Integrating Health and Mental Health Services: A Past and Future History
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract
The authors trace the modern history, current landscape, and future prospects for integration between mental health and general medical care in the United States. Research and new treatment models developed in the 1980s and early 1990s helped inform federal legislation, including the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which in turn are creating new opportunities to further integrate services. Future efforts should build on this foundation to develop clinical, service-level, and public health approaches that more fully integrate mental, medical, substance use, and social services.
[AJP AT 175: Remembering Our Past As We Envision Our Future
July 1928: A President Takes Stock
Adolf Meyer: “I sometimes feel that Einstein, concerned with the relativity in astronomy, has to deal with very simple facts as compared to the complex and erratic and multicontingent performances of the human microcosmos, the health, happiness and efficiency of which we psychiatrists are concerned with.” (Am J Psychiatry 1928; 85(1):1–31)]
In his 1928 APA Presidential Address, Adolf Meyer reflected on the state of psychiatry during its early years and speculated on what lay ahead for the field. He described a profession that had moved past an administrative orientation toward asylum-based care to a clinical focus on patients in communities. He highlighted the importance of attending to “the various levels of integration—structural and functional—with total function (psychobiology) and part functions (physiology)—and physico-chemical, individual, and social” (1). More than 50 years later, one of us (H.H.G.) published a commentary in the American Journal of Psychiatry reviewing progress and outlining the then-current opportunities and challenges for integration between mental health and general medical services (2). The commentary concluded that there were still major clinical and organizational barriers to integrating services and that integration would occur only when a common purpose and new incentives existed to remove the long-standing barriers.
Comorbidity between mental and general medical disorders is the rule rather than the exception (3, 4). However, care for these types of problems has historically been provided by different providers, health care organizations, and funding streams (5). This fragmentation results in gaps in access, quality, and efficiency of care, resulting in high societal costs (6, 7), disability (8), and excess mortality (9). These problems highlight the importance of improving integration at multiple levels across governmental agencies, health care organizations, clinics, and within individual patients (10).
Since the early 1980s, new treatments, service delivery models, federal policies, technologies, and trends in the broader health system have drastically reshaped the U.S. mental health service delivery system. With these changes has come a growing interest in integration among researchers, clinicians, health system leaders, and health policy makers. In this review, we examine these changes and their impact on service integration for people with mental illnesses since the early 1980s, with an eye toward future opportunities and challenges.
1980–1996: A Growing Research Base Supporting Mental Health Integration
The Epidemiological Catchment Area Survey was a groundbreaking systematic study documenting the epidemiology and treatment patterns for mental disorders in the United States (11). Implemented in five cities, it was the first such study to be conducted in more than a single community in the United States. Three key findings emerged from that study that had major implications for care integration. First, mental disorders were highly prevalent—more than a quarter of individuals had a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. Second, fewer than half of individuals with a diagnosis received treatment in any given year. Finally, those who did receive mental health treatment most commonly received it not from specialty mental health providers but in the general medical sector. Taken together, these findings demonstrated the importance of more effectively diagnosing and treating common mental disorders in primary care settings.
During the 1980s and 1990s, new treatments and financing models affected the interface between primary care and mental health in the provision of care for mental disorders. Some factors brought them closer together; but others pushed them apart. The release of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants beginning in the late 1980s made it easier for primary care providers to provide first-line treatment for major depression and anxiety disorders (12). In the public sector, new grants helped drive a rapid growth of treatment of mental disorders in federally qualified health centers (13). At the same time, rising mental health costs spurred the growth of mental health “carve-outs” that provided mental health insurance benefits and treatment separately from general medical care (14, 15).
Studies documenting the central role of general medical providers in treating mental disorders led to calls for improved diagnosis and treatment in those settings (16, 17). Initial studies focusing on screening (18), provider education (19), and time-limited consultation (20) proved disappointing in improving outcomes (21). In 1995, Katon et al. (22) published the first randomized trial of team-based collaborative care for treating depression in primary care. Collaborative care in many ways represented a return to the “liaison” dimension of consultation-liaison psychiatry that had gained popularity during the 1960s and 1970s, focusing on the role of psychiatrists as active members of medical teams helping to identify and address mental health problems across a clinic or hospital unit (23). Subsequent studies demonstrated these approaches to be effective in improving quality and outcomes of care across a range of other mental disorders and settings (24), for substance use disorders (25), and for management of general medical conditions in patients with serious mental illnesses (26).
