Here are my thoughts about the IMS exclusion and appropriate treatment of people with serious mental illness. We need all the levels of care available in the continuum of care. Today in-patient care is significantly limited due to this archaic Medicaid rule.
In today’s blog from Pete Earley, he refers to a report by Steven Eida, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and editor of City Journal, and Carolyn Gorman, a policy analyst on issues related to serious mental illness who has served as a board member of Mental Illness Policy Org., a nonprofit founded by the late DJ Jaffe.
The Association for the Chronically Mentally Ill (ACMI) has championed the rights of the chronically mentally ill for more than three years. Our focus has been on creating appropriate housing for people with chronic mental illness, in other words, those people with serious mental illness who are not adherent to the current treatments and policies available to them under our Arizona behavioral health system. This year, we made efforts to reform our state psychiatric hospital, the Arizona State Hospital (ASH). This article is directly on point and aligns perfectly with our goals in trying to make people realize that this group of non-adherent SMI, who we choose to call the chronically mentally ill, are not well served by relegating them to the usual treatments available in the community, but, instead, frequently need longer-term treatment in level 1 psychiatric hospitals.
Also, after stability, when released to the community, they need more intensive supervision in order to treat their chronic psychiatric illness and have meaningful lives.
In addition, an upcoming study by the Morrison Institute, sponsored by ACMI, found that there were significant savings to the behavioral health system because of the decreased costs that resulted when this notch group of seriously mentally ill, the chronically mentally ill, are treated appropriately, safely, and humanely.
Will Eliminating Old Rule Return “Snake pit” Hospitals Or Help Seriously Mentally Ill Americans Get Much Needed Long Term Care?
(2-26-21) A conservative think tank has joined a growing national chorus calling for an end of a federal rule that discourages states from building psychiatric hospitals and providing long-term, in-patient care for the seriously mentally ill.
What is the IMD Exclusion and why should you care?
It’s a rule that has been around since 1965 that discourages states from building and supporting large psychiatric hospitals and pushes them instead to provide community based treatment. The so-called “16 bed rule” accomplishes this by denying states Medicaid reimbursement for adults between the ages of 22-to-64 if they are treated in psychiatric hospitals and other facilities which have more than 16 beds. States must pay 100 percent of the cost of care for the seriously ill in most long-term psychiatric hospitals, compared to 50 percent for those treated in the community.
The new report’s authors, Stephen Eide and Carolyn D. Gorman, provide a thoughtful argument in favor of dumping the rule.
They document how difficult it is for parents and others to find hospital beds when someone is in the midst of a psychiatric crisis. It is not unusual for individuals to be turned away from emergency rooms or “boarded” in them for several days waiting for a hospital bed to become available. The lack of treatment beds also leads to individuals, who can’t get help, being arrested. The authors argue that Americans with serious mental illnesses simply can’t always get the long term help that they need in a community setting.
The 16 bed rule was enacted, in part, to put an end to warehousing patients in huge state hospitals, and those who support keeping it fear that state hospitals, once again, will become giant “snake pits” if the rule is repealed.
The authors of the Manhattan Institute report disagree.
They claim safeguards are in place now that weren’t years ago. Patients must be considered a danger to themselves or others before being held against their will in a state hospital. Many more treatment programs are available now than when state hospitals were the only choice. Federal laws, especially the Supreme Court’s Olmstead ruling, which requires individuals with mental illnesses be held in the least restrictive settings, will insure patients aren’t abused and forgotten in state hospitals. Plus, every state has a Protection and Advocacy Agency, specifically designed to investigate complaints about abuse in state hospitals and other long term facilities.
Modern psychiatric hospitals “are not designed as isolation wards” and “policies on seclusion and restraint are drastically changed” from the old days, the author’s wrote.
Opponents to dropping the rule warn that having Medicaid reimburse states for long term care in larger hospitals will blow up the Medicaid budget, costing as much as $1 trillion. They argue that states would reduce their spending on community care funding if given a choice between community programs and state hospitals.
The authors of the Manhattan Institute report argue the costs would be $5.4 billion spread over a ten year period and there would be no incentive for states to reduce spending on community programs.
