Julie M. Wood, PhD Consultant Medical Liaison, Neuroscience Lilly USA, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana
Sanjay Gupta, MD Clinical Professor Departments of Psychiatry SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse, New York SUNY Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Buffalo, New York Member of Current Psychiatry Editorial Board
Disclosures The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.
Consider these brief, easy-to-use behavioral health rating scales to guide diagnosis, monitor care
In the current health care environment, there is an increasing demand for objective assessment of disease states.1 This is particularly apparent in psychiatry, where documentation of outcomes lags that of other areas of medicine.
In 2012, the additional health care costs incurred by persons with mental health diagnoses were estimated to be $293 billion among commercially insured, Medicaid, and Medicare beneficiaries in the United States—a figure that is 273% higher than the cost for those without psychiatric diagnoses.2 Psychiatric and medical illnesses can be so tightly linked that accurate diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders becomes essential to control medical illnesses. It is not surprising that there is increased scrutiny to the ways in which psychiatric care can be objectively assessed and monitored, and payers such as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) increasingly require objective documentation of disease state improvement for payment.3
Support for objective assessment of disease derives from the collaborative care model. This model is designed to better integrate psychiatric and primary care by (among other practices) establishing the Patient-Centered Medical Home and emphasizing screening and monitoring patient-reported outcomes over time to assess treatment response.4 This approach, which is endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association, is associated with significant improvements in outcomes compared with usual care.5 It tracks a patient’s progress using validated clinical rating scales and other screening tools (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] for depression), an approach that is analogous to how patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are monitored by hemoglobin A1c laboratory tests.6 An increasingly extensive body of research supports the impact of this approach on treatment. A 2012 Cochrane Review associated collaborative care with significant improvements in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual treatment.7
Despite these findings, a recent Kennedy Forum brief asserts that behavioral health is characterized by a “lack of systematic measurement to determine whether patients are responding to treatment.”8 That same brief points to the many easy-to-administer and validated rating scales and other screening tools that can reliably measure the frequency and severity of psychiatric symptoms over time, and likens the lack of their use as “equivalent to treating high blood pressure without using a blood pressure cuff to measure if a patient’s blood pressure is improving.”8 It is estimated that only 18% of psychiatrists and 11% of psychologists administer them routinely.9,10 This lack of use denies clinicians important information that can help detect deterioration or lack of improvement in their patients.