Search

Objective: To provide a clinical update on the purposes, evidence-base and recommendations for both clinician and patient-rated outcome measures in psychiatric practice. Conclusions: Private and public sector funders have implemented outcome measurement systems in Australian mental healthcare, in order to improve cost-effectiveness. It is important to consider the ultimate aims of outcome measurement from various perspectives in evaluating the evidence-base, as there are a number of measurement dimensions to address. For individual clinicians, the purpose may be to guide treatment-planning, as well as to assess treatment and clinician efficacy. For patients, the purpose is to assess outcomes in terms of their goals for recovery, as well as to evaluate their satisfaction with the care provided, and their healthcare providers. The other orthogonal dimensions of measurement comprise, the proximal to illness measures of symptomatic severity, and the distal measures of disability, which apply to both clinician and patient outcomes. In turn, these measures may be used by healthcare funders in public or private sectors as proxy measures of the cost-effectiveness of psychiatric care provided. Clinical registries linked to service-mapping would provide better data for patients, providers and funders to assess the availability and effectiveness of psychiatric care in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Following a very rapid and significant uptake of metropolitan telepsychiatry in private practice in Australia during COVID-19, practical questions remain: How long should psychiatrists continue telepsychiatry? Are there benefits of continuing: reduced COVID-19 risks to patient and psychiatrist, and flexibility of appointments? Will the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth items be retained? How does metropolitan telepsychiatry fit into the overall mix of public and private services? This is an important debate.Conclusions: Private psychiatrists may continue to offer the majority of care, where practical, via telepsychiatry to reduce COVID-19 exposure risks, as well as allow for the realities of practice management for pandemic public health measures. However, consideration has to be given to the potential drawbacks for patients with sight, hearing and illness-related disabilities or risks, when in-person consultation is required. There are also risks: some patients may not benefit from telepsychiatry due to the nature of their illness, and will patients feel rapport is lost? However, the retention of COVID-19 MBS telehealth items is needed for ongoing flexible and comprehensive private practice psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper discusses issues arising from the rapid implementation of metropolitan telepsychiatry in private practice during the Covid-19 public health emergency.Conclusions: The relatively rapid uptake of private practice metropolitan telepsychiatry may further increase flexibility of the options for appointments through ongoing broad telepsychiatry access after the Covid-19 crisis. Telepsychiatry can be used to facilitate the temporary provision of psychiatric care, and has benefits and risks, but is not a longer-term replacement for the interpersonal richness of face-to-face consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide a commentary on the implications of the Deed of Settlement in the Honeysuckle Health – nib Australian-Competition-Tribunal Hearing. This hearing has major implications in relation to the potential for a single dominant private-health-insurance buying-group to contract for medical-purchaser-provider-agreements that might limit the clinical autonomy of patients and psychiatrists. Conclusions: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) authorised the formation of a joint buying-group for private-health-insurers in 2021 to provide collective contracting and related services to private-health-insurers and other healthcare-payers. A consequent legal challenge resulted in a Deed of Settlement on 18 July 2022 that for 5 years preserves doctor-patient autonomy in clinical decision-making, the medical gaps scheme, the transparency of contractual arrangements, and if clinical data of those insured are collected by HH-nib, it must be with the full informed consent of patients. However, there remain options for private-health-insurers to apply for formation of new buying-groups, as well as to collect data and profile the general public and insured patients using online programs. Vigilance on private-health-insurer buying-groups, and the potential for US-style managed-care is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Telepsychiatry items in the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) were expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their out-of-pocket costs have not been examined. We describe and compare