1996–Today: Health Reform and Mental Health Integration
Over the past two decades, passage of federal legislation has dramatically reshaped the health insurance and care delivery landscape. This legislation has had a major impact on mental health service delivery and its relationship to the broader health system.
Insurance Reform
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 12 million individuals with mental and/or substance use disorders lacked insurance (27). For those who had insurance, most behavioral health insurance benefits were separate and unequal compared with benefits for treatment of general medical and surgical conditions. Lack of parity raised the risk of bankruptcy or financial hardship due to mental health expenditures.
The 1996 Mental Health Parity Act barred separate annual and lifetime limits on coverage for treatment of mental disorders other than the addictions (28). The 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) provided another step toward improving access to health insurance and reducing financial burden for patients with mental illnesses and substance use disorders by barring differential coverage limits, such as higher cost sharing, separate visit or hospitalization maximums, and unequal application of managed care techniques (29, 30). Parity was extended to plans that offered coverage for behavioral health conditions, but it did not mandate that insurance must have such coverage. In fact, most plans offered some coverage. Early results suggest that this legislation is helping drive improved richness of benefits and access to care for people with mental and substance use disorders (31).
For individuals with comorbid mental and general medical problems, financial access to mental health care is essential for optimizing medical as well as mental health outcomes (32). The improvement in insurance coverage is what allows integration to work (33). This legislation was also an important symbolic victory for advocates of integration, moving mental health benefits squarely into the center of medical insurance. Its underlying philosophy was a manifestation of the value of integration, that mental disorders ought to be treated like any other condition.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) built on the MHPAEA to expand health insurance coverage, to prohibit exclusion of care based on preexisting conditions, and to require that health plans include mental health and substance use disorder treatment and care as essential benefits (34, 35). These insurance protections and expansions were particularly important for people with mental illness, who were at elevated risk of being uninsured or underinsured. The requirement that insurance plans include mental health as an essential benefit complemented parity legislation in ensuring widespread access to mental health benefits (34). Early findings suggest declining rates of uninsurance for patients with mental and substance use disorders since these provisions were enacted, largely related to Medicaid expansion (36).
New Models of Care
In addition to expanding insurance, the ACA included funding for demonstration projects to improve care for common mental disorders in primary care and for medical problems in public sector mental health settings. These demonstration projects were particularly important in the public mental health sector, including among Medicaid recipients and patients at community mental health centers.
Section 2703 of the ACA provided funding for states to design health homes to provide comprehensive care coordination for high-cost Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic conditions, including serious mental illnesses (37). As of June 2017, a total of 21 states had health homes, with nearly all of these programs including individuals with serious mental illnesses as a target population (38). These programs are mandated to provide care and coordination, health promotion, and referral to community social services—essential elements of care integration for patients with serious mental illnesses. Most of the initial state health home programs are continuing to operate even after the initial 2-year federal matching funds have ended (39).
Several ACA programs have been targeted toward improving care integration at community mental health centers. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act (H.R. 4302) includes a demonstration program testing certified community behavioral health clinics (CCBHCs), which are required to address care coordination and develop “partnerships … for primary care services to the extent these services are not provided by the CCBHC.” The ACA has provided ongoing funding for the Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration program, which provides funding for community mental health centers to treat common medical conditions on-site or via referral (40).
The ACA also incentivized the development of new organizational and payment strategies that hold the potential for more widespread implementation of integrated care models in Medicare. Within traditional fee-for-service Medicare, new billing codes for collaborative care are likely to help address barriers to financing these services (41).
