Notes that states may be better off covering children with serious mental health problems under t... more Notes that states may be better off covering children with serious mental health problems under their Children’s Health Insurance Program than under Medicaid. Estimates the range of costs that could be expected under alternative benefit designs.
Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states... more Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states use to regulate residential facilities for children with mental illness. This article describes the results of a government-sponsored survey of state officials that examined how states license, regulate, and monitor such facilities. Questionnaires were mailed to selected officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, followed by extensive telephone and e-mail contacts. Questionnaire items covered program characteristics, licensing and accreditation, mandated services, monitoring and oversight methods, and payment sources. Information was gathered on 71 types of residential facilities in 38 states, accounting for 3,628 separate residential facilities with 50,507 beds as of September 30, 2003. States differed widely in the types of residential facilities that they regulate and their mix of regulatory methods, which included requirements for announced and unannounced visits, mandated staff-to-client ratios, minimum levels of education for facility directors, specifications for licensing practices and critical incident reporting, mandated complaint review procedures, and accreditation from designated organizations. Welfare, mental health, and health departments all participated in regulating facilities. States relied on at least several regulatory methods, but no state used all of the possible methods. The regulatory environment is complex in most states because several agencies are involved in licensing, regulating, and reviewing complaints. To ensure that residential facilities effectively address the needs of children with mental illness and their families, policy makers should review and improve their state's data on methods for regulating residential facilities.
To acquire information about the characteristics of U.S. citizens who had recently studied medici... more To acquire information about the characteristics of U.S. citizens who had recently studied medicine abroad, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges merged independently collected data on a study group of 10,460 U.S. citizens who attended 359 medical schools in 75 foreign countries and who took their first ECFMG examination between 1978 and 1982. The study group was markedly heterogeneous: 21 percent were not U.S. citizens at birth, 32 percent did not have English as a native language, and 12 percent had two or more years of undergraduate college education in Puerto Rico. Sixty-seven percent resided in New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, or Puerto Rico, and 74 percent studied medicine in Mexico or the Caribbean. Forty-six percent passed the ECFMG examination on their first attempt, and 22 percent passed a subsequent examination. Only 45 percent had applied to a U.S. medical school, and 65 percent had taken the Medical College Admission Test. The means of the college grade-point averages, known for 39 percent of the study group, and of the scores on the admission test, known for 65 percent, were lower than those of both accepted and unaccepted applicants to U.S. medical schools in the 1976 and 1978 entering classes. The finding that 55 percent of the study group did not apply to a U.S. medical school does not support the widely held belief that most, if not all, U.S. citizens who attend foreign medical schools do so only after several unsuccessful attempts to gain admission to a U.S. school.
Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states... more Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states use to regulate residential facilities for children with mental illness. This article describes the results of a government-sponsored survey of state officials that examined how states license, regulate, and monitor such facilities. Questionnaires were mailed to selected officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, followed by extensive telephone and e-mail contacts. Questionnaire items covered program characteristics, licensing and accreditation, mandated services, monitoring and oversight methods, and payment sources. Information was gathered on 71 types of residential facilities in 38 states, accounting for 3,628 separate residential facilities with 50,507 beds as of September 30, 2003. States differed widely in the types of residential facilities that they regulate and their mix of regulatory methods, which included requirements for announced and unannounced visits, mandated staff-to-client ratios, minimum levels of education for facility directors, specifications for licensing practices and critical incident reporting, mandated complaint review procedures, and accreditation from designated organizations. Welfare, mental health, and health departments all participated in regulating facilities. States relied on at least several regulatory methods, but no state used all of the possible methods. The regulatory environment is complex in most states because several agencies are involved in licensing, regulating, and reviewing complaints. To ensure that residential facilities effectively address the needs of children with mental illness and their families, policy makers should review and improve their state's data on methods for regulating residential facilities.
This chartbook for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provide... more This chartbook for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provides comprehensive information on Medicaid beneficiaries who use mental health and substance abuse services and places the findings in a broad policy context.
This study identified Medicaid beneficiaries using mental health or substance abuse services in f... more This study identified Medicaid beneficiaries using mental health or substance abuse services in fee-for-service plans in 13 states in 2003 (N=1,380,190) and examined their use of medical services. Administrative and fee-for-service claims data from Medicaid Analytic eXtract files were analyzed to identify mutually exclusive groups of beneficiaries who used either mental health or substance abuse services and to describe patterns of medical service use. Overall, 11.7% of Medicaid beneficiaries were identified as using mental health or substance abuse services (10.9% and .7% used each of these services, respectively), with substantial variation across age and eligibility groups. Among beneficiaries using mental health services, 47.4% had visited an emergency room for any reason, 7.8% were treated for their disorder in inpatient settings, 13.8% received inpatient treatment for problems other than their mental or substance use disorders, and 70.4% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Among beneficiaries using substance abuse services, 60.7% had visited an emergency room, 12.6% were treated for their disorder in inpatient settings, 24.7% received other inpatient treatment, and 46.1% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Among beneficiaries not using either mental health or substance use services, 29.0% had visited an emergency room, 12.7% received inpatient treatment, and 10.1% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Beneficiaries who used mental health or substance abuse services entered general inpatient settings and visited emergency rooms more frequently than other beneficiaries.
