Cuts in Mental Health Funding Continue; Supreme Court to Rule

As America waits for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in, and decide on, the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) in March, state cuts in mental health funding continue unabated in many states throughout the country.  As previously mentioned here, the PPACA review undertaken by the Court will not only focus on the constitutionality of the individual mandate but will also examine PPACA’s Medicaid expansion.  By expanding Medicaid, PPACA will provide coverage to millions of those living with serious mental illness.  PPACA also provides for increased community-based outreach, from changing the waiver laws to awarding grants for new programs, in order to further improve essential services for those living with mental illness.

While many fixate on late March, local governments continue a practice that started a few years ago:  slashing funding for mental health services.  Just last week, Chicago’s Department of Public Health announced they were closing half of their mental health clinics — disproportionately affecting the city’s African-American and Hispanic populations, according to advocates.  Over the last fiscal year, New York has cut its mental health budget by $95 million, and California has by $177 million.  According to a new NAMI study released late last year, from 2009 to 2012, four states have slashed their mental health expenditures by more than 30 percent; South Carolina, at the top of the list, has cut funding by nearly 40 percent.  Alaska and Nevada — the two states with the highest suicide rates in the country — are both in the top five.  In total, “general funds for mental health” are down $1.6 billion overall between 2009 and 2012.

Besides painful, the cuts are likely to be counterproductive:  advocates argue that they will actually cost states more in the long run.  Ronald Hornberg, director of legal and policy affairs at NAMI recently told ABC news that the cuts are resulting in those in need of services showing up in emergency rooms or prisons, where they are expensively boarded because there is nowhere else for them to go.   Eric Lindquist, a clinical therapist at the Chicago Department of Public Health, called the mental health clinics that Chicago has decided to cut, when compared to hospitalizations or incarcerations, “one of the taxpayer’s best bargains.”

At the same time, headlines late last week brought news that 20 percent of Americans were diagnosed with mental illness in 2010 — nearly one in four women and about one in six men.  Among other findings, nearly nine million Americans “thought seriously” about suicide in 2010, with over one million attempting to kill themselves.  Almost two million teenagers “experienced a major depressive episode.”  Those aged 18 to 25 had the highest incidence of illness:  nearly 30 percent.

Obviously, the incidence of illness and prevalence of spending cuts nationwide does not bode well for the future of mental health care in this country.  Those that depended on the services being cut are left to try and make it on their own, and those who worked for gutted agencies are looking for jobs.  And this is why advocates look toward March.  The Court’s decision later this year will shape the future of mental health services in this country for years to come — services that, right now, are increasingly endangered nationwide.

Mental Health Parity and Health Reform

Photo by xeeliz via Flickr. Magazine, 1969

The Interim Final Rules on mental health parity were issued last Friday by the various agencies responsible for the administration of the  Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA).  The rules provide interim permanent answers to some of the interpretive questions raised by the MHPAEA.  I’ll provide a couple of early reactions to the rules, and briefly describe why the parity rules in no way lessen the need for broader reform for the benefit of people with serious mental illness.

MHPAEA, effective for large (over 50) public and private health coverage for plan years beginning after October 3, 2009, adds substantial protections for mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) coverage.  For example, it:

• Prohibits covered plans from imposing deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket limits on MH/SA coverage higher than those imposed for medical/surgical coverage;
• Prohibits restrictions on days of hospital coverage and duration/scope of MH/SA treatment beyond limits imposed for medical/surgical coverage; and
• Prohibits exclusion of out-of-network coverage for MH/SA treatment if such exclusions do not apply to medical/surgical coverage.

Advocates have been looking to the rules for clarification of a number of ambiguities in MPAEA.  Two clarifications in the published rules are encouraging.

• Should insurers be permitted to set deductible amounts separately for MH/SA? Some insurers require their members to meet two different deductibles — one for MH/SA, and one for other treatments. The effect is to permit members without behavioral health needs to experience, say, a $500 deductible, while people with behavioral and other health needs experience two such deductibles, for a total of $1,000. These rules forbid this double hit. The agencies acknowledged the lack of guidance in MHPAEA on this question, and the power of arguments on both sides, but explain their determination to enforce a unitary deductible:

Given that the statutory language does not preclude either interpretation, the Departments’ view is that prohibiting separately accumulating financial restrictions and quantitative treatment limitations is more consistent with the policy goals that led to the enactment of MHPAEA.

Translation: the act did not dictate a result, but unitary deductibles advance parity, and dual deductibles continue inequitable treatment.

• How will plans be prevented from continuing disparate treatment through less obvious means such as medical management decisions? Advocates have long been concerned that coverage inequities between behavioral and other health care could persist if aggressively restrictive utilization review systematically restricted MH/SA services under the guise of “medical necessity” or “medical management.” It is relatively easy to prohibit differential copayments and deductibles. It is harder — and more controversial — to attempt to monitor the relative equity of medical management techniques. The agencies have spoken pretty clearly on this issue in requiring equitable use of “nonquantitative” management strategies:

Any processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying the nonquantitative treatment limitation to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in a classification must be comparable to, and applied no more stringently than [those] used . . . with respect to medical/surgical benefits in the classification.

