The Three-Part Model to Pay for Early Interventions for Psychoses TO THE EDITOR: We read with interest Frank and colleagues
column (1) [this issue] proposing a novel three-part payment
model for early interventions for psychoses. The rst part is a prospective per-case payment to cover the average cost of outreach, engagement, and retention per engaged client; the second is a per-service payment for clinical service delivery; and the third is an outcome-based component, intended to reward providers for improved outcomes. The three parts combined provide a sound framework to guide payment designs that adequately cover the costs of a coordinated service package but also align incentives with evidence-based early interventions. We raise a few issues toward rening the model. First, start-up funds may be needed to support building the early intervention team (2) and a nancially viable caseload. Second, when operationalizing the per-case payment (part 1 of the model), it may be challenging to dene engaged clients. Early intervention programs have high dropout and individually tailored services. Varying the denition of engagement may have substantial nancial implications for providers and embedded incentives for evidence-based care. For example, dening engagement by at least one program contact would maximize provider payment but carry perverse incentives for retention; dening engagement as having had contacts with all provider types, on the other hand, is at odds with the personalized nature of care, and providers may nd it difcult to recover costs for clients who ultimately do not engage. Third are the challenges in designing the outcome-based component (part 3 of the model) to be both valid and reliable. Prognostic and psychosocial factors affect individual outcomes. The validity of a given measurethe extent to which it reects the quality and evidence-based practice of the teamshould be scrutinized in light of new data, such as from the RAISE studies (3). On the other hand, given the typically small caseload (2030 cases) of the teams, any measure is likely to be highly imprecise and unreliable, with a high risk of misclassifying teams (4). In light of these issues, we propose the addition of a startup payment to support the initial operation of the team, to be made in installments conditional on achieving well-dened milestones (for example, recruitment of core team members). Our second proposal is to make the per-case payment periodic (for example, quarterly), contingent on evidence of client engagement; the payment rate, however, could be adjusted by special needs (for example, substance abuse) or intervention stage (for example, postcrisis versus maintenance) 764
ps.psychiatryonline.org
(5). Third, we propose an approach to the outcome-based
payment whereby, rather than tying payment to a single outcome, providers get credit for each client who achieves a predened goal in any key outcome domain, including hospitalization (a key cost driver), and recovery-oriented outcomes, such as work or school performance and functioning. The prominence of the outcome-based payment (relative to the other two components) should be gradually increased as teams accumulate experience. These proposals may contribute to further aligning the model with the delivery of evidence-based early interventions as evidence accumulates to inform continuous renement. REFERENCES 1. Frank RG, Glied SA, McGuire TG: Paying for early interventions in psychoses: a three-part model. Psychiatric Services 66:678680, 2015 2. Heinssen RK, Goldstein AB, Azrin ST: Evidence-Based Treatments for First Episode Psychosis: Components of Coordinated Specialty Care. Bethesda, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 2014. Available at www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/raise/ nimh-white-paper-csc-for-fep_147096.pdf 3. RAISE Project overview. Bethesda, Md, National Institute of Mental Health. Available at www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/ raise/index.shtml. Accessed Feb 12, 2015 4. Adams JL: The Reliability of Provider Proling. Santa Monica, Calif, RAND Corp, 2009 5. Bao Y, Casalino LP, Ettner SL, et al: Designing payment for Collaborative Care for Depression in primary care. Health Services Research 46:14361451, 2011 Yuhua Bao, Ph.D. Harold Alan Pincus, M.D. Dr. Bao is with the Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City. Dr. Pincus is with the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York City. Psychiatric Services 2015; 66:764; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.660701
Technology Access and Use Among Young
Adults With a First Episode of Psychosis TO THE EDITOR: It is increasingly recognized that the Inter-
net, social media, and mobile technologies can complement,
augment, or extend mental health care (1) and enhance service engagement, particularly among young people (2). Understanding how young people receiving psychiatric services access and use these technologies can inform the development or uptake of technology-enabled mental health interventions and supports. Toward this end, we recently conducted an in-person survey among young adults receiving specialized services for a rst episode of psychosis (FEP) about their access Psychiatric Services 66:7, July 2015
23-04-2021-1619164711-6-Impact - Ijranss-2. Ijranss - Length of Stay Reporting in Forensic Secure Care Can Be Augmented by An Overarching Framework To Map Patient Journey in Mentally
Impact - Ijranss-1. Ijranss - Length of Stay Reporting in Forensic Secure Care Can Be Augmented by An Overarching Framework To Map Patient Journey in Mentally Disordered Offender Pathway For
?@ Abcd Ebed F@ Cecgh ?IJ Kgced K@ J AJ G?L CEM D J Gnceh J A?Ij Kgcem D GKH ?ED OCD IL ?ecd BD KH at KED Okibpcgh KED F?@ ?D OCEI?@ A?@ D QKRGJ CD SCH Koke TEH ?OU EH J Iked VFL J I?Oked W XYZ (