patient out-of-pocket payments for face-to-face and telepsychiatry (videoconferencing and telephone) MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services to understand the differential out-of-pocket cost burden for patients across these modalities. Methods: out-of-pocket cost information was obtained from the Medical Costs Finder website, which extracted data from Services Australia's Medicare claims data in 2021–2022. Cost information for corresponding face-to-face, video, and telephone MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services was compared, including (1) Median specialist fees; (2) Median out-of-pocket payments; (3) Medicare reimbursement amounts; and (4) Proportions of patients subject to out-of-pocket fees. Results: Medicare reimbursements are identical for all comparable face-to-face and telepsychiatry items. Specialist fees for comparable items varied across face-to-face to telehealth options, with resulting differences in out-of-pocket costs. For video items, higher proportions of patients were not bulk-billed, with greater out-of-pocket costs than face-to-face items. However, the opposite was true for telephone items compared with face-to-face items. Conclusions: Initial cost analyses of MBS telepsychiatry items indicate that telephone consultations incur the lowest out-of-pocket costs, followed by face-to-face and video consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide a rapid clinical update on casemix, average length of stay, and the effectiveness of Australian private psychiatric hospitals.Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the publicly available patient data from the Australian Private Hospitals Association Private Psychiatric Hospitals Data Reporting and Analysis Service website, from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. This was compared with corresponding reporting on public and private hospitals from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network.Results: In 2019-2020, there were 72 private psychiatric hospitals in Australia with 3582 acute beds. There were 42,942 inpatients with 1,286,470 days of care, and a mean length of stay 19.6 days (SD 13.9) for the financial year 2019-2020. The main diagnoses were major affective and other mood disorders (49%), and alcohol and other substance abuse disorders (21%). Clinician-rated outcome measures, that is, the HoNOS, showed an improvement effect size of 1.64, while the patient-rated MHQ-14 showed an improvement effect size of 1.18. Results are similar for previous years.Conclusions: Private psychiatric hospitals provide substantial, effective psychiatric care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide reflection on career opportunities, benefits and challenges, with regard to commencing private practice psychiatry in Australia. Conclusions: There are varied opportunities for a career in private practice psychiatry. Private practice has benefits and challenges, distinct from public sector psychiatry; with moderately greater professional autonomy, facilitating the provision of expert mental healthcare for the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare inpatients who had been readmitted within 28 days of discharge with patients not readmitted within the same period in a private psychiatric hospital. Method: Of 118 readmissions within 28 days in 2017 (7% of admissions), 50 were randomly selected and matched by age and gender with control patients who had not been readmitted within 28 days. Differences in demographics, diagnosis, length of stay and number of admissions in the previous 12 months were examined. Results: Readmitted cases were 64% female, were aged 49.8 ± 18.2 years (range 19–89), 40% were in relationships and 24% were receiving disability support. Most patients were suffering an episode of depression. Cases had higher rates of multiple psychiatric diagnoses (p <.001) and physical disorders (p <.05). There were no significant differences between cases and controls on psychiatric diagnoses. Cases had a longer length of stay in their previous admission (p <.01) and a higher number of admissions in the preceding 12 months (p <.05) compared to controls. Conclusion: This study indicates that inpatients readmitted within 28 days of discharge were more likely to have multiple diagnoses, physical co-morbidity and relapsing conditions than patients who were not readmitted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on contracting of healthcare providers, financial controls, and increasing administrative burdens for patients or providers. Topics include ACCC releasing a draft determination broadly supportive of the proposal based on the balance of risks and benefits; buying-group allowing for the selective contracting of healthcare providers; and patient choice of psychiatrist, hospital venue and modality of care, as well as eroding the doctor–patient relationship.

