Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Jun 2;72(11):1301–1310. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000768

Improving physical health among people with serious mental illness: The role of the specialty mental health sector

Emma E McGinty 1, Rachel Presskreischer 2, Joshua Breslau 3, Jonathan Brown 4, Marisa Domino 5, Benjamin Druss 6, Marcela Horvitz-Lennon 7, Karly Murphy 8, Harold Pincus 9, Gail L Daumit 10
PMCID: PMC8570967  NIHMSID: NIHMS1673199  PMID: 34074150

Abstract

People with serious mental illness experience 10–20 years excess mortality, driven by undertreated physical health conditions. In the U.S., there is growing interest in models integrating physical health care delivery, management, and/or coordination into specialty mental health programs, sometimes called “reverse integration.” In November 2019, the Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness convened a forum of 25 experts to discuss the current state of the evidence on specialty mental health system-based integrated care models and to identify priorities for future research, policy, and practice. This manuscript summarizes the group’s conclusions. Key research priorities included identifying the active ingredients within multi-component integrated care models and development and validation of integration performance metrics. Key policy and practice recommendations included new financing mechanisms and strategies to build workforce and data capacity. Forum participants also highlighted an overarching need to address socioeconomic risks contributing to excess mortality among adults with serious mental illness.

Introduction

People with serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder die 10–20 years earlier than the overall population.1–4 This excess mortality is driven by comorbid physical health conditions including cardiovascular disease and cancer.2,5,6 People with serious mental illness also experience elevated rates of and morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, including HIV and hepatitis;7 emerging evidence suggests this group is also disproportionately adversely affected by COVID-19.8,9 Many people with serious mental illness, particularly those enrolled in Medicaid, do not receive guideline-concordant medical care physical health conditions.10,11

Several integrated general medical and mental health care models are being tried in the U.S., though they are not implemented in in a systematic or standardized manner. In a fully integrated system, general medical and specialty mental health providers are employed by the same organization, co-located, use the same medical record and other health information systems, and practice team-based care. Due to the historical separation of the U.S. general medical and specialty mental health systems, in practice integrated care is often based in one setting or the other, with either a primary care (or, less commonly, another general medical setting) or a specialty mental health organization leading integration efforts. Regardless of which sector leads, integrated care operates along a multidimensional continuum ranging from basic care coordination to comprehensive, co-located, team-based care.12,13 This continuum spans multiple domains related to both organizational structure and culture. Organizations seeking to integrate care may move along the continuum at differential rates within domains, for example a scenario in which an organization has no co-located services but has an organizational culture that is highly supportive of integration.14

The majority of extant research has focused on primary care-based integration models such as Collaborative Care.15–17 or the Patient Centered Medical Home.18–22 Less research has examined specialty mental health-based integration models, which are often lumped under the umbrella term “behavioral health homes” but in reality encompass a wide range of structures and activities.23 This type of model has grown in recent years, in part due to SAMHSA’s Primary Behavioral Health Care Integration (PBHCI) program24 and the Affordable Care Act Medicaid health home waiver, which 17 U.S. states and D.C. have used to integrate physical health care delivery, management, and/or coordination into specialty mental health programs.25 In November 2019, the Johns Hopkins University ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness convened a forum of 25 experts to discuss the current state of the evidence on specialty mental health system-based integrated care models and to identify priorities for future research, policy, and practice that would advance an agenda to guide future implementation of effective models. This piece summarizes the group’s conclusions.

Forum participants included researchers and practitioners who have led study and/or implementation of mental health system-based integrated care models in the U.S. Fifteen individual research experts from five universities and three large research think tanks were represented. Ten total practitioner experts representing two state Medicaid agencies leading relevant integration initiatives; two national mental health advocacy organizations; and two community health care organizations implementing primary care integration in their clinics participated in the forum. As our focus was on developing a U.S. policy agenda, we limited the participants to those conducting research or practicing in the U.S., though the group considered evidence from non-U.S. settings. The forum followed a semi-structured discussion process led by this manuscript’s lead author. The forum was organized into three sessions focused on research, policy and practice followed by a final concluding session. Each session began with a short panel presentation, given by 3–4 of the experts participating in the forum, summarizing the current research/policy/practice landscape. Panel presentations were followed by moderated discussion guided by a semi-structured protocol, which was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. The concluding session summarized areas of consensus from the research, policy, and practice sessions and produced the blueprint for the conclusions reported in this piece.

Evidence summary

Three randomized clinical trials (RCT) have tested U.S. specialty mental health-based integrated care models.26–28 In two of the models tested, a general medical nurse practitioner and nurse care manager were co-located at the mental health clinic and led delivery, coordination, and management of physical health care for people with serious mental illness.27,28 These models led to increases in primary care visits, receipt of preventive medical care, quality of cardiometabolic care, and self-reported physical health, but not improved clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up. A third RCT tested a model in which a nurse and a health coach delivered tailored counseling, care coordination and care management to clients with serious mental illness attending one of four outpatient psychiatric rehabilitation programs and affiliated mental health clinics.29 Trials results showed that this model reduced cardiovascular risk, measured by the Framingham Risk Score, at 18 months.