The legislation created mechanisms to fund new models of payment, including accountable care organizations that include care management fees or shared savings arrangements to incentivize quality and efficiency of care (42). To date, the update of mental health services in many of these new models of care has been slow (43–45). Additionally, these models may create some incentives for plans to exclude high-cost groups, including enrollees with mental disorders (46).
If parity represented the integration of mental health into the mainstream of health insurance, the ACA represented the integration of mental health into federal health care policy. To a greater extent than in earlier health reform efforts (47, 48), mental health had a central seat at the table in the design and implementation of the ACA (49).
The Future of Mental Health Integration
The trajectory toward increasing service integration is likely to continue in the coming years. Key trends driving changes in the organization of the broader health system, financing models, and new health technologies will likely create new opportunities for further service integration in both primary care and specialty settings. However, vigilance will be needed to fully implement these policies and to maintain the gains that have been made in the face of a shifting policy and care delivery landscape.
The Gap Between Policy and Practice
The passage of the MHPAEA in 2008 provides a useful reminder of the many steps between federal legislation and practice change. Even after final regulations were issued in 2013, the requirement that mental health benefits be “no more restrictive than … medical and surgical benefits” proved challenging to define operationally, particularly for nonquantitative aspects of care management (30). Currently, litigation (50) and enforcement efforts by the U.S. Department of Labor (51) are helping to further clarify the final scope and details of this legislation.
The past year saw a number of efforts to repeal or scale back the ACA (52). While these were ultimately not successful, ongoing policy and regulatory developments are likely to weaken the ACA’s potential benefits for patients with mental disorders. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act removed the individual mandate requirement, which could destabilize the health insurance exchange marketplace (53). For Medicaid, the Department of Health and Human Services is considering granting states more flexibility in determining the scope and structure of Medicaid benefits through block grants, spending caps, and/or waivers (54). Decisions about continuing or expanding demonstration programs, such as the Medicaid health homes program, will largely rest with individual states and with the Department of Health and Human Services. All of these changes disproportionately affect individuals with mental illnesses, who were more likely to be uninsured, to rely on Medicaid, and to experience fragmented care prior to the passage of the ACA (27, 55).
These developments highlight the notion that federal and state policies, while vitally important, rarely progress in a linear fashion and are subject to shifting political winds. Furthermore, policies are only the first step in changing practice. Attention is needed to regulations that flow from these policies, to their implementation by insurers and health organizations, to care by clinicians who deliver treatment, and to patients who are the recipients of that care. As more data become available on the impact of this federal legislation on quality and outcomes of medical care, it will be important to use the data to inform future policies, regulations, and clinical practice.
Trends in the Broader Health System
Regardless of the fate of these policies, several trends reshaping the health system will have important implications for the integration between mental and medical care. The health care system is undergoing a phase of rapid consolidation, with mergers across hospitals, between hospitals and physician practices, and between pharmacies and health insurers (56–58). These large organizations should have an incentive to focus on high-cost groups, including individuals with mental illnesses, and they possess the economies of scale to care for them. However, as with accountable care organizations, it appears that these new organizations have been slow to fully incorporate care for mental health disorders. For instance, the recent acquisition of Aetna by CVS is not currently projected to provide mental health care or screening in its retail clinics (58).
The Growth of Health Technology
New technologies are reshaping the architecture of the health system and of integration between general medical and mental health care. Electronic health records coupled with a registry function can track and monitor symptoms for patients who are not improving (59). Telehealth can improve access to specialty services for rural and other hard-to-reach populations (60, 61). Integrated data warehouses can be used to identify high-utilizing patients for quality improvement efforts and track their movement across different sectors of care (62). Smartphone-based mobile health can support patient self-management between provider visits (63). These technologies can serve as platforms on which to develop and disseminate high-quality, integrated-care interventions (64). However, the improved communication facilitated by these technologies may also come at the expense of patient privacy (65), which can be particularly problematic for substance use disorders and other stigmatized conditions (66).
Bridging the Divide Between Integration and Specialization
Taken together, these trends provide an opportunity to revisit a long-standing debate within mental health about the relative merits of integration versus specialization. Specifically, many advocates have argued that mental health care requires unique expertise that can best be provided by specialty mental health clinicians, providers, or organizations. They have expressed concern about a choice between “drowning in the mainstream or [being] left on the bank” (67, 68).