In 2022, the Australian Federal Minister for Health and Aged Care commissioned the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review Advisory Committee (MRAC) to conduct a postimplementation review of MBS telehealth services, including settings of video and telephone consultations. The MRAC has made a series of administrative recommendations for telehealth practice that appear at cross-purposes to the evidence-base on medical consultations and that would limit patient access to medical specialist assessment in Australia. These recommendations particularly underestimate the role of telehealth in rural and remote Australia and did not take into account high patient satisfaction with telehealth assessment and treatment during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. They also appear to contradict the Medical Board of Australia's guidance on telehealth. On this basis, the recommendations for telehealth principles and abolition of reimbursement for telehealth for all initial non-general practitioner medical specialist consultations should be withdrawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:: To perform a clinical and risk audit of private hospital inpatients staying in hospital at least 21 days.Methods:: Of 492 admissions for ≥21 days in 2016, 40 were randomly selected for audit. Characteristics, illness severity and course using the Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S) subscale and improvement (CGI-I) subscale, and clinical risk profiles were ascertained at admission, day 15 and discharge by two psychiatrists.Results:: The cases were 65% female, age 50.0±16.2 years (range 24-86), 43% in relationships, and 28% on disability support. The length of stay was 29±7 days. On admission 88% were severely or markedly ill on the CGI-S subscale. Thirty-nine of 40 cases had ≥3 psychiatric diagnoses: 93% depression, 48% bipolar, 15% schizophrenia. High risk was present in suicide risk (48%), illness-induced dysfunction risk (78%) and physical risk (28%). By day 15, 63% were not improved or marginally worse. Suicide ratings were unimproved. By the time of discharge, illness severity and risk ratings were significantly reduced.Conclusion:: Private hospital inpatients staying ≥21 days were predominantly female and had severe, diagnostically complex illnesses and high risk ratings. Most were still seriously unwell after 15 days. Patients improved significantly by the time of discharge (though were by no means recovered), indicating that the duration of hospitalisation was appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editor highlights methodological and interpretational issues with a recent paper on private outpatient psychiatric consultation fees in Australia. The authors argue that the study's data collection is incomplete and does not accurately reflect real-world clinical practice. They also point out that the paper fails to acknowledge certain factors, such as state-to-federal cost-shifting and government subsidies, which can affect the estimation of out-of-pocket costs for patients. The authors question the validity of the study's findings and criticize the discussion for proposing actions that are not supported by the data. They suggest that broader consideration of the healthcare context and access to cost subsidies may be necessary to improve equitable accessibility to care. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: The Australian federal government introduced additional Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth-items to facilitate care by private psychiatrists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: We analysed private psychiatrists' uptake of video and telephone-telehealth, as well as total (telehealth and face-to-face) consultations for April 2020–April 2021. We compare these to face-to-face consultations for April 2018–April 2019. MBS-Item service data were extracted for COVID-19-psychiatrist-video- and telephone-telehealth item numbers and compared with face-to-face consultations for the whole of Australia. Results: Psychiatric consultation numbers (telehealth and face-to-face) were 13% higher during the first year of the pandemic compared with 2018–2019, with telehealth accounting for 40% of this total. Face-to-face consultations were 65% of the comparative number of 2018–2019 consultations. There was substantial usage of telehealth consultations during 2020–2021. The majority of telehealth involved short telephone consultations of ⩽15–30 min, while video was used more, in longer consultations. Conclusions: Private psychiatrists and patients continued using the new telehealth-items during 2020–2021. This compensated for decreases in face-to-face consultations and resulted in an overall increase in the total patient contacts compared to 2018–2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide a clinical update on private health insurance in Australia and outline developments in US-style managed care that are likely to affect psychiatric and other specialist healthcare. We explain aspects of the US health system, which has resulted in a powerful and profitable private health insurance sector, and one of the most expensive and inefficient health systems in the world, with limited patient choice in psychiatric treatment. Conclusions: Australian psychiatrists should be aware of changes to private health insurance that emphasise aspects of managed care such as selective contracting, cost-cutting or capitation of services. These approaches may limit access to private hospital