Replication of these promising clinical trial results in real-world specialty mental health settings has to date proven elusive. Integrated care models implemented in outpatient mental health clinics and psychiatric rehabilitation programs have increased primary care access as well as screening and monitoring of physical health conditions among people with serious mental illness.23,30 But, real-world models have had very limited or no effects on quality of physical health care or physical health outcomes.23,30 Importantly, a recent evaluation of the PBHCI program is pending release by SAMHSA; this evaluation will provide more comprehensive insight into the program’s effects on physical health outcomes than earlier PHBCI studies.31 These findings are likely driven by a combination of factors, including the use of low-intensity integrated care interventions and implementation challenges.

Studies have identified multiple barriers to implementation of specialty mental health-based integrated care models, including inadequate financial and other types of incentives to implement coordinated, population-based care; lack of mechanisms to hold behavioral health and general medical providers jointly accountable for the overall health of people with serious mental illness; limited health IT capacity, particularly lack of adaptable shared electronic health records (EHRs) appropriate for both general medical and mental health providers,32 and lack of risk stratification tools, e.g., databases that can be easily queried to identify patients with uncontrolled diabetes; insufficient staffing capacity, including both understaffing and lack of needed training among existing staff; and, in models without co-location, challenges engaging external medical providers.23,33–39

There are also important differences between specialty mental health-based and primary care-based integration models. In most behavioral health home programs in the U.S., prescribing remains siloed, with specialty mental health providers prescribing psychotropic medications and general medical providers prescribing medications for physical health conditions.23,33,35,40–42 In contrast, in primary care-based models the primary care physician often prescribes both types of medications.43 Relative to the privately-insured populations in which many Collaborative Care models have been implemented,44,45 people with serious mental illness have more social and economic problems compounding their care needs.46–50 Where primary care-based models typically focus on treatment for one psychiatric disorder, often depression, specialty mental health-based models focus on a broad range of physical health conditions and also often incorporate health behaviors.45,51,52

Most studies have examined how general medical-based models affect mental health outcomes and how mental health-based models affect physical health outcomes, but there is evidence indicating that both types of models can improve both categories of outcomes.15,20,53–55 While primary care-based models have focused predominantly on anxiety and mild/moderate depression, they have also been shown to benefit people with serious mental illness.20,56,57 A recent clinical trial found that the PRIMROSE intervention, designed to help general practitioners manage cardiovascular risk in serious mental illness, had no effects on total cholesterol but did reduce psychiatric admissions.58 Future research should consider whether certain subgroups of people with serious mental illness are better served or whether certain interventions are best delivered by models based in one sector over the other.

Research Priorities

The group of experts at the November 2019 Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center forum identified five priorities for future research (Box 1).

Box 1.

Specialty mental health-based integrated care models: Research priorities

1. Identify and unpack “key ingredients”: Determine which elements of multi-component integrated care models lead to improved care and health outcomes, and their mediating or moderating relationships with one another.
2. Develop strategies for measuring fidelity: Create and validate strategies for measuring fidelity to the “key ingredients” of specialty mental health-based integrated care models.
3. Further develop and evaluate performance metrics: Develop performance metrics associated with improved health outcomes among people with serious mental illness that can be applied in quality improvement, accountability and incentive programs.
4. Evaluate strategies to scale-up evidence-based interventions: Test financing and implementation strategies to support scale-up of interventions shown to improve health outcomes among people with serious mental illness within the organizational structure of specialty mental health-based integrated care models.
Open in a new tab

Identify Key Ingredients

The specialty mental health-based integrated care models shown to improve care access, quality, and health outcomes among people with serious mental illness in clinical trials include multiple interacting components.26–28 This complexity is a barrier to high-fidelity scale-up in often under-resourced public mental health settings. Simplifying integrated care models and disseminating the most effective aspects of these models will support implementation, but to date it is unclear which model components are the “key ingredients” for success. This issue is not unique to specialty mental health-based integrated care models; there is also a need to identify the active ingredients of care coordination and management interventions shown to be effective at reducing cardiovascular risk in the general population.59,60 Identifying active ingredients in general population models would allow the field to then consider which features need to be adapted for serious mental illness.

We suggest that the Continuum-Based Framework for Advancing Integration of General Health in Behavioral Health Settings13 can be used as a starting point for delineating ingredients. The eight framework domains are: screening, referral to care and follow-up; evidence-based care for preventive interventions and common general medical conditions; ongoing care management; self-management support that is adapted to culture, socioeconomic and life experience of patients; multi-disciplinary team (including consumers) with dedicated time to provide general health care; Systematic quality improvement; linkages with community/social services that improve general health and mitigate environmental risk factors; sustainability, with a focus on financing mechanisms. For each domain, the framework lays out preliminary, intermediate, and advanced activities. Identification of key ingredients could also be guided by other frameworks delineating stages of implementation, such as the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC).61

To gather preliminary evidence on ingredient effectiveness, this framework could be retrospectively applied to models tested in existing studies. Meta-regression, a regression technique in which the outcome variable is the effect estimate of an intervention and the explanatory variables are characteristics of the intervention,62 could then be used to explore whether specific ingredients are associated with improved outcomes and whether certain ingredients appear to influence some outcomes more than others.45 Future evaluations of specialty mental health-based integration models should locate the ingredients of their models within this framework at the outset to make the ‘black-box’ of integrated care more transparent. Specialty mental health-based integration models of varying complexity also need to be rigorously tested head-to-head in comparative effectiveness trials, which should be powered to identify mediating and moderating relationships among model ingredients and have sufficient duration for the new care processes to influence patient outcomes.