Republicans attempted to eliminate the IMD Exclusion when former Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa) drafted the Helping Families In Mental Health Crisis Act. (Murphy was credited as an adviser to the Manhattan Institute Report.) But consumer groups, such as Mental Health America, and Disability Rights advocates strongly opposed ending the rule and Democrats successfully blocked Murphy’s language when his bill was incorporated into the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016.
Channeling the late D. J. Jaffe, who was a contributor at the Manhattan Institute, the authors argue that community based mental health services simply fail to help the seriously mentally ill who need long-term care to recover. Community services are failing this group, they argue, partly because of where they are directing their resources and efforts.
“As the number of diagnoses has expanded – and the number of Americans diagnosed at some point in their lifetimes with a mental disorder has increased – the number of claimants on public mental health resources has increased.”
We prefer to spend limited tax dollars and devote time to helping the “worried well” rather than those who need treatment the most.
You can read the full Manhattan Institute report here.
(Do you believe the IMD Exclusion should be dropped? Have you had trouble securing a hospital bed for someone in crisis? Would ending it hurt community services and turn back the clock to “snake pit” hospitals? Let me know your thoughts on my Facebook page.)
About the report’s authors:
Stephen Eide is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor of City Journal. He researches state and local finance and social policy questions such as homelessness and mental illness. He has written for many publications, including National Review, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Politico, and Wall Street Journal. He was previously a senior research associate at the Worcester Regional Research Bureau. Eide holds a B.A. from St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and a Ph.D. in political philosophy from Boston College.
Carolyn D. Gorman is a policy analyst on issues related to serious mental illness and has served as a board member of Mental Illness Policy Org., a nonprofit founded by the late DJ Jaffe. She was a senior project manager at the Manhattan Institute for mental illness policy and education policy. Gorman served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Her writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, New York Post, City Journal, National Review, and The Hill. Gorman holds a B.A. in psychology from Binghamton University and will graduate with an M.S. in public policy from the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University in 2021. Twitter: @CarolynGorm
From the report:
Medicaid’s IMD Exclusion was crafted for an entirely different era. During the last half-century, America built a system of community-based mental health services that did not exist in 1965. Income-support programs for the disabled, assertive community treatment, clubhouse programs, supportive housing, assisted outpatient treatment, supported employment, peer support services—these either did not exist in the 1950s, or they operated on a much smaller scale than now. Nevertheless, a small subset of severely mentally ill individuals still needs inpatient treatment on a short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term basis. The IMD Exclusion inhibits those individuals’ access to medically appropriate care. ..
Families experiencing a crisis with their loved ones often reach out for help from other families that have been through a similar experience. Guiding a family with a loved one with serious mental illness with active psychosis is scary, especially if the psychotic break is sudden. At the Association for the Chronically Mentally Ill (ACMI), we feel compelled to inform families that they may be in danger. While most people with mental illness are victims of crime, untreated or undertreated, they can also pose a danger to themselves and others. Stories like that of Senator Creigh Deeds, who was attacked by his son after a short stay in an emergency room because there were no psychiatric facilities that could admit him at the time are not infrequent. The facility released him to Sen Deeds’ care, and the next morning his son attacked him before killing himself. There have been many similar stories across the United States. When reading stories as described below, it prompts one to think about how we got to this point. Below is an account of what Joseph Bowers was experiencing during his psychotic period; fortunately, his grandmother was not harmed. When will our behavioral health system realize that the lack of psychiatric beds and inadequate short term inpatient treatment does not help but contributes to this issue? We must advocate for appropriate treatment and prevent needless tragedies.
There was no one in this world I loved more than grandma when in my right mind so why did I try to kill her? By the time I turned 17 in 1964, I had become totally absorbed by psychotic delusional fantasies. I was living with my grandmother and she and my grandfather, who had died about ten months earlier, had raised me from the age of two. Also living with us was my Uncle Fred who was not home much.
One evening shortly after my birthday, my brain became convinced that the devil had replaced my grandmother’s soul from her body with his own. He was doing this waiting for an opportunity to kill me. I don’t remember exactly who I believed I was: God or Jesus, a critical figure for good in the ongoing battle of good versus evil in any case.
