Mind and body primary mental healthcare: new model for integrated services

Primary mental healthcare is different from consultation-liaison psychiatry and behavioral medicine yet has elements of both. This approach calls for complete integration of behavioral health services within the primary care and general medical setting. Primary care providers, rather than mental health specialists, retain direction of patient care. In this model, developed at the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, primary behavioral health clinicians are on site, not on call.     

Quality standards for child and adolescent mental health in primary care

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Child and adolescent mental health problems are common in primary healthcare settings. However, few parents of children with mental health problems express concerns about these problems during consultations. Based on parental views, we aimed to create quality of care measures for child and adolescent mental health in primary care and develop consensus about the importance of these quality standards within primary care. METHODS: Quality Standards were developed using an iterative approach involving four phases: 1) 34 parents with concerns about their child's emotional health or behaviour were recruited from a range of community settings including primary care practices to participate in focus group discussions, followed by validation groups or interviews. 2) Preliminary Quality Standards were generated that fully represented the parents' experiences and were refined following feedback from an expert parent nominal group. 3) 55 experts, including parents and representatives from voluntary organisations, across five panels participated in a modified two-stage Delphi study to develop consensus on the importance of the Quality Standards. The panels comprised general practitioners, other community-based professionals, child and adolescent psychiatrists, other child and adolescent mental health professionals and public health and policy specialists. 4) The final set of Quality Standards was piloted with 52 parents in primary care. RESULTS: In the Delphi process, all five panels agreed that 10 of 31 Quality Standards were important. Although four panels rated 25-27 statements as important, the general practitioner panel rated 12 as important. The final 10 Quality Standards reflected healthcare domains involving access, confidentiality for young people, practitioner knowledge, communication, continuity of care, and referral to other services. Parents in primary care agreed that all 10 statements were important. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to develop a set of Quality Standards to assess mental healthcare provision for children and adolescents seen within primary healthcare services. Primary care practitioners should be aware of parental perspectives about quality of care as these may influence helpseeking behaviours.     

基层儿童保健中儿童行为问题的评价

儿童保健门诊的定期健康检查为儿童行为问题的发现提供许多机会,基层保健医生可通过筛查、约见和观察儿童及其父母而完成行为问题的评价,决定父母和儿童是否转诊或作行为治疗。因此,把行为问题的评价纳入基层儿童保健工作是必不可少的。     

Factors related to inappropriate referral between primary and specialized care: qualitative study among primary care physicians

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the factors that, from a primary care physician's point of view, are related to inappropriate referral from primary to specialised health care. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups and two semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians. Each of the participant's profiles was defined according to variables related to inappropriate referral found in previous studies. Discussions were recorded on audio tape and later transcribed verbatim onto paper. We analysed the factors related to inappropriate referral according to frequency and capacity for generating discussion. RESULTS: Primary care physicians have different concepts regarding inappropriate referral, besides health problems that can be solved in primary care. Inappropriate referral is usually justified. Factors related to inappropriate referral can be divided into four groups: 1) related to the patient and patient/doctor relationship: pressure exerted on the primary care physician, caused by a belief in specialists' greater competence, the right of the patient to specialist referral and mass media pressure; 2) related to the health system: lack of coordination between care levels, consultancy time pressure, lack of equipment and distance to the specialist; 3) related to primary care physicians: lack of training and defensive medical practise; 4) related to specialists: professional competence and behaviour with patients. CONCLUSIONS: A notable gap can clearly be seen between primary and specialised care, and this generates problems in the health system. It is difficult to implement prevention and control measures with the factors related to inappropriate referral. Primary care physicians form opinions that are not based on available evidence. Further research is needed in both qualitative and quantitative fields.     

Psychiatry and general health care

The paper presents a study of psychiatric morbidity in the general health care program of a Health Maintenance Organization. Mental health services are built into the program as an integral component of primary care teams in internal medicine and pediatrics. The following were some of the findings: 15.7% of patients visiting the Health Center over a two-year period presented emotional problems; 72% were treated by primary care clinicians alone and 28% by mental health clinicians. Treatment by primary and mental health clinicians is broken down by diagnostic categories. A study of patients with chronic emotional problems revealed that they tended to be high utilizers of all Health Center services for both physical and emotional difficulties. Chronic patients represented 2% of all patients who visited in 1974; of these, 54% were seen by mental health clinicians and 46% by primary care clinicians. In the case of patients with non-chronic emotional problems, over a two-year period, there was an increase in the per cent seen by primary clinicians. The use of psychoactive drugs by primary physicians and the advantages and difficulties of developing a program of integrated health-mental services are described.     

Validation of the primary care alcohol severity measure

Alcohol-related disorders are common in primary care settings; many primary care physicians are ill-equipped to manage patients with alcohol-related disorders. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to develop and validate a patient-based measure, the Primary Care Alcohol Severity Measure, to determine which primary care patients with alcohol-related disorders would benefit from referral to alcohol treatment services. Four Boston-area Department of Veterans Affairs ambulatory care clinics were chosen as study sites. Two hundred seventy-eight male patients, mean age 55.5 years, 89.9% Caucasian, 42.5% married, all with CAGE Questionnaire scores greater than or equal to 2 and drinking within past year, participated in the study. We developed a multidimensional, 30-item measure that contained 2 subscales that assessed 2 symptom clusters of alcohol-related disorders: Physical and Behavioral. Each subscale's score was higher (more severe) for patients with a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse: P < .01 for the physical subscale and P < .0001 for the behavioral subscale. Patients with more physical symptoms had poorer physical and mental health status, whereas patients with more behavioral symptoms had poorer mental health status. Scores on the 2 subscales, along with age and history of prior treatment, predicted the use of alcohol treatment services in the following year: c = 0.90 in logistic regression. The Primary Care Alcohol Severity Measure is a valid measure of alcohol severity in primary care patients and predicts the use of alcohol treatment services. It is relatively brief and easy to use, requiring only standard medical history items and patient reports of behavioral symptoms. It may be a useful tool to improve the quality of care for primary care patients with alcohol-related disorders.     