Develop strategies for measuring fidelity

Poor fidelity is one likely driver of the ‘voltage drop’ phenomenon, in which interventions shown to be effective in clinical trials are less effective in real-world settings.. Clinical trial staff carefully monitor and adjust implementation to ensure that model components are implemented as designed. In real-world settings, the integrated care model is often one of many competing priorities and fidelity is not typically monitored; as a result, components of the model are often under-implemented, significantly adapted, or not implemented at all. Development of valid fidelity monitoring strategies that are feasible to carry out in real-world settings is needed in order to bring effective integration models to scale and also assist in developing metrics for quality improvement and accountability. The stages of implementation completion tool is one potential model.63 Fidelity measurement should focus on the model ingredients identified as key to improving outcomes.

Further develop and evaluate performance metrics

U.S. healthcare financing is increasingly tied to quality benchmarks through value-based payment models such as global budgeting and accountable care.64,65 Performance metrics have the potential to incentivize implementation of evidence-based integrated care for people with serious mental illness, but limited measures focused on physical health in serious mental illness exist: the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) currently includes three relevant measures: Diabetes Screening for People with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who are Using Antipsychotic Medications; Diabetes Monitoring for People with Diabetes and Schizophrenia; and Cardiovascular Monitoring for People with Cardiovascular Disease and Schizophrenia.66 In a literature review and Delphi process of existing integration measures, only two of 43 measure concepts were classified as having high importance, validity, and feasibility by a broad group of stakeholders: general medical screening and follow-up in behavioral health settings and mental health screening at general medical healthcare settings.67 While 31 additional measures were deemed important, none were sufficiently valid or feasible to be considered ready for implementation. Future research is needed to determine which performance metrics are associated with improved care and health outcomes among people with serious mental illness, and to develop and evaluate strategies to implement valid measures. Building health IT capacity in specialty mental health programs will be critical to successfully collecting performance metrics that provide meaningful information while reducing data collection burden; building this capacity is a significant undertaking for mental health clinics that often requires external financial and technical support.68 Building on the prior two recommendations, performance metrics indicating successful implementation of key model ingredients are one strategy for measuring fidelity.

Evaluate strategies to sustain and scale-up evidence-based interventions:

Tailored interventions shown to improve physical health among people with serious mental illness have been shown in RCTs to reduce obesity, tobacco smoking, and cardiovascular risk among people with serious mental illness,26,29,69–73 but to date these interventions have not been sustained long-term following clinical trials or widely scaled.. Implementation research, likely in the form of hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials,74 is needed to test strategies (for example, provider training, facilitation, coaching, audit-and-feedback) to support adoption, high-fidelity implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based physical health interventions for people with serious mental illness within integrated care models.

Cost-effectiveness research can also support scale-up, as decision-makers frequently place high value on understanding cost-effectiveness. Specialty mental health-based integration models face the same “cost-effectiveness conundrum”75 as primary care-based models: they require significant investments in staff and data infrastructure and, by design, identify previously unmet patient needs requiring additional services. Understanding the tradeoffs between costs and effectiveness is critical to inform policymaker decision making. If integrated care models are costlier in the short-run but lower healthcare utilization and/or improve patient outcomes in the long run, the trade-off may be attractive to policymakers given that people with serious mental illness are likely to require publicly financed healthcare for most of their lives. If integrated models can significantly improve physical health and reduced premature mortality among people with serious mental illness, increased costs – even over the long-term – may be acceptable to policymakers. While integrated care models may generate cost-savings through reduced psychiatric hospitalizations,76 psychiatric hospitalization rates have declined over the past several decades, decreasing the potential for further reductions.77,78 The next wave of cost-effectiveness research needs to consider potential savings from personal health costs including reduced morbidity and mortality and reduced care-giving costs as well as potential savings from non-health sectors including labor and criminal justice.

These research priorities will need to be carried out through collaborations between researchers and health systems. The need to understand and tailor integration interventions to real-world healthcare settings is an integral component of all of these research priorities. Collaborations between researchers and large integrated health systems or consortiums of systems such as those used in studies of real-world implementation of Collaborative Care79 are critical to the pursuit of this research agenda.

Policy and Practice Priorities

Forum participants identified four policy and practice priorities (Box 2).

Box 2.

Specialty mental health-based integrated care models: Policy and practice priorities

1. Improve financing models: Existing evidence suggests that financing models should incentivize two-way collaboration between specialty mental health programs and general medical providers; incentivize shared accountability to outcomes; and support increased provider time across a the broad array of providers needed to work with people with serious mental illness who have complex needs.
2. Build workforce capacity: Address mental health provider shortages through long-term financial incentives and shorter-term approaches including task shifting, practice reform, and improved provider training.
3. Build data capacity: Increase data sharing capacity across the general medical and specialty mental health systems through integrated EMRs; build data systems to support population health management; enhance public health surveillance data capacity through systems to track key outcomes in the population with serious mental illness at the state and national levels.
4. Create a “behavioral health home” recognition program: Create a program parallel to the Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH) recognition program that recognizes “behavioral health homes” implementing key ingredients shown to improve care quality and health outcomes among people with serious mental illness in specialty mental health-based integrated care models.
Open in a new tab

Improve financing models:

