Effects of an antipsychotic restriction policy in a veteran population

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Cupples ◽  
Cynthia A. Mascarenas ◽  
Troy A. Moore

Introduction: Recent trials have failed to demonstrate differences in efficacy between first generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). To reduce costs, many health care systems have restricted the availability of SGAs through use of prior authorizations. Restrictions for the off-label use of SGAs and the use of dual-antipsychotic therapy have also been implemented in many health care systems. At the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS), a restricted drug request (RDR) method has been implemented to manage costs and improve patient safety. Risperidone, due to its lower cost and equal efficacy, is the first-line option of SGAs. If one wishes to prescribe an SGA other than risperidone, an RDR is submitted and reviewed by Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) pharmacists. Since the introduction of these policies at the STVHCS, the impact of the RDR has not been assessed. Rationale: The primary aim of this study was to determine the effects of the RDR policy on the care of STVHCS veterans as evidenced by changes in hospitalization rates of veterans with a denied request for an SGA due to initial criterion failure. Secondary outcomes included: impact of antipsychotic RDR denial on mental health as evidenced by changes in no-shows and cancellations for follow-up psychiatric appointments, psychiatric emergency department visits, presence of suicidal ideation, change in weight, hemoglobin A1c, number of psychotropic medications prescribed, and extrapyramidal symptoms. Methods: A retrospective chart review of veterans denied an initial SGA request was conducted from 3 months prior to denial to 3 months post request denial (index date). Data collected included: patient demographics, indication for SGA request, reason for SGA denial, length of time for request evaluation, number of psychiatric hospitalizations, number of no-shows and cancellations for mental health appointments, number of psychiatric emergency department visits, number of reports of suicidal ideation or attempts, weight, hemoglobin A1c lab results, presence of extrapyramidal symptoms, and number of prescribed psychotropic medications. The health care utilization data collected pre- and post-index date, were compared. Results were analyzed using Fisher's Exact, 2-tailed standardized t-tests, and descriptive statistics appropriately matched to data type. Results: Results for both primary and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. No differences were found in the number of veterans hospitalized pre- versus post-index date [0/33 (0%) versus 2/33 (6%), p=0.492.] The most requested indication for an SGA was PTSD [22/33 (66.7%)] and the most frequently denied SGA was quetiapine [16/33 (48.5%)]. Conclusions: Although outcomes were not statistically significant, several valuable conclusions were drawn from this research. Positive outcomes from a RDR policy were seen by the limitations placed on inappropriate medication prescribing. Also, it was observed that the number of approvals for SGAs was almost three times higher than denials. A subsequent finding from this research is the apparent lack of metabolic monitoring for veterans prescribed SGAs. Further research on these observations, as well as conducting a pharmacoeconomic analysis on the RDR policy, would also be beneficial information for health care providers.

2020 ◽  
Vol 180 (10) ◽  
pp. 1328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly M. Jeffery ◽  
Gail D’Onofrio ◽  
Hyung Paek ◽  
Timothy F. Platts-Mills ◽  
William E. Soares ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-303
Author(s):  
Anthony L Pillay ◽  
Anne L Kramers-Olen

The COVID-19 pandemic heralded challenges that were both significant and unfamiliar, placing inordinate burdens on health care systems, economies, and the collective psyche of citizens. The pandemic underscored the tenuous intersections between public mental health care, politics, economics, and psychosocial capital. In South Africa, the inadequacies of the public health system have been laid bare, and the disproportionate privileges of the private health care system exposed. This article critically considers government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the psychosocial correlates of lockdown, politics, corruption, and public mental health policy in South Africa.


Author(s):  
Sofie Bäärnhielm ◽  
Mike Mösko ◽  
Aina Basilier Vaage

In this chapter, we discuss the pros and cons of separate versus integrated services for immigrants and refugees. Our discussion is based on experiences from three high-income countries: Germany, Norway, and Sweden. All three, regardless of general public insurance systems covering healthcare costs, have barriers to mental health care for migrants and refugees. Additionally, their mental health care systems are unaccustomed to responding to cultural variety in patients’ expression of distress, explanatory models of illness, consequences of pre-migratory difficulties, and post-migratory adversities. Attention to post-traumatic stress and social determinants of mental health is also restricted. To bridge barriers and improve access to mental health care for immigrants and refugees, we will comment on the importance of adapting care, training of professionals, and outreach programmes. Also emphasized is the value of culturally sensitive mental health-promoting strategies to improve mental health literacy and reduce stigma among immigrants and refugees.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Lauritzen

This article addresses the issue of parental mental illness. The theoretical background and rationale for developing new routines to change clinical practice is described, suggesting a policy change in which a child focus is implemented in adult mental health services. Furthermore, proposed strategies that have the potential of being effective within existing health care systems are discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Kates

For 20 years mental health and primary care providers across Canada have been working collaboratively together to improve access to care, provider skills, and patient experience. The new strategic plan of the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) offers many opportunities for collaborative care to play a role in the transformation of Canada’s mental health systems. To assist the plan, this paper presents principles underlying successful projects and ways that mental health and primary care services can work together more collaboratively, including integrating mental health providers in primary care. It integrates these concepts into a Canadian Model for Collaborative Mental Health Care that can guide future expansion of these approaches, and suggests ways in which better collaboration can address wider issues facing all of Canada’s health care systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document