The tools must be comparable both facially and in application:

Thus, for example, assume a claims administrator has discretion to approve benefits for treatment based on medical necessity.  If that discretion is routinely used to approve medical/surgical benefits while denying mental health or substance use disorder benefits and recognized clinically appropriate standards of care do not permit such a difference, the processes used in applying the medical necessity standard are considered to be applied more stringently. . ..  The use of discretion in this manner violates the parity requirements for nonquantitative limitations.

Translation: the parity requirement for medical management is not one merely of form, but also of substance.  While the enforcement of this substantive even-handedness may be messy, it furthers the principle of parity in a powerful way.

The parity rule, then, takes some strides toward the enforcement of true parity in health insurance for people with behavioral health needs.   But people with such needs are desperately in need of further health reform for many reasons, a few of which are outlined below:

• Most obviously, people with serious mental illness are often unemployed or underemployed, and therefore are less likely to have employment-based health coverage. If they do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, they are often uninsured. Health reform extending coverage to the uninsured is therefore a pressing need for people with MH/SA needs.
• People with severe mental illness also suffer disproportionately from the effects of physical illness. As I’ve previously described, a 2006 National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors report titled Morbidity and Mortality in People with Serious Mental Illness revealed that people with serious mental illness die 25 years earlier than peers without mental illness, and suffer from a great deal of excess illness while alive. Most of the excess mortality and morbidity is due to preventable physical illness, and their poor medical condition is often traceable to poor coordination of their mental and physical care. The care coordination provisions in pending reform bills would go some distance in addressing these coordination and coverage concerns.
• The reform bills, in addition to mandating and facilitating the expansion of insurance, would channel at least much of the expansion through insurance exchanges. Although the proposals vary, exchanges could, as Tim Jost has described be a force for regularizing health plan design, and for promoting transparency in plan offerings for the benefit of all consumers, including those with MH/SA needs.

Our current health insurance system serves people with behavioral health needs rather poorly.  The MHPAEA took beneficial steps for insured people with MH/SA needs, and the interim rules in at least some sections interpret the act rather robustly.  This good news should not blind us to the fact that more comprehensive health reform is absolutely necessary to provide for the broad range of health needs of people with mental illness or substance use disorders.

Reforming Medical Treatment for People with Serious Mental Illness

Photo by Maurizio Polese

What group could health reform help most?  The obvious choice (maybe the right one) would be people with no insurance, or lousy insurance.  It is clear that un- or underinsurance is bad for your physical and fiscal health.  How about people in need of skilled nursing care and assistance with activities of daily living?  Some provisions of pending bills would allow these folks to avoid the Hobson’s choice of institutional care or too little care.  But the cohort that might stand to gain the most from reform is the population of people with serious mental illness.

People with serious mental illness have long been known to have excess morbidity and mortality as compared to people without serious mental illness.  Although much of this excess is attributable to “unnatural causes” - e.g., suicide – studies have identified in this population substantially elevated natural causes of illness and early death from conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease.    Some of these conditions are caused or exacerbated by side effects of newer atypical antipsychotics.    Much of this excess morbidity and mortality is preventable, and some causes (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes) could be addressed through sound chronic care management techniques I’ve described in an earlier post.    Inadequate attention to the management of the medical concerns of people with severe mental illness could be a particularly attractive goal of health delivery reform.

The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors issued a Technical Report last year on this issue.  Its literature review rendered the following judgment:

Recent data indicates that, on average, persons with serious mental illness die 25 years earlier than the general population.  Eighty-seven percent of years of life lost to premature death are due to chronic disease, especially infectious, pulmonary, and cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.  Cardiac events alone account for more deaths than suicide.

The data are emerging; more work needs to be done to evaluate comprehensively the connection between incidence of severe mental illness and lack of appropriate, coordinated medical care.  Whatever exact relationship is revealed, the situation is clearly dire: the fragmentation of our health care system causes particularly severe problems for people with serious mental illness.  The Association noted that emerging chronic care management techniques offer a way out of this unconscionable mess.  It advocates the adoption and application of patient-centered medical home programs that bring together primary care, mental health care, and care for chronic medical conditions in a patient- and community-centered environment.

The current bills offer some funding for such measures, at least as pilots.  The House bill, for example, contains language supporting Medicaid medical home demonstrations with initial funding tilted to the federal, in order to encourage states to try these programs out.  Let’s hope these and similar measures, which offer hope for the correction of terrible health disparities in a cost effective manner, survive the production of final legislation.

In the Wake of Daschle’s Withdrawal, Obama Signs Bill to Expand SCHIP Coverage

photo by marjanhols via flickr

President Obama signed the bill extending health coverage to millions of low-income children yesterday after it the House gave final approval, according to The New York Times. Many see this as a signal of the president’s clear intention to guarantee coverage for all Americans.

Since August 2007, the House has voted at least seven times for legislation to expand the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In a recent blog we explained how Former-president George W. Bush twice vetoed similar legislation. Bush adamantly opposed the legislation on the ground that it would lead to “government-run health care for every American,” reports The Times.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat said that the bill was “a down payment” and “an essential start” to the ultimate goal of health reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed the passage and signing of the bill as the result of the last fall’s historic presidential election, stating:

“This is the beginning of the change that the American people voted for in the last election, and that we will achieve with President Barack Obama.”

One of the major features of the bill is that it allows states to cover certain legal immigrants, who are currently barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States.

Read more