care and diminish the autonomy of patients and practitioners in choosing the most appropriate treatment. Australian patients, carers and practitioners need to be informed about the potential impact of private managed care on patient-centred evidence-based treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To discuss relevant factors affecting the effectiveness and membership engagement of medico-political professional organisations, for example, medical colleges, societies and associations. Conclusions: Medico-political professional organisations face perils from corporatisation, bureaucratisation and concentration of power that diminish membership engagement and influence. Actions to address these challenges are necessary to ensure the future viability of these organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This opinion paper discusses certain recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention pertaining to psychology, GP and psychiatric professions. Conclusions: The Committee's recommendations may compromise patient care by undermining the ability of private sector medical specialists in providing direct clinical treatment and their role in the coordination of multidisciplinary teams. Expanding private psychological therapies without GP and private psychiatry support might increase the reliance on public hospital emergency departments and public sector mental health services for severe disorders and suicidal crises. Psychiatrists and GPs need to engage in more effective policy advocacy with the Australian Government, in order to maintain their roles in leading private sector collaborative multidisciplinary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Australian Federal government introduced new COVID-19-Psychiatrist-Medicare-Benefits-Schedule (MBS) telehealth-items to assist with providing private specialist care. We investigate private psychiatrists' uptake of telehealth, and face-to-face consultations for April–September 2020 for the state of Victoria, which experienced two consecutive waves of COVID-19. We compare these to the same 6 months in 2019. Method: MBS-item-consultation data were extracted for video, telephone and face-to-face consultations with a psychiatrist for April–September 2020 and compared to face-to-face consultations in the same period of 2019 Victoria-wide, and for all of Australia. Results: Total Victorian psychiatry consultations (telehealth and face-to-face) rose by 19% in April–September 2020 compared to 2019, with telehealth comprising 73% of this total. Victoria's increase in total psychiatry consultations was 5% higher than the all-Australian increase. Face-to-face consultations in April–September 2020 were only 46% of the comparative 2019 consultations. Consultations of less than 15 min duration (87% telephone and 13% video) tripled in April–September 2020, compared to the same period last year. Video consultations comprised 41% of total telehealth provision: these were used mainly for new patient assessments and longer consultations. Conclusions: During the pandemic, Victorian private psychiatrists used COVID-19-MBS-telehealth-items to substantially increase the number of total patient care consultations for 2020 compared to 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Australian federal government introduced new COVID-19 psychiatrist Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth items to assist with providing private specialist care. We investigate private psychiatrists' uptake of video and telephone telehealth, as well as total (telehealth and face-to-face) consultations for Quarter 3 (July-September), 2020. We compare these to the same quarter in 2019.Method: MBS-item service data were extracted for COVID-19-psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth item numbers and compared with Quarter 3 (July-September), 2019, of face-to-face consultations for the whole of Australia.Results: The number of psychiatry consultations (telehealth and face-to-face) rose during the first wave of the pandemic in Quarter 3, 2020, by 14% compared to Quarter 3, 2019, with telehealth 43% of this total. Face-to-face consultations in Quarter 3, 2020 were only 64% of the comparative number of Quarter 3, 2019 consultations. Most telehealth involved short telephone consultations of ⩽15-30 min. Video consultations comprised 42% of total telehealth provision: these were for new patient assessments and longer consultations. These figures represent increased face-to-face consultation compared to Quarter 2, 2020, with substantial maintenance of telehealth consultations.Conclusions: Private psychiatrists continued using the new COVID-19 MBS telehealth items for Quarter 3, 2020 to increase the number of patient care contacts in the context of decreased face-to-face consultations compared to 2019, but increased face-to-face consultations compared to Quarter 2, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Australian Commonwealth Government introduced new psychiatrist Medicare-Benefits-Schedule (MBS)-telehealth items in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to assist with previously office-based psychiatric practice. We investigate private psychiatrists' uptake of (1) video- and telephone-telehealth consultations for Quarter-2 (April–June) of 2020 and (2) total telehealth and face-to-face consultations in Quarter-2, 2020 in comparison to Quarter-2, 2019 for Australia. Methods: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19-psychiatrist-video- and telephone-telehealth item numbers and