Dataset Information

Assessing Primary Care Contributions to Behavioral Health: A Cross-sectional Study Using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess primary care contributions to behavioral health in addressing unmet mental healthcare needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Secondary data analysis of 2016 to 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey of non-institutionalized US adults. We performed bivariate analysis to estimate the number and percentage of office-based visits and prescription medications for depression and anxiety disorders, any mental illness (AMI), and severe mental illness (AMI) by physician specialty (primary care, psychiatry, and subspecialty) and medical complexity. We ran summary statistics to compare the differences in sociodemographic factors between patients with AMI by seeing a primary care physician versus those seeing a psychiatrist. Binary logistic regression models were estimated to examine the likelihood of having a primary care visit versus psychiatrist visit for a given mental illness.

Results

There were 394 023 office-based visits in the analysis sample. AMI patients seeing primary care physician were thrice as likely to report 1 or more chronic conditions compared to those seeing psychiatrist. Among patients with a diagnosis of depression or anxiety and AMI the proportion of primary care visits ([38% vs 32%, P < .001], [39% vs 34%, P < .001] respectively), and prescriptions ([50% vs 40%, P < .001], [47% vs 44%, P < .05] respectively) were higher compared to those for psychiatric care. Patients diagnosed with SMI had a more significant percentage of prescriptions and visits to a psychiatrist than primary care physicians.

Conclusion

Primary care physicians provided most of the care for depression, anxiety, and AMI. Almost a third of the care for SMI and a quarter of the SMI prescriptions occurred in primary care settings. Our study underscores the importance of supporting access to primary care given primary care physicians' critical role in combating the COVID-19 related rise in mental health burden.

SUBMITTER: Jetty A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8202306 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has greatly increased telehealth usage in the United States. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face barriers to health care, which may be mitigated when providers work with professional interpreters. However, telehealth may exacerbate disparities if clinicians are not trained to work with interpreters in that setting. Although medical students are now involved in telehealth on an unprecedented scale, no educational innovations have been published that focus on digital care across language barriers.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate advanced medical students' confidence in caring for patients with LEP during telehealth encounters.MethodsWe administered a written survey to medical students on clinical clerkships at one US institution in August and September 2020. We assessed students' overall confidence in working with interpreters; confidence in performing 8 clinical tasks during in-person versus telehealth encounters; and frequency of performing 5 different clinical tasks with patients with LEP compared to English-speaking patients during in-person versus telehealth encounters. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and chi-square tests were used to compare confidence and task performance frequency, respectively, for patients with LEP versus English-speaking patients during telehealth encounters. Students were also asked to identify barriers to care for patients with LEP. The free-response questions were qualitatively analyzed using open coding to identify key themes.ResultsOf 300 medical students surveyed, 121 responded. Furthermore, 72 students answered >50% of questions and were included in the analyses. Compared to caring for patients with LEP during in-person encounters, respondents were less confident in working with interpreters (P<.001), developing trust (P<.001), identifying agenda (P=.005), eliciting preferences for diabetes management (P=.01), and empowering patients in lifestyle modifications (P=.04) during telehealth encounters. During both in-person and telehealth encounters, approximately half of students (40%-78%) reported engaging less frequently in every clinical task with patients with LEP and this was as low as 22% (13/59) for some tasks. Students identified these key barriers to care for patients with LEP: time pressure, interpretation quality and access, technical difficulties, cultural differences, and difficulty with rapport building.ConclusionsAdvanced medical students were significantly less confident caring for patients with LEP via telehealth than in person. Broader implementation of training around navigating language barriers is necessary for telehealth care, which has rapidly expanded in the United States. Our study identified potential key areas for curricular focus, including creating patient-centered agendas and management plans within the constraints of virtual settings. These developments must take place simultaneously with systems-level improvements in interpreter infrastructure to ensure high-quality care for linguistically diverse patients.

Project description:There is a growing emphasis on the need to engage patients in order to improve the quality of health care and improve health outcomes. However, we are still lacking a comprehensive understanding on how different measures of patient experiences interact with one another or relate to health status. This study takes a network perspective to 1) study the associations between patient characteristics and patient experience in health care and 2) identify factors that could be prioritized to improve health status.This study uses data from the two-year panels from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) initiated between 2004 and 2011 in the United States. The 88 variables regarding patient health and experience with health care were identified through the MEPS documentation. Sex, age, race/ethnicity, and years of education were also included for analysis. The bnlearn package within R (v3.20) was used to 1) identify the structure of the network of variables, 2) assess the model fit of candidate algorithms, 3) cross-validate the network, and 4) fit conditional probabilities with the given structure.There were 51,023 MEPS interviewees aged 18 to 85 years (mean = 44, 95% CI = 43.9 to 44.2), with years of education ranging from 1 to 19 (mean = 7.4, 95% CI = 7.40 to 7.46). Among all, 55% and 74% were female and white, respectively. There were nine networks identified and 17 variables not linked to others, including death in the second years, sex, entry years to the MEPS, and relations of proxies. The health status in the second years was directly linked to that in the first years. The health care ratings were associated with how often professionals listened to them and whether professionals' explanation was understandable.It is feasible to construct Bayesian networks with information on patient characteristics and experiences in health care. Network models help to identify significant predictors of health care quality ratings. With temporal relationships established, the structure of the variables can be meaningful for health policy researchers, who search for one or a few key priorities to initiate interventions or health care quality improvement programs.