Specialty mental health-based integration models have primarily been funded through (unsustainable) grant programs and modest per-member per-month insurance reimbursements.23 Implementers have noted that payments are too low to cover the structural costs associated with care integration and that that multi-payer financing mechanisms are needed.23,33,35,36 In addition, one-sided reimbursement, in which the entire payment flows to the mental health program (or, in primary care-based models, to the general medical program80), has been identified as an implementation barrier; with a one-sided payment mechanism, there is no financial incentive for external general medical providers to work with the specialty mental health program to coordinate physical health care for people with serious mental illness.33,40 This is also a barrier in general medical system-based models. For example, the fact that reimbursement for CMS behavioral health integration codes flows entirely to the general medical provider, who then must set up contractual, ledger-transfer, or other strategies to pay behavioral health partners, has been cited as an implementation barrier. 80,81

Potentially promising alternatives include hub-and-spoke82 and accountable care models83, though the available evidence suggests that accountable care organizations (ACOs) are unlikely to improve care for people with serious mental illness without tying shared savings and losses to valid performance metrics.84,85 In the absence of valid integration performance metrics, the ‘segmentation strategy,’ in which existing metrics of physical health care quality are assessed separately for persons with serious mental illness, is a potentially feasible alternative.67,86 For example, tobacco use is a leading cause of cardiovascular risk and premature mortality in serious mental illness.2 Holding mental health providers accountable for recommending guideline-concordant cessation medications could be operationalized through application of existing HEDIS measures87 to the serious mental illness population. This strategy ties in well with population segmentation, a core approach in population health management in which health systems use data tools to identify and monitor groups at high risk of adverse outcomes.88

Build workforce capacity:

Lack of workforce capacity is consistently cited as a barrier to care integration.23,33,35,36 As noted previously, the public mental health system in the U.S. is under resourced, and the U.S. faces a significant mental health provider shortage.89–92 To meaningfully address the overall provider shortage, we need to increase mental health provider compensation; to increase compensation, we need to increase insurance payments for mental health services.93 In the shorter-term, strategies for improving efficiency in team-based care models are needed, such as greater use of non-physician clinicians and peers.94 General medical and specialty mental health clinical training, currently siloed, needs to be integrated so that the mental health workforce is trained in basic general medical competencies and so the general medical workforce is trained in mental health competencies.89,95 Training in team-based care and care coordination should also be a central component of clinical training, and system reforms should focus on establishing a culture of “shared accountability” among both mental health and behavioral health providers. Given high levels of mental health stigma among providers and research showing that stigma impedes high-quality care,96,97 incorporating stigma reduction strategies such as contact-based education98 into provider training is also critical.

Build data capacity:

The specialty mental sector has lagged behind the general medical sector in electronic health record (EHR) adoption, and when EHRs are in place they are often not compatible with general medical system EHRs.99,100 This is an important limitation given that shared health records can improve quality of care for people with serious mental illness.101,102 Lack of data tools supporting population heath management has also been noted as a barrier to implementation of integrated care, as mental health programs often have no simple, automated way to identify individuals in their panel with physical health conditions in need of care. Working with EMR engineers to incorporate dashboards and reports into existing EMRs would enhance specialty mental health programs’ ability to efficiently conduct physical health coordination and management. Expanding funding provided through the federal HITECH Act to specialty mental health providers, who are currently excluded, could incentivize IT infrastructure development.103 In addition, national and state-level data systems tracking care quality and health outcomes among representative samples of people with serious mental illness are urgently needed, for example a national system for tracking administrative claims-based measures of physical health care quality among Medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness.In the absence of such systems, we are unable to comprehensively characterize gaps in care, target interventions to specific subgroups of people with serious mental illness or geographic areas, or monitor progress.

Build a “behavioral health home” recognition program:

The growth of primary care-based integration models has been propelled in part by the NCQA Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition program.104 PCMHs aim to improve management of chronic conditions, including but not limited to mental illness, and may improve care for people with serious mental illness.20,56 The NCQA accreditation program delineates structures and activities that must be in place for PCMH accreditation, with three different levels reflecting varying degrees of adherence to the multi-component model. PCMHs and the Continuum-Based Behavioral Health Integration Framework discussed above are both based on the Chronic Care Model and include many of the same components. The NCQA Patient-Centered Specialty Practice recognition program can be applied to behavioral health homes, though this program does not specifically target programs focused on integrating physical health services into specialty mental health programs. It is worth considering whether a behavioral health home-specific program would support scale-up of specialty mental health-based integration models. Such a program could be based, initially, on the Continuum-Based framework, and then be revised over time to emphasize the key ingredients identified in future research.

A wide range of actors need to be involved in implementing these policy and practice recommendations. Government agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) have key roles to play; CMS oversees the financing of integration initiatives in Medicaid and Medicare, and HRSA leads healthcare workforce development initiatives. Professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors play an important role in advocating for policy change and could help to garner the policy support and political will needed to advance multiple of the recommendations above, including financing and health IT changes. Schools of medicine, nursing and allied health professions, as well as their accrediting bodies, have key roles to play in better incorporating integrated care into health professional training. The National Committee for Quality Assurance could lead development of a “behavioral health home” recognition program in parallel with their PCMH recognition program. These and other key actors should collaborate closely with researchers, both to support development of evidence-based policy and to facilitate rigorous evaluation of new policy and practice initiatives.