Alarmed as I was, my brain saw this as a great opportunity. I could kill my grandmother’s body whereupon the devil’s soul would be forced to vacate. At that point, my spirit friends would capture him and imprison him eternally. Without his leadership, the forces of evil would crumble and the battle of good versus evil would be over once and for all with good triumphant. I probably had a plan for restoring my grandmother’s body and reuniting body and soul. We would all live in peace happily ever after.
Just after grandma went upstairs to bed that night, I took a single shot 16-gauge shotgun out of a closet, loaded it and started up the stairs toward her bedroom. As I reached the top of the stairs, looking in through her open bedroom door, I saw her kneeling by her bed praying.
Confused, I hurried on down the hallway out of her line of sight. What was the devil doing kneeling in prayer? Surely, he had somehow become aware of what I was up to and was trying to fool me into thinking this was just my dear grandmother after all.
Taking a deep breath. I went back down the hallway and entered her room. As she turned to me, I pressed the barrel of the shotgun against her chest and pulled the hammer back cocking the gun. At this point she reached out to me touching my arm and pleaded, “Joe don’t! You’ve never been mean to me!”
Time seemed to stand still as I wrestled with my dilemma. Do I pull the trigger or not?
I pointed the gun to the floor. With my thumb on the hammer, I pulled the trigger letting the hammer down gently harmlessly. Breaking the breach, I unloaded the gun, and we went downstairs to wait for Uncle Fred to come home.
Nearly sixty years later, I still wonder what saved my grandmother that night. Was It the uncertainty caused by finding her in prayer? Did her reaching out and beseeching me somewhat reestablish our relationship and make it harder to believe her to be the devil? Did I have one of those brief lucid moments that sometimes come in the midst of psychosis? I just don’t know, but I’m thankful whatever it was.
That night they took me to Middletown State Mental Hospital in lower New York State where I would stay for more than two months being treated for what they diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia.
At the hospital I received the best science-based treatment available in 1964. My family never got a bill. The state of New York paid for it. I was able to leave the hospital after about two and a half months reasonably stable. As a teenage boy from rural upstate New York and a family of limited financial resources, I didn’t realize how lucky I was to get this kind of treatment.
There would be more than twenty years of struggling with recuring psychotic episodes. There would be more hospitalizations and a couple arrests.
In time I was put on a medication that proved very effective without serious side effects, I’ve developed a solid support system of professionals, family and friends and I have learned effective coping skills. Working with a professional, my wife and I learned signs of impending illness which would alert us to take preventative action. I haven’t had a serious episode in more than thirty years now and have overall lived a reasonably normal and successful life.
Never on any sort of disability insurance, I have held down many jobs. For two years I fought forest fires on a hotshot crew for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, worked as a roughneck on oil rigs and retired from twenty-nine years helping produce low-cost electricity at a large power plant. I’ve earned a B.S. degree from a major university and had a successful marriage. My wife and I have three grown children all healthy, doing well and contributing to society.
I am truly one of the lucky ones.
With the changes I’ve seen in mental health care in my lifetime, I can just imagine how things might go in this day and age. A teenage boy from the country and poorer parents developing serious mental illness would face a different scenario than what befell me in 1964.
If he got a hospital bed at all, he would almost certainly be released way too soon and get little of the needed support on the outside. It’s not hard to imagine a life of homelessness on the streets in and out of jails and prisons. This happens all too often.
The big paradox for me is that even as our ability to treat serious mental illness has increased a great deal in my lifetime, the likelihood that people will get the treatment that is available is much less.
Image by Geesling photography -SMI people on the streets of Phoenix
Linda Mimms initially shared this article via social media. This article is a brilliant take by Dr. Rob Laitman on what it costs our society monetarily and, more importantly, our humanity. Failure to appropriately treat people with mental illness disorders is caused by not meeting people’s treatable medical brain disorders, in addition to multiple other factors. We have been violating the CIVIL RIGHTS of this neglected group of sick citizens who have needed treatment for decades with disastrous results. The family and community burden is one of these many disastrous outcomes. These members’ lives with serious mental illnesses are often 25 years shorter than the rest of the population. Jails and prisons are treating (though inadequately) our sickest society’s members using our criminal system as an alternative to a therapeutic environment. They have become a de facto significant psychiatric provider in this punitive setting. We continue to treat the behaviors of mental illness as criminal acts.