New clinical and organizational models are increasingly making this dichotomy less problematic. Collaborative care and medical home models seek to facilitate continuity and coordination of care while still ensuring access to specialty expertise. New health technologies can help guide care and facilitate communication across providers.
However, there will always be patients whose problems are best managed in specialty settings. Primary care providers may not be equipped to manage medication or provide evidence-based psychotherapies for patients with complex mental disorders (69). Patients with serious, disabling mental illnesses also may require psychosocial services such as housing and employment support that are not available in primary care settings (70). The optimal balance between generalist and specialist care will vary based on provider expertise, patient case mix, and available community resources (71).
Addressing Integration at Multiple Levels
The future will likely see growing integration at multiple levels—within patients, and across systems, payers, agencies, and communities. Most current models of integration have focused on addressing comorbid mental and medical problems within patients or particular health care organizations. Psychosomatic medicine emphasized the biological and psychological linkages between mental and physical health within individuals, and consultation psychiatry addressed individual psychiatric problems that were identified in medical settings. Collaborative care addresses needs of patients in health care clinics or provider organizations, targeting treatment based on mental health symptoms (72).
There is a growing interest in further broadening this perspective to address mental health integration in a public health context (73). These approaches would examine strategies for improving mental health outcomes within general populations, while optimizing overall health in subgroups with more serious mental disorders. Accomplishing these goals would require identifying and tracking populations both within and outside of health care settings; recognizing the importance of social and community factors as determinants of health; addressing comorbid substance use; and expanding the range of outcomes from symptom-based measures to broader indicators of health-related quality of life and recovery. This expanded focus could complement current efforts to incorporate social determinants such as housing and food insecurity into health care for general medical populations (74–76).
A public health approach to integration harkens back to the moral treatment movement of the 19th century and the community mental health movement of the 1960s, each of which emphasized the importance of social and environmental factors as antecedents and consequences of mental illnesses (77). Both of these movements, which began with great optimism that the early treatment of mental illness would prevent long-term disability, ultimately faced criticism for their failure to accomplish that goal. Over the years, some reformers have focused on the social and political dynamics of communities to the exclusion of concern about clinical treatments (77, 78). As we move to expand integration to achieve these broader public health goals, we must ensure that these efforts are coupled with attention to high-quality clinical care.
Conclusions
When we reflect on the many changes that have occurred since the early 1980s, it is clear that great progress has been made in the integration between mental health and general medical care. Mental health has moved from the margins to the mainstream of health care policy, financing, and care delivery. However, it should also be noted that many of the problems that these integrated approaches were developed to address, such as rates of comorbidity (4), disability (79), and early mortality due to suicide (80, 81) and general medical conditions (9), have persisted or worsened over time. Effectively addressing these problems will require public health approaches that address the underlying social and behavioral causes and consequences of these problems and also ensure access to high-quality integrated care for individuals with comorbid conditions.
Four decades from now, how will we know if we have succeeded? At a public health level, we will need to know whether we have been able to improve these distal outcomes in individuals with mental disorders and medical comorbidity. At a policy level, we will need to track the impact of new federal and state laws and ensure that they are successfully implemented and sustained. At a clinical level, we will need to continue to support widespread dissemination of effective treatments in both the public and private sectors. And for patients with mental disorders, we will need to ensure that they are receiving care that meets their needs and helps them improve both their physical and mental health and well-being.
References
1.
Meyer A: Presidential address: thirty-five years of psychiatry in the United States and our present outlook. Am J Psychiatry 1928; 85:1–31
2.
Goldman HH: Integrating health and mental health services: historical obstacles and opportunities. Am J Psychiatry 1982; 139:616–620
3.
Katon WJ: Clinical and health services relationships between major depression, depressive symptoms, and general medical illness. Biol Psychiatry 2003; 54:216–226
4.
