Skip to main content

Mental Illnesses a Leading Cause of Hospital Admissions, But Treatment Lags Behind


Would you send your mother to a pediatrician for her arthritis, or your child to a geriatrician for his well-baby exam?

Probably not – unless there were no other provider in town.

But some new reports from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) suggest that something akin to that is happening every day to people with mental illnesses.


They make for fascinating reading, with an unexpected twist at the end. 

Spoiler alert – mood disorders are among the most common reasons for hospitalizations for people under 65.  But mood disorders aren’t driving the increase in hospital costs, because the procedures hospitals most often perform have nothing to do with treating people with mood disorders.

Mood disorders accounted for 877,000 hospital inpatient stays during 2010.  Apart from being born, they were the #1 reason that children under the age of 18 were admitted to hospitals, ahead of pneumonia, asthma, and appendicitis.

Mood disorders were also the 3rd most common primary diagnosis among all people between the ages of 18 and 44.  The other four in the top five all related to childbirth and delivery.

And among adults between the ages of 45 and 64, mood disorders ranked 5th as a reason for inpatient hospitalization, behind four conditions closely related to aging – osteoarthritis, back pain, chest pain, and coronary artery disease.

Mood disorders may be common reasons for hospitalization, but they have nothing to do with the recent increase in health care costs.

The mean cost of a hospital stay was $9,700 in 2010, up from $6,700 (in 2010 dollars) in 1997.  That represents a 45% increase over a thirteen year period. 

But the mean cost for mood disorders was less than half of that – just $4,800.  And what’s even more interesting is this.  That represented a 6% decrease from the $5,100 cost per stay in 1997.

On the other end of the scale, the most expensive hospital stay was for adult respiratory arrest, at $22,300.  In other words, we pay almost five times more for people to die in a hospital than to be treated for mental illness in a hospital. 

We also pay $18,000 to diagnose and treat an acute brain injury – four times than what we pay to diagnose and treat a chronic brain disease.

And in every age group, the most common procedures hospitals perform have nothing to do with mood disorders. 

Among children, hospitals most frequently offer vaccinations, circumcisions, respiratory intubations, and appendectomies.  Among younger adults, the most frequent procedures include those related to child birth and delivery – such as Caesarian sections and repairs of obstetric lacerations, and blood transfusions.  And among older adults, blood transfusions, cardiac catheterization, respiratory intubation, and upper GI endoscopy are most common, along with knee and hip procedures for the very old.

So what do we need to do to respond to the needs of people with mood disorders who are entering our hospitals?

The answer isn’t to deny or restrict care to patients with mental illnesses who show up at hospitals because they have no other place to go, or to force hospitals to discharge patients with mood disorders before they are ready to go, or to wait for jails to pick up the slack – as we do in so many places today.

We have choices.

One is to fund more community treatment programs – to replace those we lost to massive budget cuts – so that thousands of people can avoid hospitalizations in the first place.

And another is to insist that when patients are admitted to hospitals, our new mental health parity rules and regulations mandate payment for hospitals to use new procedures like functional MRIs (fMRIs) to diagnose more accurately – and therefore to treat more effectively – mental illness in their patients. FMRIs are brain scans that can show differences in brain activity that are correlated with specific mood and anxiety disorders. 

FMRIs aren’t exotic – they have already been used in consumer studies to measure consumer preferences for brand names. If we can use fMRIs to help sell cola or political candidates, why can’t we use them in hospitals to help treat mental illness?

We always have choices.

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

States and Rebates

If you run a small business in Florida, are self-employed in Texas, or work for a large corporation in New Jersey ( see an update below ), then your state insurance regulators probably haven't been working for you. The news that 15.8 million people can expect $1.3 billion in rebates from insurers this year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) underscores how weak health insurance regulation has been in states across the country.  It may come as no surprise that Florida and Texas, two leaders in the fight against ACA, have been exposed as anti-consumer.  But they are not the only states with an anti-consumer bias. First, the good news: last week, the federal government announced that three-quarters of us will get letters beginning on July 1 telling us that our insurance plans paid out at least 80 to 85 cents in benefits for every premium dollar they collected. This means that under ACA they met the minimum standard for a reasonable benefit payout (which i...

Why the Republicans Have No Health Care Plan

There's a simple reason why (after more than a decade) Donald Trump and the Republicans have no plan to replace Obamacare. I'll explain in a few minutes. But first, some background. When the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) was passed in 2010, it was an effort to expand health care coverage to a lot of people who needed it, while controlling their costs. It had certain key provisions, not the least of which were that people couldn't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, that all chronic diseases needed to be covered fairly, and lifetime coverage caps had to be lifted. The problem was that if you left matters to insurers to set insurance premiums based on what this would cost, the price of insurance would rise dramatically. So the government took a look at three different programs and ultimately put them together into one system. For people whose income was so low that they couldn't afford any real cost-sharing, the government expanded Medicaid. For elders...

The Ten Best and Ten Worst States for Your Mental Health

Connecticut spends four times more per capita on state mental health services than Texas.  In Florida, 25 percent fewer people report having mental illnesses than in Washington. Across the nation, there are significant differences in the amounts states spend on mental health services.  Connecticut spends $189 per capita, while Texas spends only $39. But there are also significant differences in the reported prevalence of mental illnesses.  For example, fewer than 18 percent of Floridians report having a mental illness during the past year, but in Washington almost 24 percent do. But what happens when you put spending and prevalence together?  Some new rankings emerge that give you a measure of each state’s real commitment to protecting mental health – and treating mental illness – in their population.  This week, I have ranked all fifty states using both spending and prevalence data.       I have taken per capita m...