Charles Goldstein, MD
“The more I look into the horror of our healthcare system, the more outraged I become. Let me give you some perspective as a nephrologist (kidney specialist). End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) is the only medical diagnosis that automatically qualifies you for Medicare. Currently, there are 468,000 ESRD patients in the USA. The average expenditure per patient per year is $150,000. The total cost is 70 billion dollars. Employment in ESRD patients is 20% employed to age 55 and less than 3 % thereafter. Now let us look at the psychotic spectrum disorders representing 2% of the population (1 % schizophrenia spectrum and 1 % bipolar with psychosis). This percentage represents 6,620,000 individuals. If we were to support their medical needs fairly and comparably, we would be willing to devote 1 trillion dollars just for their care.
So what do we spend? When it comes to direct patient care for schizophrenia, the most recent estimate from a 2016 study was 37.4 billion. If you were to assume that the cost of taking care of someone with bipolar with psychosis was similar (actually, we know it is substantially less), the cost would be about 75 billion. Essentially we are only spending less than 1/10 for our patients with psychosis medical care than we have already decided would be appropriate in the ESRD population.
What is even more outrageous is this lack of support leads to tremendous non-direct healthcare costs, including law enforcement, homeless shelters, and productivity losses of both the patients and the caregivers. Specifically, for schizophrenia, unemployment cost was 59.2 billion, and caregiving was 52.9 billion.
What drives this tremendous disparity in resource allocation starts with the nihilistic belief that psychotic spectrum disorders are not treatable. Why should we devote resources to a hopeless population? Another component is that 50 % of this population has anosognosia, and therefore does not feel that they need treatment. Given the current status of the laws that “protect” patient’s rights, such as HIPAA and the underutilized and underpowered AOT laws, it is impossible to engage the patient even to start an effective treatment. Where we are right now is less than 50% of all patients with psychosis receive any care. The biggest psychiatric providers are the LA jail, Cook County jail, and Rikers Island jail. It is estimated that 20-40% of the prison population has a psychotic illness. The ever-growing homeless population also has been found to have a similar % of serious mental illness. At present, in those receiving treatment, only 14 % are in meaningful recovery.
The question is, what are we doing wrong, or is this just a hopeless population? What does the evidence say? As it turns out, there is increasing evidence that early identification of prodromal high-risk individuals can be identified, and by working on their processing speed (REM) the development of the full-fledged psychotic disorder can be aborted. Even after the development of psychosis, early treatment with the most effective treatment and wrap-around social services can change the trajectory of the illness. This is being demonstrated impressively with the Recovery After Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE) study. Remarkably, the VA has shown that if patients are switched to clozapine, there is a savings of over $ 20,000 accrue per patient-year initially, and as monitoring becomes less, that saving grows. Switching to clozapine has also led to the best survival, the lowest hospitalization rate, and the best quality of life. In my hands, I have demonstrated what is possible with optimal clozapine care. 75/103 of my patients treated over six months are in meaningful recovery. I define meaningful recovery as being in school, work, or a PROS program training to work. Hospitalization and, therefore, the cost of care has been minimized. In over 330 patient-years of care, there have been only 1.3 years of hospitalization. This translates out on average 1-2 days/year in the hospital. Medical compliance has been over 90% in those that have been successfully engaged, and overall over 98% of the population considers themselves improved with my care.