compared with a baseline of the Quarter-2, 2019 (April–June 2019) of face-to-face consultations for the whole of Australia. Results: Combined telehealth and face-to-face psychiatry consultations rose during the first wave of the pandemic in Quarter-2, 2020 by 14% compared to Quarter-2, 2019 and telehealth was approximately half of this total. Face-to-face consultations in 2020 comprised only 56% of the comparative Quarter-2, 2019 consultations. Most telehealth provision was by telephone for short consultations of ⩽15–30 min. Video consultations comprised 38% of the total telehealth provision (for new patient assessments and longer consultations). Conclusions: There has been a flexible, rapid response to patient demand by private psychiatrists using the new COVID-19-MBS-telehealth items for Quarter-2, 2020, and in the context of decreased face-to-face consultations, ongoing telehealth is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Private practice psychiatry in Australia was largely office-based until the Commonwealth Government introduced new psychiatrist Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth items in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate the uptake of (1) video and telephone telehealth consultations in April–May 2020, and (2) the overall changing rates of consultation, i.e. total telehealth and in-person consultations across the larger states of Australia. Method: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19 psychiatrist video- and telephone-telehealth item numbers and compared with a baseline of the 2018−2019-financial-year monthly average of in-person consultations for New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia. Results: Total psychiatry consultations (telehealth and in-person) rose during the first wave of the pandemic by 10%−20% compared to the previous year. The majority of private practice was conducted by telehealth in April but was lower in May as new COVID-19 case rates fell. Most telehealth provision was by telephone for short consultations of ⩽15−30 min. Video consultations increased from April into May. Conclusions: For large states, there has been a rapid adoption of the MBS telehealth psychiatrist items, followed by a trend back to face-to-face as COVID-19 new case rates reduced. There was an overall increased consultation rate (in-person plus telehealth) for April−May 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse the smaller Australian state/territory service impact of the introduction of new COVID-19 psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items. Method: MBS item service data were extracted for COVID-19 psychiatrist video and telephone telehealth item numbers corresponding to the pre-existing in-person consultations for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Northern Territory (NT), South Australia (SA) and Tasmania. Results: The overall rate of consultations (face-to-face and telehealth) increased during March and April 2020, compared to the monthly face-to-face consultation average, excepting Tasmania. Compared to an annual monthly average of in-person consultations for July 2018–June 2019, total telepsychiatry consultations were higher for April than May. For total video and telephone telehealth consultations combined, video consultations were lower in April and higher in May. As a percentage of combined telehealth and in-person consultations, telehealth was greater for April and lower for May compared to the monthly face-to-face consultation average. Conclusions: In the smaller states/territories, the private practice workforce rapidly adopted COVID-19 MBS telehealth items, with the majority of psychiatric consultation shifting to telehealth initially, and then returning to face-to-face. With a second wave of COVID-19 in Australia, telehealth is likely to remain a vital part of the national mental health strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to perform a clinical and risk audit of private hospital inpatients who had been readmitted within 28 days of a preceding admission.Method: Of 118 readmissions within 28 days in 2017 (7% of all admissions), 50 were randomly selected for audit. Characteristics, illness severity and clinical risk profiles were ascertained at discharge from the index admission and at readmission.Results: Cases were 64% female, age 49.9 ± 18.2 years (range 19-89), 40% in relationships and 24% on disability support. At readmission, 88% posed danger to self due to effects of illness, 46% had high suicide risk and 40% had high physical risk. Illness was rated as severe in 58%, while 40% were rated markedly ill. Relapse or exacerbation of major depression was a cause of readmission in 78%, relapse of alcohol/substance use requiring readmission in 22% and relapse of psychosis in 20%. Index admission length of stay of cases did not differ from that of all hospital admissions.Conclusion: Most readmitted patients were suffering severe exacerbation of depression, were acutely suicidal and were otherwise at high risk of harm. If these patients had been denied readmission on the basis of insurer funding disincentives, catastrophic outcomes may well have occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article raises concerns and offer alternatives to Adult Mental Health Centres (AMHCs) situated within primary healthcare networks (PHNs). Topics include that AMHCs are run by non-governmental organisations (NGOs); that consultation process of AMHCs do not need the needs of patients with complex mental health problems.