Pediatric primary care psychologists’ reported level of integration, billing practices, and reimbursement frequency.

Riley, Andrew R.; Grennan, Allison; Menousek, Kathryn; Hoffses, Kathryn W.

doi:10.1037/fsh0000306

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the clinic/practice level, there was some evidence that institutionalizing interprofessional collaboration via higher levels of integration (e.g. with co-located mental health providers systematically incorporated into routine medical care and PCPs/co-located providers developing joint treatment plans (Blount, 2003) were associated with improved implementation outcomes including improved provider satisfaction (German et al, 2017) and revenue (Riley et al, 2018). Therefore, efforts to integrate mental health providers may benefit from practice-wide system improvements to enhance coordination of care in pediatrics, such as through Patient Centered Medical Home Models (Besser, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, efforts to integrate mental health providers may benefit from practice-wide system improvements to enhance coordination of care in pediatrics, such as through Patient Centered Medical Home Models (Besser, 2016). Of note, only two studies compared strategies involving different levels of integration (Riley et al, 2018;German et al, 2017) and few studies explicitly categorized level of integration or Patient Centered Medical Home, but this may emerge as an important variable of implementation success and should be a focus of future research. Some studies described program-specific efforts to enhance communication and collaboration, including establishing a shared agreement on referral procedures between PCPs and integrated mental health providers (Schlesinger, 2017), cross-disciplinary education (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies (Kolko et al, 2014;Kolko et al, 2010;Kolko et al, 2012;Yu et al, 2017;Richardson et al, 2014;Wright et al, 2016;Rapp et al, 2017;Asarnow et al, 2005;Asarnow et al, 2009) reported implementation outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of co-located interventions for mental health problems, although none of these randomized by implementation strategy. The remaining 7 studies (Hine et al, 2017;Levy et al, 2017;Horwitz et al, 2016;Rousseau et al, 2017;Aguirre & Carrion, 2013;Westerlund et al, 2017;Riley et al 2018) reported results from surveys or interviews with providers from pediatric practices that had implemented co-located behavioral health care.…”

Section: Summary Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What’s known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review

Platt

Spencer

Burkey

et al. 2018

International Review of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have demonstrated clinical benefits of integrated care for a range of child and adolescent mental health outcomes. However, there is a significant gap between the evidence for efficacy of integrated care interventions vs. their implementation in practice. While several studies have examined large-scale implementation of co-located integrated care for adults, much less is known for children. The goal of this scoping review was to understand how co-located mental health interventions targeting children and adolescents have been implemented and sustained. We systematically searched the literature for interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health that involved a mental health specialist co-located in a primary care setting. We included studies reporting on the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What’s known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review

Platt

Spencer

Burkey

et al. 2018

International Review of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health and behavior (H&B) codes, which are designed for use in integrated settings (Miyamoto, 2006), do not require the presence of psychopathology to be reimbursed and can be used to assess and intervene on behavioral factors that contribute to physical health (Kessler, 2008). Talmi and Fazio (2012) have highlighted the potential of using H&B code to address subclinical behavioral concerns via brief consultations conducted during routine well-child visits, and some evidence indicates H&B code use is associated with higher levels of integration (Riley, Grennan, Menousek, & Hoffses, 2017). Beyond fee-for-service models, there is growing interest in alternative value-based payment models such as pay-for-performance (Unützer et al, 2012), bundled payment (Hussey, Ridgely, & Rosenthal, 2011), and global payment (Kathol, deGruy, & Rollman, 2014; Nutting et al, 2011) to finance integrated behavioral health services.…”

Section: Why Study Routine Behavioral Issues?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacting pediatric primary care: Opportunities and challenges for behavioral research in a shifting healthcare landscape.

Riley

Freeman

2019

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavior analysts have long recognized the potential of a partnership with pediatric medicine as an opportunity to expand the influence of behavior analysis and positively impact population health. Despite significant achievements in this domain, the impact of behavioral science on the daily practice of pediatrics has been limited. In this commentary, the authors argue that the current health care and research environments are ripe for a renewed focus on behavioral modification in pediatric primary care, with a particular emphasis on the study of high-frequency, low-intensity problems. They provide some analysis of why behavioral pediatrics has failed to gain traction in primary care, describe aspects of the current primary care practice and research landscapes that provide opportunities for an expanded portfolio of research, identify several exemplars from the behavior analytic literature that have influenced pediatric primary care or have the potential to do so, and make recommendations for producing influential data. Keywords integrated primary care; pediatric primary care; applied behavior analysis There has long been a strong argument for the benefits of merging of pediatric medicine and behavioral science to promote behavioral health (Smith, Rome, & Freedheim, 1967). This argument has varied some over time, but it generally hinges on a few well-established findings: (a) child behavior problems are quite common in pediatric settings (Arndorfer,

show abstract

“…Early leaders in pediatric psychology emphasized the role of pediatric psychologists in health promotion and prevention (Roberts, 1986; Schroeder, Gordon, Kanoy, & Routh, 1983). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) promoted growth of pediatric integrated primary care (Tynan, 2016), and models have burgeoned (Riley, Grennan, Menousek, & Hoffses, 2018; Stancin, 2016). Evidence is mounting for the benefits of pediatric IPC for cost savings—both in health care and other sectors (Cole, Qin, Sheldrick, et al, 2019; Yu, Kolko, & Torres, 2017) and for reducing provider burnout (Zubatsky, Pettinelli, Salas, & Davis, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric integrated primary care as the foundation for healthy development across the lifespan.

McCabe

Leslie

Counts

et al. 2020

Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pediatric Integrated Primary Care (IPC) plays a unique and foundational role in prevention of behavioral health disorders and promotion of healthy development and positive health behaviors across the life span. Early intervention can mitigate the impact of social determinants of health (including adverse childhood experiences) and promote health equity. Yet to realize this potential for health promotion and prevention, it will be necessary for pediatric integrated primary care to shift focus upstream-ensuring a 2-generation approach (e.g., parenting programs, screening for maternal depression) and enabling effective collaboration with other sectors in communities that impact children and families (e.g., home visiting programs, schools). This will pose challenges for sharing desired outcomes and data and reconceptualizing returns on investment across sectors. Other policy changes will also be necessary, including payment reforms (e.g., value-based payment models), interprofessional training, and increased funding for IPC research in pediatrics. It will be necessary to educate policymakers that health promotion and prevention in pediatric IPC results in improved health and savings into adulthood. Conclusion: Pediatric psychology can play a leadership role in realizing the potential for pediatric IPC. Implications for Impact StatementAdvances in a few key policy areas will enable pediatric integrated primary care to serve its unique and nearly universal function-promoting healthy development and preventing behavioral health conditions for better health and wellbeing throughout life.

show abstract

Pediatric primary care psychologists’ reported level of integration, billing practices, and reimbursement frequency.

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

What’s known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review

What’s known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review

Impacting pediatric primary care: Opportunities and challenges for behavioral research in a shifting healthcare landscape.

Pediatric integrated primary care as the foundation for healthy development across the lifespan.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About