So we need to let our legislators know that they are not throwing good money after bad money. We need to have the resources to change the barriers to care. Specifically, we need a national uniform rational AOT program that gives the provider the ability to treat the patient where the need is demonstrated. Serious mental illness is a team sport, and communication has to be seamless, so we need to reform HIPAA to assure that caregivers are involved in every step of the way. We need to invest in improving access. Taking care of these patients takes a lot of work, and the reimbursement is dismal for the provider. So I return to the ESRD program. For every dialysis patient, the provider is paid a fixed amount for dialysis management. Clozapine is a lot of work and is superior to all other antipsychotics in every setting, and yet only 2% of the population is so treated. We need to invest in these patients and provide a treatment stipend for management. A reasonable fee schedule would be initially $1000/mo for the first six months, $750/mo for the next six months, and then $500/mo after one year. If the patient is hospitalized, the amount should be reduced proportionally to the time spent in the hospital. This is how the ESRD program works, and this carrot has led to superior clinical care. In our population, this small carrot could be a game-changer not only in the quality of care but the end of being a tremendous cost saver. With the cost-saving, we would then be able to devote more resources to all of the appropriate supports.
In summary, we need to convince the powers that be to devote appropriate resources. We need bravery to insist on rational laws that help engage our patients and families in therapeutic relationships. Our medical professionals need to be re-educated in what is possible and learn the correct approach to treatment. We need to pay adequately for this arduous but rewarding work. If we do this, we will be able to provide an optimal clozapine based regimen with full wrap-around psycho-social services. With this, we will not only end suffering, but we will see a majority of this population lead lives of purpose and meaning.” Robert S. Laitman, MD
The Association of the Chronically Mentally Ill is focused on the sickest group within the SMI population. This group is non-compliant with treatment and often afflicted with anosognosia or the lack of ability to perceive the realities of one’s own condition. There are a number of systemic issues within our public systems that impact this target group. One such issue is the 55 bed limit at the Arizona State Hospital, which was created to incentivize the state to create community-based programs. Long past the usefulness of that policy, Josh Mozell’s November 30th, 2020 article in the Capitol Times help to explain some of the fallout of this policy, and the reasons the 55-bed limit should be eliminated.
Solving the problems of our broken mental health system often seems so overwhelming that work does not begin. However, there are narrow solutions with broad implications that can be implemented. One such solution is ending Arizona’s long-standing bed limitation placed upon our state hospital.
It may surprise many to learn that Arizona still has an operational mental asylum. Opened in 1887, it is now known as the Arizona State Hospital. The purpose of the State Hospital is and has always been to provide care for the most mentally ill in our community. For many in that group, months, if not years, of long-term programming is necessary for real recovery. That being the case, the State Hospital becomes the only place in Arizona where they have a chance for meaningful improvement.
However, the hospital is nearly inaccessible for Maricopa County’s residents due to an arbitrary 55-bed limitation. To provide perspective, health policy experts estimate that a community needs between 40 and 60 beds per 100,000 to meet the demand for state hospital beds. In Maricopa County, however, for those who are civilly committed, we have one bed per 100,000.
Why? In 1981, a path-breaking class-action lawsuit, Arnold v Sarn, was filed on behalf of Maricopa County’s mentally ill. The litigation lasted over 30 years, finally settling in 2014. During that time, the case revolutionized Arizona’s mental health system. But in 1995, the parties entered into a plan to resolve the litigation. In that stipulation, the parties agreed there would be a cap of 55-beds at the Arizona State Hospital for civilly committed patients from Maricopa County. Due to this limitation, the only pathway to gaining admission is to fail repeatedly, in spectacular fashion, and do it for years.
The failure looks like this: Because this group of chronically mentally ill does not receive the long-term treatment needed, they transition from one crisis to the next, experiencing more serious decompensation. This results in a constant recycling through the various public systems at an enormous cost to the taxpayers. Year by year the person is increasingly overcome by the disease. There are persistent police and fire interactions, multiple visits to emergency rooms, long medical hospital stays, arrests for petty crimes, and, unfortunately too often for serious crimes. Then there is the involvement of the judicial system, homeless shelters, and the penal system. Rinse and repeat – the cycle continues for years. For this group of people, the system is not just broken, but inhumane.
