David Rudoler1, Claire de Oliveira2, Joyce Cheng2, Paul Kurdyak2. 1. Institute for Mental Health Policy Research (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng, Kurdyak), Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Mental Health and Addictions Research Program (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng, Kurdyak), Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine (Kurdyak) and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. david.rudoler@uoit.ca. 2. Institute for Mental Health Policy Research (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng, Kurdyak), Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Mental Health and Addictions Research Program (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng, Kurdyak), Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine (Kurdyak) and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Rudoler, de Oliveira, Cheng), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In September 2011, the government of Ontario implemented payment incentives to encourage the delivery of community-based psychiatric care to patients after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission and to those with a recent suicide attempt. We evaluated whether these incentives affected supply of psychiatric services and access to care. METHODS: We used administrative data to capture monthly observations for all psychiatrists who practised in Ontario between September 2009 and August 2014. We conducted interrupted time-series analyses of psychiatrist-level and patient-level data to evaluate whether the incentives affected the quantity of eligible outpatient services delivered and the likelihood of receiving follow-up care. RESULTS: Among 1921 psychiatrists evaluated, implementation of the incentive payments was not associated with increased provision of follow-up visits after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission (mean change in visits per month per psychiatrist 0.0099, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.0989 to 0.1206; change in trend 0.0032, 95% CI -0.0035 to 0.0095) or after a suicide attempt (mean change -0.0910, 95% CI -0.1885 to 0.0026; change in trend 0.0102, 95% CI 0.0045 to 0.0159). There was also no change in the probability that patients received follow-up care after discharge (change in level -0.0079, 95% CI -0.0223 to 0.0061; change in trend 0.0007, 95% CI -0.0003 to 0.0016) or after a suicide attempt (change in level 0.0074, 95% CI -0.0094 to 0.0366; change in trend 0.0006, 95% CI -0.0007 to 0.0022). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that implementation of the incentives did not increase access to follow-up care for patients after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission or after a suicide attempt, and the incentives had no effect on supply of psychiatric services. Further research to guide design and implementation of more effective incentives is warranted.
BACKGROUND: In September 2011, the government of Ontario implemented payment incentives to encourage the delivery of community-based psychiatric care to patients after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission and to those with a recent suicide attempt. We evaluated whether these incentives affected supply of psychiatric services and access to care. METHODS: We used administrative data to capture monthly observations for all psychiatrists who practised in Ontario between September 2009 and August 2014. We conducted interrupted time-series analyses of psychiatrist-level and patient-level data to evaluate whether the incentives affected the quantity of eligible outpatient services delivered and the likelihood of receiving follow-up care. RESULTS: Among 1921 psychiatrists evaluated, implementation of the incentive payments was not associated with increased provision of follow-up visits after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission (mean change in visits per month per psychiatrist 0.0099, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.0989 to 0.1206; change in trend 0.0032, 95% CI -0.0035 to 0.0095) or after a suicide attempt (mean change -0.0910, 95% CI -0.1885 to 0.0026; change in trend 0.0102, 95% CI 0.0045 to 0.0159). There was also no change in the probability that patients received follow-up care after discharge (change in level -0.0079, 95% CI -0.0223 to 0.0061; change in trend 0.0007, 95% CI -0.0003 to 0.0016) or after a suicide attempt (change in level 0.0074, 95% CI -0.0094 to 0.0366; change in trend 0.0006, 95% CI -0.0007 to 0.0022). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that implementation of the incentives did not increase access to follow-up care for patients after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission or after a suicide attempt, and the incentives had no effect on supply of psychiatric services. Further research to guide design and implementation of more effective incentives is warranted.
Authors: Bryan R Garner; Susan H Godley; Michael L Dennis; Brooke D Hunter; Christin M L Bair; Mark D Godley Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2012-10
Authors: Anthony Scott; Peter Sivey; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Lisa Willenberg; Lucio Naccarella; John Furler; Doris Young Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-09-07
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Ya-Fen Chan; Erin Hafer; Jessica Knaster; Anne Shields; Diane Powers; Richard C Veith Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nils Gutacker; Anne R Mason; Tony Kendrick; Maria Goddard; Hugh Gravelle; Simon Gilbody; Lauren Aylott; June Wainwright; Rowena Jacobs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Paul Kurdyak; Juveria Zaheer; André Carvalho; Claire de Oliveira; Michael Lebenbaum; Andrew S Wilton; Mark Fefergrad; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-03-10
Authors: John A Staples; Guiping Liu; Jeffrey R Brubacher; Ahmer Karimuddin; Jason M Sutherland Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Abhimanyu Sud; Michelle L A Nelson; Darren K Cheng; Alana Armas; Kirk Foat; Michelle Greiver; Fardous Hosseiny; Joel Katz; Rahim Moineddin; Benoit H Mulsant; Ronnie I Newman; Leon Rivlin; Akshya Vasudev; Ross Upshur Journal: Trials Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279