Not Accessible”. The author, unfortunately, does not provide much elaboration on this, which alarmed me. Just what records would the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System have access to? If it is accurate that about one in five Americans will experience any mental illness in a year, how much private health information will the FBI have access to?

The government released a document, “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)“, that clarifies some of this. The summary from the document notes:

Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor established under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and implementing regulations issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. (emphasis mine)

Thus, three populations of people will have their “mental health records” accessible to the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System:

  1. people who have been hospitalized against their wills for psychiatric reasons
  2. people who are deemed by a court to be incompetent to stand trial, or the court ruled that they are not guilty by reason of insanity
  3. people who are deemed by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others, or are “gravely disabled” (unable to care for themselves)

The summary adds:

The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and certain other information needed for NICS purposes. The rule specifically prohibits the disclosure of diagnostic or clinical information, from medical records or other sources, and any mental health information beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor.

This offers partial relief, though I still have concerns:

  • What is the “limited demographic” information? Name? Age? Sex? Race?
  • What is the “certain other information”? Country of birth? Political party registration? Contacts with law enforcement in the past year? Religious affiliation?

This Person who “swallowed a bullet” was ultimately “involuntarily committed to a mental institution”. Under Washington State law, This Person lost the right to own a firearm because of the involuntary detention.

As such, I generally agree with the three populations described above in the “mental health prohibitor”. There is data that argues that people who own guns are more likely to complete suicide. There is also data that argues that people are more likely to complete suicide in the first few weeks after discharge from a psychiatric hospital. I would not want This Person to purchase a gun and attempt suicide again.

However, This Person used someone else’s gun in the suicide attempt. Neither Washington State law nor this new Federal rule has relevance.

I don’t know what the answer is.

Increasing the amount of data in background checks may help reduce suicides and homicides. The current implementation, however, may only increase stigma for people with mental health conditions. We want to increase the awareness and acceptance of mental health conditions. We don’t want to increase fear.

It does not appear that banning guns outright is possible. I am also not totally convinced that an outright firearm ban would result in less gun homicides due to some of the reasons listed here. Would a ban on guns decrease suicides? Maybe, as states with firearm registration and licensing regulations seem to have less suicides.

As I have noted elsewhere, a psychiatric diagnosis alone does not explain why people kill other people, whether with guns or other means. Yes, there are sociopaths who kill people, but they are extremely uncommon. Does the mental health of a society affect and shape the mental health of an individual? Does context matter?

If so, how can we as a society help change the context?

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Funding Medicine Policy Systems

The Value of Psychiatrists.

While slogging through a crappy first draft of a document about the value of psychiatrists in mental health and substance use disorder services, I did a literature search for supporting evidence.

I found nothing.[1. Physicians, as a population, don’t advocate for ourselves as much as we should because we’re “too busy taking care of patients”. This is true. However, our busy-ness creates a vacuum where non-physicians step in and make decisions for us. We then express resentment that we have to follow the edicts of people who have never done the work. If we did a better job of regulating and advocating for ourselves, we might not be in this position.]

“So how exactly are we helpful?” I mused out loud. Maybe we aren’t: There are groups out there who do not believe that psychiatrists can or do help anyone.

I am an N of 1. Therefore, this post is an anecdote, not evidence. Nonetheless:

Psychiatrists provide psychiatric services. These are increasingly limited to only medication management, which is unfortunate. Psychiatrists need psychotherapy skills—or, abilities to connect with people to build trusting and respectful relationships—to do effective medication management. I can write dozens of prescriptions and change doses as much as I want, but if the person I am working with doesn’t trust me, none of my tinkering matters.

When people think about medication management, they often think only of adding medications or exchanging one for another. Medication management also includes helping people come off of medications. This “deprescribing” also requires the use of psychotherapy skills: Some people feel great discomfort when coming off of medications. Sometimes the reasons are physiological; sometimes they’re psychological. Psychotherapeutic interventions and education are necessary in helping people cope with and overcome these discomforts.[2. For any psychiatrists out there: You could build an entire practice around “deprescribing”. This is one of the most common clinical requests I receive through my blog. I don’t have a private practice, so I turn all these people away. To be clear, deprescribing isn’t limited to private practices; I deprescribe in my clinical work in the jail.]

Psychiatrists often have the most clinical expertise. Most have had exposure to the spectrum of psychiatric services (in residency training) and thus have perspective about how systems work (or fail). Thus, psychiatrists can provide clinical consultation about specific patients and program design, implementation, and improvement. One example is the use of medication assisted treatment for substance use disorders. Certain programs or agencies may believe in abstinence only and will view medications as another misused substance. That perspective is not invalid, though giving people more options may help someone reach the goal of abstinence.