The bed limitation also has many downstream effects. For instance, those who need access to Arizona State Hospital do not disappear simply because there is not an available bed. Instead, they consume scarce mental health resources, which otherwise could be provided to others in need. The most serious manifestation is in our civil commitment system. To be hospitalized through civil commitment, a patient receives a bed at Valleywise Health, the one hospital system licensed to carry out the process in Maricopa County. The average length of stay during the process is 22 days, and, during those 22 days, the patient receives very good psychiatric care. But, we have just 343 beds in Maricopa County, which is far less than what is needed to serve the population. Due to that bed shortage, our system is already limited in its ability to treat those who need help.
The Arizona State Hospital 55-bed limit pours gasoline on a fire. To keep the patient and the public safe, Valleywise is often forced to keep the patient for months until the patient stabilizes, without the infrastructure for true long-term treatment. Therefore, despite maximizing the stabilization possible at a short-term hospital, it is not enough. The patient is often back at Valleywise within weeks after release. This routine can continue for years until the patient finally fails enough for State Hospital consideration.
Commonly, the amount of failing will total 1,000 days or more at Valleywise – in addition to visits to the ER, jail, crisis centers, etc. Therefore, on just one patient who would be most appropriately treated at Arizona State Hospital, 45 patients could receive a 22-day hospital stay at Valleywise. Consequently, the bed shortage is made worse, individuals do not receive care, and scarce state resources are exhausted. This extends the system to the point of breaking, which cannot be sustained.
Our system is broken in many ways. But again, there are many narrow fixes with broad positive implications which start the process of improvement. This is one of those narrow fixes. The 55-bed cap is a monumental failure – it should be eliminated.
Josh Mozell is a lawyer with Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg & Arnold, L.L.P.
Come hear from Dr. Rosenberg about his insight into America’s mental health crisis. There will be an opportunity to submit questions prior to or during the webinar. Submit questions prior to the webinar at firstname.lastname@example.org or in the chat feature during the webinar.
I was pleasantly surprised to read this article stating the FDA approval for a new drug trial for schizophrenia. Research into the treatment of schizophrenia is long overdue, as it can be a devastating disease process.
Schizophrenia is a complicated chronic disease affecting approximately 3.5 million people in the United States, and its annual healthcare costs exceed $155 billion. People living with schizophrenia often experience a reduced quality of life (QOL) and are more likely to be homeless, unemployed, or living in poverty than the general population. Life expectancy for patients with schizophrenia is 15 to 20 years below the average. It is complicated by numerous comorbidities, such as weight gain, increased cardiovascular risk, and mood and cognition changes. Treatment nonadherence can increase the risk of relapse, rehospitalization, and self-harm, leading to a reduced QOL and increased economic burden.
Schizophrenia is a complex chronic illness with multiple comorbidities and high mortality rates. The development of Long-Acting Injectables and generic medication options has significantly improved patient adherence and reduced care costs in patients with schizophrenia. Despite these advances, schizophrenia has a high economic burden for patients and society. Providers caring for patients with schizophrenia are charged with a complicated task of ensuring individualized care while managing numerous adverse effects that may occur with recommended therapy (Wander, 2020).
The schizophrenia drug currently has a PDUFA date set for November 15.
A US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee has given a recommendation for the ultimate approval of a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (ALKS 3831) in schizophrenia patients.
During the joint meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, the group voted 16-1 to approve the treatment, developed by Alkermes.
ALKS 3831 is an investigational, novel atypical antipsychotic earmarked for once-daily oral application for the 2 psychiatric disorders composed of samidorphan, a novel, new molecular entity, co-formulated with olanzapine, an established antipsychotic agent in a single bilayer tablet.
Recently, researchers presented data from the ENLIGHTEN-2 trial, a six-month study evaluating the weight gain profile of ALKS 3831 compared to olanzapine in 561 patients with stable schizophrenia.
“The favorable outcome of today’s joint advisory committee meeting represents an important milestone for the patients, clinicians and families who may benefit from new medicines for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder,” Craig Hopkinson, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of R&D at Alkermes, said in a statement. The personal testimonies shared during today’s open public hearing reinforced the need for treatment approaches that consider patients’ overall mental and physical health. The ALKS 3831 development program is part of our ongoing commitment to develop new therapeutic options for adults living with serious mental illness.”
There is currently a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of Nov. 15.