Conclusion

There is growing interest in models for integrating physical health care delivery, management, and/or coordination into specialty mental health settings in the U.S. While often considered separately by both researchers and practitioners, models designed to integrate general medical and mental health services based in the specialty mental health sector versus the general medical sector are in many ways two sides of the same coin. Several of the research, policy, and practice priorities that we identified for specialty mental health-based models are also relevant for primary care-based models, particularly the need to identify key model ingredients and to improve financing mechanisms.

A final overarching conclusion from the forum was the need to address social determinants of health within integrated care models for people with serious mental illness. Upstream social determinants of health including poverty, unemployment, housing instability and criminal justice involvement, all overrepresented among people with serious mental illness,105–108 are significant risk factors for adverse mental and physical health outcomes.108 Reducing excess mortality in serious mental illness necessitates addressing these determinants in addition to improving clinical care. Promising models include ACOs, like Hennepin Health, that have incorporated the social services sector into their shared savings arrangements.109 The Accountable Health Community model, currently being tested in 29 organizations across the U.S., builds upon the ACO model to explicitly target health-related social needs of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.110 The Program of All-Inclusive Care (PACE) program, which uses Medicare and Medicaid dollars to finance a full continuum of healthcare and social services for frail older adults,111 could be adapted for serious mental illness. Future work should prioritize development, implementation, and rigorous evaluation of models for addressing both clinical and social drivers of excess mortality in serious mental illness.

Disclosures and Acknowledgments:

The authors have no conflicts to report. Drs. McGinty, Murphy and Daumit acknowledge funding from NIMH P50MH115842. Dr. Pincus acknowledges funding from the Commonwealth Fund. Ms. Presskreischer acknowledges support from NIMH T32MH109436.

Contributor Information

Emma E. McGinty, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.

Rachel Presskreischer, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.

Joshua Breslau, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.

Jonathan Brown, Mathematic, Washington, D.C..

Marisa Domino, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.

Benjamin Druss, Department of Health Policy and Management, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.

Marcela Horvitz-Lennon, RAND Corporation, Boston, MA.

Karly Murphy, Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Harold Pincus, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Gail L. Daumit, Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