Psychiatrists can provide education to other staff to improve their clinical skills, which can elevate the quality of care clients receive across the agency. Psychiatrists can also provide leadership and influence the direction and ethos of a clinical service. For example, you can imagine how a psychiatrist might influence a service if he believes that the only way to help patients is to convince them to take psychotropic medications forever. A different psychiatrist who believes that employment or housing may be more effective than medication for some patients would provide a different influence.

Psychiatrists can triage patients who are in crisis. A roving psychiatrist on the streets or visiting people in their homes often can’t do things like draw blood, but they can assess people and circumstances to determine whether a visit to the emergency department can be avoided. Psychiatrists can also provide strong advocacy: Psychiatrists can work with law enforcement so that people who would be better served in a hospital actually go to the hospital, and not to jail. Similarly, if someone who has a significant psychiatric condition requires medical attention, psychiatrists can talk with hospital staff to advocate for this. Too many of us have stories about our patients who needed medical interventions, but others thought their symptoms were entirely due to psychiatric conditions.

Psychiatrists go through medical training and often have ongoing contact with other medical specialties. They are thus familiar with the practical realities of communication about and coordination of care for patients across systems. While overcoming the financial and policy hurdles to integrate care are important, the reason why integration matters (or, at least why I hope it matters) is to improve the experience for the patient. Administrators should consider the interaction and experience between the physician and the patient as paramount. The system should not sacrifice that relationship to make administration easier.

This is the message that all physicians, psychiatrists or otherwise, need to communicate to administrators. We don’t do ourselves any favors by assuming that people know what value we bring to patients or to the system. Sometimes it also helps to remind ourselves, too, so we can improve our work for the people we serve.

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
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Observations Policy Systems

Buprenorphine and Other Controlled Substances.

I recently completed the buprenorphine waiver training. Buprenorphine, itself a partial opiate, is a medication that can be prescribed to patients who have opiate use disorders (e.g., taking Oxycontins or injecting heroin to get high). A physician must complete an eight-hour training and take an exam to become eligible to prescribe this medication. The physician must then apply for a specific “X license” through the DEA to prescribe it.

In some ways treatment of substance use disorders is the most evidence-based practice in psychiatry. When talking about opiate use disorders, for example, we can talk about specific mu-opioid receptors and their roles in pain and intoxication. We can discuss how drugs—both illicit and licit—work on these receptors and why certain medications can reduce or eliminate illegal drug use. This logic satisfies the analytical mind.

Since completing this training I have wondered: Why must one undergo a specific training and obtain a separate DEA license to prescribe buprenorphine?

With my current licenses I could prescribe all forms of pharmaceutical morphine (e.g., Oxycontin and Dilaudid), which can lead to severe physical and psychological dependence. Which could then result in the intervention of buprenorphine.

As a psychiatrist I would likely arouse the suspicions of the DEA if I prescribed opiate medications. That’s outside the scope of a psychiatrist’s practice.

However, it is not outside of the scope of a psychiatrist’s practice to prescribe benzodiazepines (e.g., Valium and Xanax), which are Schedule IV drugs (“a low potential for abuse relative to substances in Schedule III”).[1. You can learn more about controlled drug “schedules” on the DEA website.] I can also prescribe Schedule II drugs (“high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence”), such as Adderall and Ritalin. Physicians are not required to go through any special training or obtain separate licenses to prescribe those medications. Once I got my DEA license, I was free to prescribe these without anyone looking at me askance.

And, get this: buprenorphine is a schedule III drug!

The training offered the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 as one reason behind the training requirement: This law suggests physicians can prescribe opiates as part of “normal” treatment, but not for treatment for addiction. Addiction was not considered a disease in 1914. Thus, if addiction is not a disease, no intervention is indicated.

That explanation, however, doesn’t make sense. There is growing consensus that substance use disorders are diseases. Nothing, other than my good judgment, prevents me from cranking out prescriptions for stimulants and benzodiazepines. Use of either medication can lead to addiction. What makes opiates so special?

The consequences of the buprenorphine training are not slight: The eight-hour training alone likely deters some physicians from pursuing it. The extra licensure is also an obstacle, as well as the consequences of using the license: No one wants regular, but unannounced, DEA audits (which, just to be clear, doesn’t happen with when one prescribes benzodiazepines or stimulants). No one is eager to maintain the documentation that is required when one prescribes buprenorphine.

It just makes me wonder what the actual story is….