Notes that states may be better off covering children with serious mental health problems under t... more Notes that states may be better off covering children with serious mental health problems under their Children’s Health Insurance Program than under Medicaid. Estimates the range of costs that could be expected under alternative benefit designs.
Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states... more Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states use to regulate residential facilities for children with mental illness. This article describes the results of a government-sponsored survey of state officials that examined how states license, regulate, and monitor such facilities. Questionnaires were mailed to selected officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, followed by extensive telephone and e-mail contacts. Questionnaire items covered program characteristics, licensing and accreditation, mandated services, monitoring and oversight methods, and payment sources. Information was gathered on 71 types of residential facilities in 38 states, accounting for 3,628 separate residential facilities with 50,507 beds as of September 30, 2003. States differed widely in the types of residential facilities that they regulate and their mix of regulatory methods, which included requirements for announced and unannounced visits, mandated staff-to-client ratios, minimum levels of education for facility directors, specifications for licensing practices and critical incident reporting, mandated complaint review procedures, and accreditation from designated organizations. Welfare, mental health, and health departments all participated in regulating facilities. States relied on at least several regulatory methods, but no state used all of the possible methods. The regulatory environment is complex in most states because several agencies are involved in licensing, regulating, and reviewing complaints. To ensure that residential facilities effectively address the needs of children with mental illness and their families, policy makers should review and improve their state's data on methods for regulating residential facilities.
To acquire information about the characteristics of U.S. citizens who had recently studied medici... more To acquire information about the characteristics of U.S. citizens who had recently studied medicine abroad, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges merged independently collected data on a study group of 10,460 U.S. citizens who attended 359 medical schools in 75 foreign countries and who took their first ECFMG examination between 1978 and 1982. The study group was markedly heterogeneous: 21 percent were not U.S. citizens at birth, 32 percent did not have English as a native language, and 12 percent had two or more years of undergraduate college education in Puerto Rico. Sixty-seven percent resided in New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, or Puerto Rico, and 74 percent studied medicine in Mexico or the Caribbean. Forty-six percent passed the ECFMG examination on their first attempt, and 22 percent passed a subsequent examination. Only 45 percent had applied to a U.S. medical school, and 65 percent had taken the Medical College Admission Test. The means of the college grade-point averages, known for 39 percent of the study group, and of the scores on the admission test, known for 65 percent, were lower than those of both accepted and unaccepted applicants to U.S. medical schools in the 1976 and 1978 entering classes. The finding that 55 percent of the study group did not apply to a U.S. medical school does not support the widely held belief that most, if not all, U.S. citizens who attend foreign medical schools do so only after several unsuccessful attempts to gain admission to a U.S. school.
Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states... more Little national information is available to help policy makers understand the methods that states use to regulate residential facilities for children with mental illness. This article describes the results of a government-sponsored survey of state officials that examined how states license, regulate, and monitor such facilities. Questionnaires were mailed to selected officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, followed by extensive telephone and e-mail contacts. Questionnaire items covered program characteristics, licensing and accreditation, mandated services, monitoring and oversight methods, and payment sources. Information was gathered on 71 types of residential facilities in 38 states, accounting for 3,628 separate residential facilities with 50,507 beds as of September 30, 2003. States differed widely in the types of residential facilities that they regulate and their mix of regulatory methods, which included requirements for announced and unannounced visits, mandated staff-to-client ratios, minimum levels of education for facility directors, specifications for licensing practices and critical incident reporting, mandated complaint review procedures, and accreditation from designated organizations. Welfare, mental health, and health departments all participated in regulating facilities. States relied on at least several regulatory methods, but no state used all of the possible methods. The regulatory environment is complex in most states because several agencies are involved in licensing, regulating, and reviewing complaints. To ensure that residential facilities effectively address the needs of children with mental illness and their families, policy makers should review and improve their state's data on methods for regulating residential facilities.
This chartbook for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provide... more This chartbook for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provides comprehensive information on Medicaid beneficiaries who use mental health and substance abuse services and places the findings in a broad policy context.
This study identified Medicaid beneficiaries using mental health or substance abuse services in f... more This study identified Medicaid beneficiaries using mental health or substance abuse services in fee-for-service plans in 13 states in 2003 (N=1,380,190) and examined their use of medical services. Administrative and fee-for-service claims data from Medicaid Analytic eXtract files were analyzed to identify mutually exclusive groups of beneficiaries who used either mental health or substance abuse services and to describe patterns of medical service use. Overall, 11.7% of Medicaid beneficiaries were identified as using mental health or substance abuse services (10.9% and .7% used each of these services, respectively), with substantial variation across age and eligibility groups. Among beneficiaries using mental health services, 47.4% had visited an emergency room for any reason, 7.8% were treated for their disorder in inpatient settings, 13.8% received inpatient treatment for problems other than their mental or substance use disorders, and 70.4% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Among beneficiaries using substance abuse services, 60.7% had visited an emergency room, 12.6% were treated for their disorder in inpatient settings, 24.7% received other inpatient treatment, and 46.1% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Among beneficiaries not using either mental health or substance use services, 29.0% had visited an emergency room, 12.7% received inpatient treatment, and 10.1% received prescriptions for psychotropic medications. Beneficiaries who used mental health or substance abuse services entered general inpatient settings and visited emergency rooms more frequently than other beneficiaries.
Uploads
Papers by Judith Teich