Service Use and Health Status of Persons With Severe Mental Illness in Full-Risk and No-Risk Medicaid Programs

Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599-7590, USA.
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 2.41). 04/2002; 53(3):293-8. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed


The service use patterns and health status outcomes of Medicaid recipients with severe mental illness in a system that assigned full financial risk to managed care organizations through capitation and a system that paid for mental health care on a no-risk fee-for-service basis were compared.
With use of a quasi-experimental design, initial interviews (time 1) and follow-up interviews six months later (time 2) were conducted among 92 clients in the full-risk group and 112 clients in the no-risk group. Regression models were used to compare self-reported service use and health status between the two groups.
Service use patterns differed between the two groups. When symptom severity at time 1 was controlled for, clients in the full-risk group were more likely to have received case management but less likely to report contact with a psychiatrist or to have received counseling than clients in the no-risk group. When health status at time 1 was controlled for, clients in the full-risk group reported poorer mental health at time 2 than clients in the no-risk group. When physical health status at time 1 was controlled for, clients in the full-risk group reported poorer physical health at time 2 than clients in the no-risk group.
Capitation was associated with lower use of costly services. Clients with serious mental illness in the full-risk managed care system had poorer mental and physical health outcomes than those in the no-risk system.

Download full-text


Available from: Elizabeth I. Merwin, Sep 23, 2014
  • Source
    • "During the study period, 10% and later 15% of FFS claims were paid to these PCPs. US studies that compared care delivered to persons with SMI in different primary care models have shown that capitation is associated with increased or decreased use of outpatient care (Busch et al. 2004; Chou et al. 2005; Leff et al. 2005; Morrissey et al. 2002) and fewer mental health hospital admissions (Bloom et al. 2002; Leff et al. 2005; Rothbard et al. 2004; Warner and Huxley 1998). Many of those studies, however, are dated, and many were based on unrepresentative samples. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To examine service use by adults with serious mental illness (SMI) rostered in new primary care models: enhanced fee-for-service (FFS), blended-capitation (CAP) and team-based capitation (TBC) models with and without mental health workers (MHW) in Ontario. Methods: This cross-sectional study used administrative health service databases to compare use of mental health and general health services among persons with SMI enrolled in new models (n = 125,233). Results: Relative to persons rostered in enhanced FFS, those in CAP and TBC had fewer mental health primary care visits (adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence limits: CAP: 0.77 [0.74, 0.81]; TBC with MHW: 0.72 [0.68, 0.76]; TBC with no MHW: 0.81 [0.72, 0.93]). Compared to patients in enhanced FFS, those in TBC models also had more mental health hospital admissions (TBC with MHW: 1.12 [1.05, 1.20]; TBC with no MHW: 1.22 [1.05, 1.41]). Patterns of use of general services were similar. Conclusion: Further attention to financial incentives in capitation that influence care of persons with SMI is necessary to determine if they are aligned with aims of primary care reform. Copyright © 2014 Longwoods Publishing.
    Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante 08/2014; 10(1). DOI:10.12927/hcpol.2014.23926
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicaid has had an enormous impact on the shape and impact of public mental health care. Medicaid mental health policy has expanded access, fostered consumerism, and created incentives for expansion of community-based providers. It also has dramatically changed the economic rules governing public mental health care, leading state governments to alter their behavior. The result has been a tilting of public mental health care toward Medicaid-covered people and services.
    Health Affairs 01/2003; 22(1):101-13. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.101 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines the evolution of a community-based network of mostly nonprofit health and human service agencies providing services to people with mental illness. The network was formed in response to a major shift in the state’s funding mechanism from fee-for-service to managed care. When confronted with conflicting institutional pressures from the state and the profession, the response was one of strategic balancing and compromise through development of an interorganizational network rather than by the passive conformity of individual agencies. How this network evolved and how compromise was achieved was examined. Data were collected shortly after the new system was first introduced and then 4 years later to allow longitudinal analysis of network evolution.
    Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 09/2004; 33(3):489-514. DOI:10.1177/0899764004265718 · 0.90 Impact Factor
Show more