References

  • 1.Brown S. Excess mortality of schizophrenia. A meta-analysis. The British journal of Psychiatry 1997;171:502–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Olfson M, Gerhard T, Huang C, Crystal S, Stroup TS. Premature mortality among adults with schizophrenia in the United States. JAMA psychiatry 2015;72:1172–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Saha S, Chant D, McGrath J. A systematic review of mortality in schizophrenia: is the differential mortality gap worsening over time? Archives of general psychiatry 2007;64:1123–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Walker ER, McGee RE, Druss BG. Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA psychiatry 2015;72:334–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Colton CP, Ronald W, Manderscheid P. Congruencies in Increased Mortality Rates, Years of Life Lost, and Causes of Death Among Public Mental health Clients in Eight States. Preventing chronic disease 2006;3:1–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Newcomer JW, Hennekens CH. Severe mental illness and risk of cardiovascular disease. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2007;298:1794–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hughes E, Bassi S, Gilbody S, Bland M, Martin F. Prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry 2016;3:40–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Taquet M, Luciano S, Geddes JR, Harrison PJ. Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. The Lancet Psychiatry 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.Li L, Li F, Fortunati F, Krystal JH. Association of a Prior Psychiatric Diagnosis With Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection. JAMA Network Open 2020;3:e2023282–e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McGinty EE, Bailer J, Azrin ST, Juliano-Bult D, Daumit GL. Quality of medical care for persons with serious mental illness: A comprehensive review. Schizophrenia Research 2015;165:227–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Domino ME, Beadles CA, Lichstein JC, et al. Heterogeneity in the quality of care for patients with multiple chronic conditions by psychiatric comorbidity. Medical care 2014;52 Suppl 3:S101–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Goldman ML, Smali E, Richkin T, Pincus HA, Chung H. A novel continuum-based framework for translating behavioral health integration to primary care settings. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2020;10:580–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chung H, Smali E, Narasimhan V, et al. Advancing Integration of General Health in Behavioral Health Settings. https://wwwthenationalcouncilorg/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GHI-Framework-lssue-Brief_FINALFORPUBLICATION_82120pdf?daf=375ateTbd56, Accessed October 5, 2020 2020.
  • 14.Ramanuj PP, Talley R, Breslau J, Wang SS, Pincus HA. Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care Services for People with Serious mental illness: A Qualitative Systems Analysis of Integration in New York. Community mental health journal 2018;54:1116–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Katon WJ, Lin EH, Von Korff M, et al. Collaborative care for patients with depression and chronic illnesses. The New England journal of medicine 2010;363:2611–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gilbody S, Bower P, Fletcher J, Richards D, Sutton AJ. Collaborative care for depression: a cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes. Archives of internal medicine 2006;166:2314–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Miller CJ, Grogan-Kaylor A, Perron BE, Kilbourne AM, Woltmann E, Bauer MS. Collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions: cumulative meta-analysis and meta-regression to guide future research and implementation. Medical care 2013;51:922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Steele LS, Durbin A, Sibley LM, Glazier R. Inclusion of persons with mental illness in patient-centred medical homes: cross-sectional findings from Ontario, Canada. Open Med 2013;7:e9–e20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lichstein JC, Domino ME, Beadles CA, et al. Use of medical homes by patients with comorbid physical and severe mental illness. Medical care 2014:S85–S91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Domino ME, Wells R, Morrissey JP. Serving Persons With Severe Mental Illness in Primary Care-Based Medical Homes. Psychiatric Services 2015;66:477–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Olesiuk WJ, Farley JF, Domino ME, et al. Do Medical Homes Offer Improved Diabetes Care for Medicaid Enrollees with Co-occurring Schizophrenia? Journal of health care for the poor and underserved 2017;28:1030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Domino ME, Kilany M, Wells R, Morrissey JP. Through the looking glass: estimating effects of medical homes for people with severe mental illness. Health services research 2017;52:1858–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Murphy KA, Daumit GL, Stone EM, McGinty EE. Physical Health Outcomes and Implementation of Behavioral Health Homes: A Comprehensive Review. International Review of Psychiatry, In Press 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 24.Scharf DM, Eberhart NK, Hackbarth NS, et al. Evaluation of the SAMHSA primary and behavioral health care integration (PBHCI) grant program. Rand health quarterly 2014;4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Centers for medicare and medicaid Services. Medicaid Health Homes: SPA Overview. https://wwwmedicaidgov/state-resource-center/medicaid-state-technical-assistance/health-home-information-resource-center/downloads/hh-spa-overviewpdf, Accessed February 28, 2020 2019.
  • 26.Daumit GL, Dalcin AT, Dickerson FB, et al. Effect of a Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Intervention in Persons With Serious mental illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open 2020;3:e207247–e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Glick GE, et al. Randomized Trial of an Integrated Behavioral Health Home: The Health Outcomes Management and Evaluation (HOME) Study. Am J Psychiatry 2017;174:246–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Druss BG, Rohrbaugh R, Levinson CM, Rosenheck RA. Integrated medical care for patients with serious psychiatric illness: a randomized trial. Archives of general psychiatry 2001;58:861–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Daumit G, Dalcin A, Dickerson F, et al. Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Trial in Serious mental illness. Manuscript Under Review 2020.
  • 30.Fortuna KL, DiMilia PR, Lohman MC, et al. Systematic review of the impact of behavioral health homes on cardiometabolic risk factors for adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2020;71:57–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Office of Management and Budget. Primary and Behavioral Care Integration Evaluation. https://wwwreginfogov/public/do/PRAViewlCR?ref_nbr=201605–0930-003 Accessed October 7, 2020 2019.
  • 32.Ranallo PA, Kilbourne AM, Whatley AS, Pincus HA. Behavioral health information technology: from chaos to clarity. Health Affairs 2016;35:1106–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.McGinty EE, Kennedy-Hendricks A, Linden S, Choksy S, Stone E, Daumit GL. An innovative model to coordinate healthcare and social services for people with serious mental illness: A mixed-methods case study of Maryland’s Medicaid health home program. General hospital psychiatry 2018;51:54–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Daumit GL, Stone EM, Kennedy-Hendricks A, Choksy S, Marsteller JA, McGinty EE. Care Coordination and Population Health Management Strategies and Challenges in a Behavioral Health Home Model. Medical care 2019;57:79–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scharf DM, Eberhart NK, Schmidt N, et al. Integrating primary care into community behavioral health settings: programs and early implementation experiences. Psychiatric Services 2013;64:660–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Scharf DM, Breslau J, Hackbarth NS, Kusuke D, Staplefoote BL, Pincus HA. An examination of New York state’s integrated primary and mental health care services for adults with serious mental illness. Rand health quarterly 2014;4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Maragakis A, RachBeisel J. Integrated care and the behavioral health home: A new program to help improve somatic health outcomes for those with serious mental illness. The Journal of nervous and mental disease 2015;203:891–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Golembiewski EH, Askelson NM, Bentler SE, Damiano PC, Momany ET. Evaluation of the Integrated Health Home (IHH) program in Iowa: Qualitative interviews with site administrators. Iowa Research Online, 23 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gerolamo AM, Kim JY, Brown JD, Schuster J, Kogan J. Implementation of a Reverse Colocation Model: Lessons from Two Community Behavioral Health Agencies in Rural Pennsylvania. The journal of behavioral health services & research 2016;43:443–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Stone EM, Daumit GL, Kennedy-Hendricks A, McGinty EE. The policy ecology of behavioral health homes: Case study of Maryland’s Medicaid health home program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2020;47:60–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Scharf DM, Eberhart NK, Hackbarth NS, et al. Evaluation of the SAMHSA Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration (PBHCI) Grant Program http://wwwintegrationsamhsagov/integrated-care-models/RAND_Evaluation_SAMHSA_PBHCI_Grant_Programpdf 2013. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 42.Breslau J, Leckman-Westin E, Yu H, et al. Impact of a mental health based primary care program on quality of physical health care. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2018;45:276–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Serious mental illnessth JL, et al. Steps for implementing collaborative care programs for depression. Population health management 2009;12:69–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Carlo AD, Unutzer J, Ratzliff AD, Cerimele JM. Financing for Collaborative Care—a Narrative Review. Current treatment options in psychiatry 2018;5:334–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Coventry PA, Hudson JL, Kontopantelis E, et al. Characteristics of effective collaborative care for treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-regression of 74 randomised controlled trials. PloS one 2014;9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mueser KT, McGurk SR. Schizophrenia. Lancet 2004;363:2063–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Steadman HJ, Osher FC, Pamela Clark Robbins B, Case B, Samuels S. Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services 2009;60:761–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Newman S, Goldman H. Putting housing first, making housing last: housing policy for persons with severe mental illness. Am J Psychiatry 2008;165:1242–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Draine J, Salzer MS, Culhane DP, Hadley TR. Roles of Social Disadvantage in Crime, Joblessness, and Homelessness Among Persons with Serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2002;53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Druss BG, Chwastiak L, Kern J, Parks JJ, Ward MC, Raney LE. Psychiatry’s role in improving the physical health of patients with serious mental illness: a report from the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatric Services 2018;69:254–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Katon WJ, Von Korff M, Lin EH, et al. The Pathways Study: a randomized trial of collaborative care in patients with diabetes and depression. Archives of general psychiatry 2004;61:1042–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression: a randomized trial. Archives of general psychiatry 1999;56:1109–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kilbourne AM, Barbaresso MM, Lai Z, et al. Improving physical health in patients with chronic mental disorders: 12-month results from a randomized controlled collaborative care trial. The Journal of clinical psychiatry 2017;78:129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Presskreischer R, Kennedy-Hendricks A, Bandara S, Daumit GL, Busch AB, McGinty EE. The association between enrollment in Maryland’s behavioral health homes and outpatient mental health service utilization. Manuscript Under Review 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 55.Ali MK, Chwastiak L, Poongothai S, et al. Effect of a Collaborative Care Model on Depressive Symptoms and Glycated Hemoglobin, Blood Pressure, and Serum Cholesterol Among Patients With Depression and Diabetes in India: The INDEPENDENT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2020;324:651–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Domino ME, Jackson C, Beadles CA, et al. Do primary care medical homes facilitate care transitions after psychiatric discharge for patients with multiple chronic conditions? General hospital psychiatry 2016;39:59–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Beadles CA, Farley JF, Ellis AR, et al. Do medical homes increase medication adherence for persons with multiple chronic conditions? Medical care 2015;53:168–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Osborn D, Burton A, Flunter R, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intervention for reducing cholesterol and cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illness in English primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry 2018;5:145–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Haskell WL, Berra K, Arias E, et al. Multifactor cardiovascular disease risk reduction in medically underserved, high-risk patients. The American journal of cardiology 2006;98:1472–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ma J, Berra K, Haskell WL, et al. Case management to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease in a county health care system. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1988–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chamberlain P, Brown CH, Saldana L. Observational measure of implementation progress in community based settings: the stages of implementation completion (SIC). Implementation Science 2011;6:116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in medicine 2002;21:1559–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Saldana L, Schaper H, Campbell M, Chapman J. Standardized Measurement of Implementation: The Universal SIC. Implementation Science; 2015: Springer, p. A73. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bazemore A, Phillips RL, Glazier R, Tepper J. Advancing primary care through alternative payment models: Lessons from the United States & Canada. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2018;31:322–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM, Fisher ES. Primary care and accountable care—two essential elements of delivery-system reform. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;361:2301–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS Measures and Technical Resources: Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Screening and Monitoring for People with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder. https://wwwncqaorg/hedis/measures/diabetes-and-cardiovascular-disease-screening-and-monitoring-for-people-with-schizophrenia-or-bipolar-disorder/, Accessed October 5, 2020 2020.
  • 67.Pincus HA, Li M, Scharf DM, et al. Prioritizing quality measure concepts at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2017;29:557–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Implementation Findings from the National Evaluation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Demonstration Program. https://aspehhsgov/pdf-report/implementation-findings-national-evaluation-certified-community-behavioral-health-clinic-demonstration 2020.