Janssen EM, McGinty EE, Azrin ST, et al: Review of the evidence: prevalence of medical conditions in the United States population with serious mental illness. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2015; 37:199–222
5.
Druss BG, Walker ER: Mental disorders and medical comorbidity. Synth Proj Res Synth Rep 2011; 21:1–26
6.
Ward MC, Lally C, Druss BG: Medicaid expenditures for fee-for-service enrollees with behavioral diagnoses: findings from a 50 state claims analysis. Community Ment Health J 2017; 53:1–7
7.
Thorpe K, Jain S, Joski P: Prevalence and spending associated with patients who have a behavioral health disorder and other conditions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36:124–132
8.
Walker ER, Druss BG: Cumulative burden of comorbid mental disorders, substance use disorders, chronic medical conditions, and poverty on health among adults in the USA. Psychol Health Med 2017; 22:727–735
9.
Walker ER, McGee RE, Druss BG: Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:334–341
10.
Berwick DM: A user’s manual for the IOM’s ‘Quality Chasm’ report. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002; 21:80–90
11.
Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS, et al: The de facto US mental and addictive disorders service system: epidemiologic Catchment Area prospective 1-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993; 50:85–94
12.
Pincus HA, Tanielian TL, Marcus SC, et al: Prescribing trends in psychotropic medications: primary care, psychiatry, and other medical specialties. JAMA 1998; 279:526–531
13.
Druss BG, Bornemann T, Fry-Johnson YW, et al: Trends in mental health and substance abuse services at the nation’s community health centers: 1998–2003. Am J Public Health 2008; 98(suppl):S126–S131
14.
Frank RG, Huskamp HA, McGuire TG, et al: Some economics of mental health “carve-outs”. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53:933–937
15.
Frank RG, Garfield RL: Managed behavioral health care carve-outs: past performance and future prospects. Annu Rev Public Health 2007; 28:303–320
16.
Hirschfeld RM, Keller MB, Panico S, et al: The National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association consensus statement on the undertreatment of depression. JAMA 1997; 277:333–340
17.
Schulberg HC, Katon W, Simon GE, et al: Treating major depression in primary care practice: an update of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Practice guidelines. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55:1121–1127
18.
Greenfield SF, Reizes JM, Muenz LR, et al: Treatment for depression following the 1996 National Depression Screening Day. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157:1867–1869
19.
Thompson C, Kinmonth AL, Stevens L, et al: Effects of a clinical-practice guideline and practice-based education on detection and outcome of depression in primary care: Hampshire Depression Project randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355:185–191
20.
Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al: A randomized trial of psychiatric consultation with distressed high utilizers. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1992; 14:86–98
21.
O’Connor E, Rossom RC, Henninger M, et al: Screening for Depression in Adults: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (US Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, Report No 14-05208-EF-1). Rockville, Md, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Jan 2016
22.
Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al: Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care. JAMA 1995; 273:1026–1031
23.
Neill JR: Once more into the breach: doubts about liaison psychiatry. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1983; 5:205–208
24.
Woltmann E, Grogan-Kaylor A, Perron B, et al: Comparative effectiveness of collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions across primary, specialty, and behavioral health care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2012; 169:790–804
25.
Watkins KE, Ober AJ, Lamp K, et al: Collaborative care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: the SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177:1480–1488
26.
Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Glick GE, et al: Randomized trial of an integrated behavioral health home: the Health Outcomes Management and Evaluation (HOME) Study. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174:246–255
27.
Garfield RL, Zuvekas SH, Lave JR, et al: The impact of national health care reform on adults with severe mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168:486–494
28.
Hennessy KD, Goldman HH: Full parity: steps toward treatment equity for mental and addictive disorders. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20:58–67
29.
Barry CL, Goldman HH, Huskamp HA: Federal parity in the evolving mental health and addiction care landscape. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016; 35:1009–1016
30.
Frank RG: Realizing the promise of parity legislation for mental health. JAMA Psychiatry 2017; 74:117–118
31.
Melek S, Perlman D, Davenport S, et al: Impact of Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (Milliman White Paper). Nov 2017. http://www.milliman.com/insight/2017/Impact-of-Mental-Health-Parity-and-Addiction-Equity-Act/
32.
Goodell S, Druss BG, Walker ER: Mental disorders and medical comorbidity. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Synthesis Project, Feb 2011. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html
33.
Goldman HH: Perspectives: parity: prelude to a fifth cycle of reform. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2002; 5:109–113
34.
Beronio K, Glied S, Frank R: How the Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act greatly expand coverage of behavioral health care. J Behav Health Serv Res 2014; 41:410–428
35.
Beronio K, Po R, Skopec L, et al: Affordable Care Act expands mental health and substance use disorder benefits and federal parity protections for 62 million Americans. Washington, DC, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2013. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/affordable-care-act-expands-mental-health-and-substance-use-disorder-benefits-and-federal-parity-protections-62-million-americans
36.
Saloner B, Bandara S, Bachhuber M, et al: Insurance coverage and treatment use under the Affordable Care Act among adults with mental and substance use disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:542–548
37.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Health Home Information Resource Center. https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/medicaid-state-technical-assistance/health-homes-technical-assistance/health-home-information-resource-center.html
38.
Center for Healthcare Strategies: Medicaid health homes: implementation update. 2017. https://www.chcs.org/resource/medicaid-health-homes-implementation-update/
39.
Spillman B, Allen E, Lallemand N, et al: Evaluation of the Medicaid Health Home Option for Beneficiaries With Chronic Conditions: Progress and Lessons From the First States Implementing Health Home Programs, Annual Report, Year Four. Washington, DC, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, April 1, 2016. https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/evaluation-medicaid-health-home-option-beneficiaries-chronic-conditions-progress-and-lessons-first-states-implementing-health-home-programs-annual-report-year-four
40.
Scharf DM, Eberhart NK, Hackbarth NS, et al: Evaluation of the SAMHSA Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration (PBHCI) Grant Program: final report. Rand Health Q 2014; 4:6
41.
Press MJ, Howe R, Schoenbaum M, et al: Medicare payment for behavioral health integration. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:405–407
42.
Ginsburg PB, Patel KK: Physician payment reform: progress to date. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:285–292
43.
Lewis VA, Colla CH, Tierney K, et al: Few ACOs pursue innovative models that integrate care for mental illness and substance abuse with primary care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33:1808–1816
44.
Busch AB, Huskamp HA, Kreider AR, et al: Medicare accountable care organizations and antidepressant use by patients with depression. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:1193–1196
45.
Busch AB, Huskamp HA, McWilliams JM: Early efforts by Medicare accountable care organizations have limited effect on mental illness care and management. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016; 35:1247–1256
46.
Frank RG, Glazer J, McGuire TG: Measuring adverse selection in managed health care. J Health Econ 2000; 19:829–854
47.
Koyanagi C: Can we learn from history? Mental health in health care reform, revisited. Psychiatr Serv 2009; 60:17–20
48.
Goldman HH: Attitudes and policies: introduction. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151:5–8
49.
Mechanic D: Seizing opportunities under the Affordable Care Act for transforming the mental and behavioral health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012; 31:376–382
50.
Berry KN, Huskamp HA, Goldman HH, et al: Litigation provides clues to ongoing challenges in implementing insurance parity. J Health Polit Policy Law 2017; 42:1065–1098
51.
Office of the US Secretary of Labor: Improving Health Coverage for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Patients: Including Compliance With the Federal Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Provisions: Report to Congress. Washington, DC, US Department of Labor, Jan 2016
52.
Oberlander J: Repeal, replace, repair, retreat: Republicans’ health care quagmire. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1001–1003
53.
Pear R, Kaplan T: Tax bill is likely to undo health insurance mandate, Republicans say. New York Times, Dec 6, 2017
54.
Rosenbaum S, Schmucker S, Rothenberg S, et al: What Would Block Grants or Limits on Per Capital Spending Mean for Medicaid? Washington, DC, Commonwealth Fund, 2016. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/nov/medicaid-block-grants
55.
Druss BG, Mauer BJ: Health care reform and care at the behavioral health: primary care interface. Psychiatr Serv 2010; 61:1087–1092
56.
Glied SA, Altman SH: Beyond antitrust: health care and health insurance market trends and the future of competition. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36:1572–1577
57.
Fulton BD: Health care market concentration trends in the United States: evidence and policy responses. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36:1530–1538
58.
Frakt AB, Garthwaite C: The CVS-Aetna merger: another large bet on the changing US health care landscape. Ann Intern Med (Epub ahead of print, Jan 9, 2018)
59.
Druss BG, Dimitropoulos L: Advancing the adoption, integration, and testing of technological advancements within existing care systems. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2013; 35:345–348
60.
Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Edlund MJ, et al: A randomized trial of telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22:1086–1093
61.
Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Kimbrell TA, et al: Telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:58–67
62.
Minkoff K, Parks J: Primary health–behavioral health integration for the population of individuals with serious mental illness, in Integrated Primary and Behavioral Care. Edited by O’Donohue W, Maragakis A. Basel, Switzerland, Springer, 2015, pp 171–199
63.
Asch DA, Muller RW, Volpp KG: Automated hovering in health care: watching over the 5000 hours. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1–3
64.
Bauer AM, Thielke SM, Katon W, et al: Aligning health information technologies with effective service delivery models to improve chronic disease care. Prev Med 2014; 66:167–172
65.
Hsin H, Torous J, Roberts L: An adjuvant role for mobile health in psychiatry. JAMA Psychiatry 2016; 73:103–104
66.
Tai B, McLellan AT: Integrating information on substance use disorders into electronic health record systems. J Subst Abuse Treat 2012; 43:12–19
67.
Sharfstein SS: To Pull Mental Health Services Into the Mainstream of Health Services (Without Drowning): Report to the Secretary’s Task Force on Health Systems Reform. Bethesda, Md, NIMH, 1978
68.
Pincus HA: The future of behavioral health and primary care: drowning in the mainstream or left on the bank? Psychosomatics 2003; 44:1–11
69.
Cerimele JM, Chan Y-F, Chwastiak LA, et al: Bipolar disorder in primary care: clinical characteristics of 740 primary care patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatr Serv 2014; 65:1041–1046
70.
Goldman HH, Karakus MC: Do not turn out the lights on the public mental health system when the ACA is fully implemented. J Behav Health Serv Res 2014; 41:429–433
71.
Mauer BJ, Druss BG: Mind and body reunited: improving care at the behavioral and primary healthcare interface. J Behav Health Serv Res 2010; 37:529–542
72.
Fortney JC, Unützer J, Wrenn G, et al: A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:179–188
73.
Walker ER, Druss BG: A public health perspective on mental and medical comorbidity. JAMA 2016; 316:1104–1105
74.
Koh HK, Restuccia R: Housing as health. JAMA 2018; 319:12–13
75.
Adler NE, Glymour MM, Fielding J: Addressing social determinants of health and health inequalities. JAMA 2016; 316:1641–1642
76.
Gottlieb L, Fichtenberg C, Adler N: Screening for social determinants of health. JAMA 2016; 316:2552
77.
Grob GN: The Mad Among Us: A History of the Care of America’s Mentally Ill. New York, Free Press, 1994
78.
Goldman HH, Tansella M: Community psychiatry in the United States 50 years after the Community Mental Health Centers Act. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2014; 23:1–3
79.
Mojtabai R: National trends in mental health disability, 1997–2009. Am J Public Health 2011; 101:2156–2163
80.
Curtin SC, Warner M, Hedegaard H: Increase in suicide in the United States, 1999–2014. NCHS Data Brief 2016; 241:1–9
81.
Olfson M, Blanco C, Wall M, et al: National trends in suicide attempts among adults in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry 2017; 74:1095–1103
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 11 February 2018
Revision received: 1 March 2018
Accepted: 5 March 2018
Published online: 25 April 2018
Published in print: December 01, 2018
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
NIH: ROI MH 100467
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBGet Access
Login options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).