Assessing Outcomes for Consumers in New York's Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, 238 Civitan Bldg., Box 3173, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 2.41). 10/2010; 61(10):976-81. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed


This study examined whether New York State's assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) program, a form of involuntary outpatient commitment, improves a range of policy-relevant outcomes for court-ordered individuals.
Administrative data from New York State's Office of Mental Health and Medicaid claims between 1999 and 2007 were linked to examine whether consumers under a court order for AOT experienced reduced rates of hospitalization, shorter hospital stays, and improvements in other outcomes. Multivariable analyses controlling for relevant covariates were used to examine the likelihood that AOT produced these effects.
On the basis of Medicaid claims and state reports for 3,576 AOT consumers, the likelihood of psychiatric hospital admission was significantly reduced by approximately 25% during the initial six-month court order (odds ratio [OR]=.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.72-.82) and by over one-third during a subsequent six-month renewal of the order (OR=.59, CI=.54-.65) compared with the period before initiation of the court order. Similar significant reductions in days of hospitalization were evident during initial court orders and subsequent renewals (OR=.80, CI=.78-.82, and OR=.84, CI=.81-.86, respectively). Improvements were also evident in receipt of psychotropic medications and intensive case management services. Analysis of data from case manager reports showed similar reductions in hospital admissions and improved engagement in services.
Consumers who received court orders for AOT appeared to experience a number of improved outcomes: reduced hospitalization and length of stay, increased receipt of psychotropic medication and intensive case management services, and greater engagement in outpatient services.

Download full-text


Available from: Christine M Wilder, Feb 17, 2015
  • Source
    • "The former has typically examined the effects upon outcome in terms of symptoms, functioning, and hospital use (Swartz et al., 2001) whereas the last two have tended to focus on civil liberties, the role of the state and arguments for and against coercive intervention (Eastman, 1997). Recently there have been attempts to take interdisciplinary approaches to the subject (Kallert et al., 2005; Swartz et al., 2010). While there is relatively little empirical research published, there is no shortage of opinion and comment. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Coercion has always existed in psychiatry and is increasingly debated. The ‘move into the community’ in many countries over recent decades and the evolution of community services have substantially altered the locus of coercion. In many countries psychiatric services remain poorly funded and patchy. Substantial differences between regions and countries in the provision of services, the role of the family, and the wider economic and political climate are likely to lead to different sources and experiences of coercion. Discussion This paper explores a number of factors that may affect the prevalence and type of coercion in psychiatric services and in society and their impact upon those with severe mental illnesses. Differences in service provision are explored and wider societal issues that may impact are considered along with relevant evidence. Conclusions Coercion is commonly experienced by those with severe mental illnesses but is poorly understood. The vast majority of research relates to High Income Group countries with developed community services and formal mental health legislation that adopt the so-called ‘medical model’. Further research and collaboration is urgently required to increase our understanding of these issues, which are difficult to define and measure. An evidence base that is relevant worldwide, not just to a small group of countries, is needed to inform training and the care of all patients. A particular focus must be expanding our knowledge and understanding of coercion in cultures outside those where such research has traditionally taken place to date.
    Asian Journal of Psychiatry 04/2014; 8:2–6. DOI:10.1016/j.ajp.2013.08.002
  • Source
    • "Assisted Outpatient Treatment programs present in some states have provided additional structure and support for these individuals. The success of these programs including reduced hospitalizations, increased receipt of psychotropic medications, and greater engagement in outpatient services (Swartz et al., 2010) continue to support their existence. However, these programs cannot account for every mentally ill individual who does not have the capacity or insight for the added responsibility of self-administering his/her medications. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Noncompliance with medication therapy and mental health care is prevalent among the mentally ill. Its multifactorial dynamics can include aspects of the illness itself, such as anosognosia. Noncompliance with medication can increase risk of violent or other criminal behavior, but the law currently does not recognize it as a factor in determining culpability. The legal test of insanity that focuses on a “defect of reason from disease of the mind” presumes that the disease was not self-induced. Noncompliance with medication and voluntary intoxication can both be seen as self-induced incapacities, but their adjudication is often quite different. A psychotic condition may be the basis of an excuse, whereas simple intoxication is not. The distinction is not only the obvious one of acts of omission (medication noncompliance) and acts of commission (voluntary intoxication). There are other complicating factors, such as the knowledge of the effects of noncompliance, the mental state prior to the noncompliance, and the presence of any conditions that would excuse or justify it. These and other considerations render the assignment of criminal responsibility for the noncompliant psychiatric offender complex. A possible solution to this would be the application of therapeutic jurisprudence to the noncompliant mentally ill offender.
    The Journal of psychiatry & law 12/2012; 40(2). DOI:10.1177/009318531204000208
  • Source
    • "''In these contexts, judicial authority to impose sanctions and curtail freedom provides the leverage for inducing treatment adherence in the community'' (Monahan et al. 2001:1200). There is evidence that assisted outpatient treatment in the community improves compliance with psychiatric medication and social functioning and minimizes subsequent hospital readmission, violent behavior, suicide risk, and arrests among people with severe mental illnesses (Hiday 2003; Link, Castille, and Stuber 2008; Link et al. 2011; Phelan et al. 2010; Swartz et al. 2010). A lack of compliance with prescribed psychiatric medication is a common cause of repeated involuntary hospitalizations , and it can result in the loss of social welfare benefits (e.g., income support and subsidized housing ), which could ultimately lead to homelessness (Monahan et al. 2001, 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study uses data from the Mental Health Modules of the General Social Survey (1996 and 2006) to understand why some Americans endorse the involuntary use of psychiatric medication. Results indicated that in 1996 and 2006, 28 percent of Americans believed that people with mental illness should be forced by law to take psychiatric medication. The belief that people with mental illness are dangerous significantly contributed to Americans’ endorsement of this form of mandated treatment. Interestingly, the belief that mental illness is caused by stress increased the odds of support for mandated medication in 1996 and then reduced the odds of support in 2006. Moreover, stigmatizing preferences for social distance from those with mental illness were no longer contributing factors in 2006. It is still imperative, however, that public policy makers promote anti-stigma initiatives to reduce barriers to psychiatric treatment and counteract the public’s lingering fear of people with mental illness.
    Mental health and society 01/2011; 1:200−216. DOI:10.1177/2156869311431100
Show more