  • 69.McGinty EE, Bailer J, Azrin ST, Juliano-Bult D, Daumit GL. Interventions to address medical conditions and health-risk behaviors among persons with serious mental illness: a comprehensive review. Schizophrenia bulletin 2015;42:96–124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Gilbody S, Peckham E, Bailey D, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental illness: combined long-term quit rates from the UK SCIMITAR trials programme. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2019:1–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gilbody S, Peckham E, Man M-S, et al. Bespoke smoking cessation for people with severe mental ill health (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2:395–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Daumit GL, Dickerson FB, Wang NY, et al. A Behavioral Weight Loss Intervention in Persons with Serious mental illness. NEJM 2013;368:1594–602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bartels SJ, Pratt SI, Aschbrenner KA, et al. Clinically significant improved fitness and weight loss among overweight persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2013;64:729–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Medical care 2012;50:217–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Pincus HA, Jun M, Franx G, van der Feltz-Cornelis C, Ito H, Mossialos E. How can we link general medical and behavioral health care? International models for practice and policy. Psychiatric Services 2015;66:775–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Von Korff M, Katon W, Bush T, et al. Treatment costs, cost offset, and cost-effectiveness of collaborative management of depression. Psychosomatic medicine 1998;60:143–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Bao Y, Sturm R. How do trends for behavioral health inpatient care differ from medical inpatient care in US community hospitals? Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 2001;4:55–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Meagher SM, Rajan A, Wyshak G, Goldstein J. Changing trends in inpatient care for psychiatrically hospitalized youth: 1991–2008. Psychiatric Quarterly 2013;84:159–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Solberg LI, Crain AL, Jaeckels N, et al. The DIAMOND initiative: implementing collaborative care for depression in 75 primary care clinics. Implementation Science 2013;8:135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.McGinty EE, Daumit GL. Integrating Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Into General Medical Care: The Role of Policy. Psychiatric Services 2020:appi. ps. 202000183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 81.Carlo AD, Baden AC, McCarty RL, Ratzliff AD. Early Health System Experiences with Collaborative Care (CoCM) Billing Codes: a Qualitative Study of Leadership and Support Staff. Journal of general internal medicine 2019;34:2150–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Brooklyn JR, Sigmon SC. Vermont hub-and-spoke model of care for opioid use disorder: development, implementation, and impact. Journal of addiction medicine 2017;11:286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Bao Y, Casalino LP, Pincus HA. Behavioral health and health care reform models: patient centered medical home, health home, and accountable care organization. The journal of behavioral health services and research 2013;40:121–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Busch AB, Huskamp HA, McWilliams JM. Early efforts by Medicare accountable care organizations have limited effect on mental illness care and management. Health Affairs 2016;35:1247–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Barry CL, Stuart EA, Donohue JM, et al. The Early Impact Of The ‘Alternative Quality Contract’ On Mental Health Service Use And Spending In Massachusetts. Health affairs (Project Hope) 2015;34:2077–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Goldman ML, Spaeth-Rublee B, Pincus HA. The case for severe mental illness as a disparities category. Am Psychiatric Assoc; 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 87.National Committee for Quality Assurance. Medical Assistance with Smoking and Tobacco Use Cessation (MSC). https://wwwncqaorg/hedis/measures/medical-assistance-with-smoking-and-tobacco-use-cessation/, accessed December 10, 2020 2020.
  • 88.Chong JL, Lim KK, Matchar DB. Population segmentation based on healthcare needs: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews 2019;8:202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Buche J, Singer PM, Grazier K, King E, Maniere E, Beck A. Primary care and behavioral health workforce integration: Barriers and best practices. Behavioral Health Workforce Research Center 2017;1:1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Kaiser Family Foundation. Mental Health Care Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs). https://wwwkfforg/other/state-indicator/mental-health-care-health-professional-shortage-areas-hpsas/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colld%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D 2019.
  • 91.Butryn T, Bryant L, Marchionni C, Sholevar F. The shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health providers: causes, current state, and potential solutions. International Journal of Academic Medicine 2017;3:5. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Frank RG, Glied SA. Better but not well: Mental health policy in the United States since 1950. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Hoge MA, Stuart GW, Morris J, Flaherty MT, Paris M Jr, Goplerud E. Mental health and addiction workforce development: Federal leadership is needed to address the growing crisis. Health Affairs 2013;32:2005–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gagne CA, Finch WL, Myrick KJ, Davis LM. Peer workers in the behavioral and integrated health workforce: opportunities and future directions. American journal of preventive medicine 2018;54:S258–S66.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Hall J, Cohen DJ, Davis M, et al. Preparing the workforce for behavioral health and primary care integration. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2015;28:S41–S51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Corrigan PW, Mittal D, Reaves CM, et al. Mental health stigma and primary health care decisions. Psychiatry research 2014;218:35–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Mittal D, Corrigan P, Sherman MD, et al. Healthcare Providers’ Attitudes Toward Persons With Schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 2014:No Pagination Specified. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 98.Couture S, Penn D. Interpersonal contact and the stigma of mental illness: A review of the literature. Journal of mental health 2003;12:291–305. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Jamoom E, Yang N, Hing E. Adoption of certified electronic health record systems and electronic information sharing in physician offices: United States, 2013 and 2014: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and …; 2016. [PubMed]
  • 100.Busch AB, Bates DW, Rauch SL. Improving electronic health record adoption in psychiatric care: a cornerstone for healthcare transformation. The New England journal of medicine 2018;378:1665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Druss BG, Ji X, Glick G, von Esenwein SA. Randomized trial of an electronic personal health record for patients with serious mental illnesses. Am J Psychiatry 2014;171:360–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Druss BG, Li J, Tapscott S, Lally CA. Randomized Trial of a Mobile Personal Health Record for Behavioral Health Homes. Psychiatric Services 2020:appi. ps. 201900381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 103.Center BP. Integrating Clinical and Mental Health: Challenges and Opportunities. January; 2019.
  • 104.National Committee for Quality Assurance. Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH). https://wwwncqaorg/programs/health-care-providers-practices/patient-centered-medical-home-pcmh/, Accessed March 7, 2020 2020.
  • 105.Mueser KT, McGurk SR. Schizophrenia. Lancet 2004;363:2063–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Draine J, Salzer MS, Culhane DP, Hadley TR. Role of social disadvantage in crime, joblessness, and homelessness among persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2002;53:565–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Shim R, Koplan C, Langheim FJ, Manseau MW, Powers RA, Compton MT. The social determinants of mental health: An overview and call to action. Psychiatric Annals 2014;44:22–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Marmot M, Wilkinson R. Social determinants of health: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Sandberg SF, Erikson C, Owen R, et al. Hennepin Health: A Safety-Net Accountable Care Organization For The Expanded Medicaid Population. Health Affairs 2014;33:1975–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Alley DE, Asomugha CN, Conway PH, Sanghavi DM. Accountable health communities— addressing social needs through Medicare and Medicaid. The New England journal of medicine 2016;374:8–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Hirth V, Baskins J, Dever-Bumba M. Program of all-inclusive care (PACE): past, present, and future. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2009;10:155–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES