BACKGROUND: Although difficulties in applying risk-adjustment measures to mental health populations are increasingly evident, a model designed specifically for patients with psychiatric disorders has never been developed. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop and validate a case-mix classification system, the "PsyCMS," for predicting concurrent and future mental health (MH) and substance abuse (SA) healthcare costs and utilization. SUBJECTS: Subjects included 914,225 veterans who used Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare services during fiscal year 1999 (FY99) with any MH/SA diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 290.00-312.99, 316.00-316.99). METHODS: We derived diagnostic categories from ICD-CM codes using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition definitions, clinical input, and empiric analyses. Weighted least-squares regression models were developed for concurrent (FY99) and prospective (FY00) MH/SA costs and utilization. We compared the predictive ability of the PsyCMS with several case-mix systems, including adjusted clinical groups, diagnostic cost groups, and the chronic illness and disability payment system. Model performance was evaluated using R-squares and mean absolute prediction errors (MAPEs). RESULTS: Patients with MH/SA diagnoses comprised 29.6% of individuals seen in the VA during FY99. The PsyCMS accounted for a distinct proportion of the variance in concurrent and prospective MH/SA costs (R=0.11 and 0.06, respectively), outpatient MH/SA utilization (R=0.25 and 0.07), and inpatient MH/SA utilization (R=0.13 and 0.05). The PsyCMS performed better than other case-mix systems examined with slightly higher R-squares and lower MAPEs. CONCLUSIONS: The PsyCMS has clinically meaningful categories, demonstrates good predictive ability for modeling concurrent and prospective MH/SA costs and utilization, and thus represents a useful method for predicting mental health costs and utilization.
BACKGROUND: Although difficulties in applying risk-adjustment measures to mental health populations are increasingly evident, a model designed specifically for patients with psychiatric disorders has never been developed. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop and validate a case-mix classification system, the "PsyCMS," for predicting concurrent and future mental health (MH) and substance abuse (SA) healthcare costs and utilization. SUBJECTS: Subjects included 914,225 veterans who used Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare services during fiscal year 1999 (FY99) with any MH/SA diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 290.00-312.99, 316.00-316.99). METHODS: We derived diagnostic categories from ICD-CM codes using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition definitions, clinical input, and empiric analyses. Weighted least-squares regression models were developed for concurrent (FY99) and prospective (FY00) MH/SA costs and utilization. We compared the predictive ability of the PsyCMS with several case-mix systems, including adjusted clinical groups, diagnostic cost groups, and the chronic illness and disability payment system. Model performance was evaluated using R-squares and mean absolute prediction errors (MAPEs). RESULTS:Patients with MH/SA diagnoses comprised 29.6% of individuals seen in the VA during FY99. The PsyCMS accounted for a distinct proportion of the variance in concurrent and prospective MH/SA costs (R=0.11 and 0.06, respectively), outpatient MH/SA utilization (R=0.25 and 0.07), and inpatient MH/SA utilization (R=0.13 and 0.05). The PsyCMS performed better than other case-mix systems examined with slightly higher R-squares and lower MAPEs. CONCLUSIONS: The PsyCMS has clinically meaningful categories, demonstrates good predictive ability for modeling concurrent and prospective MH/SA costs and utilization, and thus represents a useful method for predicting mental health costs and utilization.
Authors: Chiao-Wen Lan; David A Fiellin; Declan T Barry; Kendall J Bryant; Adam J Gordon; E Jennifer Edelman; Julie R Gaither; Stephen A Maisto; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2015-12-22
Authors: Todd H Wagner; Anjali Upadhyay; Elizabeth Cowgill; Theodore Stefos; Eileen Moran; Steven M Asch; Peter Almenoff Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Amy K Rosen; Sharmila Chatterjee; Mark E Glickman; Avron Spiro; Pradipta Seal; Susan V Eisen Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Amy K Rosen; Todd H Wagner; Warren B P Pettey; Michael Shwartz; Qi Chen; Jeanie Lo; William J O'Brien; Megan E Vanneman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Wenna Xi; Samprit Banerjee; Robert B Penfold; Gregory E Simon; George S Alexopoulos; Jyotishman Pathak Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: John R Blosnich; Mary C Marsiglio; Melissa E Dichter; Shasha Gao; Adam J Gordon; Jillian C Shipherd; Michael R Kauth; George R Brown; Michael J Fine Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kathleen Carey; Maria E Montez-Rath; Amy K Rosen; Cindy L Christiansen; Susan Loveland; Susan L Ettner Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Marcia Valenstein; Daniel Eisenberg; John F McCarthy; Karen L Austin; Dara Ganoczy; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Kara Zivin; John D Piette; Mark Olfson; Frederic C Blow Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Edwin S Wong; Jean Yoon; Rebecca I Piegari; Ann-Marie M Rosland; Stephan D Fihn; Evelyn T Chang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 6.473