Understanding team-based quality improvement for depression in primary care

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impacts of the characteristics of quality improvement (QI) teams and their environments on team success in designing and implementing high quality, enduring depression care improvement programs in primary care (PC) practices. STUDY SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Two nonprofit managed care organizations sponsored five QI teams tasked with improving care for depression in large PC practices. Data on characteristics of the teams and their environments is from observer process notes, national expert ratings, administrative data, and interviews. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative formative evaluation of the quality and duration of implementation of the depression improvement programs developed by Central Teams (CTs) emphasizing expert design and Local Teams (LTs) emphasizing participatory local clinician design, and of the effects of additional team and environmental factors on each type of team. Both types of teams depended upon local clinicians for implementation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The CT intervention program designs were more evidence-based than those of LTs. Expert team leadership, support from local practice management, and support from local mental health specialists strongly influenced the development of successful team programs. The CTs and LTs were equally successful when these conditions could be met, but CTs were more successful than LTs in less supportive environments. CONCLUSIONS: The LT approach to QI for depression requires high local support and expertise from primary care and mental health clinicians. The CT approach is more likely to succeed than the LT approach when local practice conditions are not optimal.     

Family physicians' referral decisions: results from the ASPN referral study

OBJECTIVE: To examine family physicians' referral decisions, which we conceptualized as having 2 phases: whether to refer followed by to whom to refer. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. POPULATION: All visits (N = 34,519) and new referrals (N = 2534) occurring during 15 consecutive business days in the offices of 141 family physicians in 87 practices located in 31 states. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Rates of referral, reasons for referral, practitioners referred to, health problems prompting referral, and reasons for selecting particular specialists. RESULTS: Approximately 1 in 20 (5.1%) office visits led to referral. Although 68% of referrals were made by physicians during office visits, 18% were made by physicians during telephone conversations with patients, 11% by office staff with input from the physician, and 3% by staff without physician input. Physicians endorsed a mean of 1.8 reasons for making a referral. They sought specialists' advice on either diagnosis or treatment for 52.1% of referrals and asked the specialist to direct medical management for 25.9% and surgical management for 37.8%. Patient request was one reason for 13.6% of referrals. Fifty conditions accounted for 76% of all referrals. Surgical specialists were sent the largest share of referrals (45.4%), followed by medical specialists (31.0%), nonphysician clinicians (12.1%), obstetrician-gynecologists (4.6%), mental health professionals (4.2%), other practitioners (2.0%), and generalists (0.8%). Physicians recommended a specific practitioner to the patient for most (86.2%) referrals. Personal knowledge of the specialist was the most important reason for selecting a specific specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Referrals are commonly made during encounters other than office visits, such as telephone conversations or staff-patient interactions, in primary care practice. Training in the referral process should ensure that family physicians obtain the skills necessary to expand their scope of practice, when appropriate; determine when and why a patient should be referred; and identify the type of practitioner to whom the patient should be sent.     

Care management for depression in primary care practice: findings from the RESPECT-Depression trial

PURPOSE This qualitative study examined the barriers to adopting depression care management among 42 primary care clinicians in 30 practices.METHODS The RESPECT-Depression trial worked collaboratively with 5 large health care organizations (and 60 primary care practices) to implement and disseminate an evidence-based intervention. This study used semistructured interviews with 42 primary care clinicians from 30 practice sites, 18 care managers, and 7 mental health professionals to explore experience and perceptions with depression care management for patients. Subject selection in 4 waves of interviews was driven by themes emerging from ongoing data analysis.RESULTS Primary care clinicians reported broad appreciation of the benefits of depression care management for their patients. Lack of reimbursement and the competing demands of primary care were often cited as barriers. These clinicians at many levels of initial enthusiasm for care management increased their enthusiasm after experiencing care management through the project. Psychiatric oversight of the care manager with suggestions for the clinicians was widely seen as important and appropriate by clinicians, care managers, and psychiatrists. Clinicians and care managers emphasized the importance of establishing effective communication among themselves, as well as maintaining a consistent and continuous relationship with the patients. The clinicians were selective in which patients they referred for care management, and there was wide variation in opinion about which patients were optimal candidates. Care managers were able to operate both from within a practice and more centrally when specific attention was given to negotiating communication strategies with a clinician.CONCLUSIONS Care management for depression is an attractive option for most primary care clinicians. Lack of reimbursement remains the single greatest obstacle to more widespread adoption.     

Women's Preferred Sources for Primary and Mental Health Care: Implications for Reproductive Health Providers

PurposeTo describe women's preferences for reproductive health providers as sources of primary and mental health care.MethodsThis is secondary data analysis of the Women's Health Care Experiences and Preferences Study, an Internet survey conducted in September 2013 of 1,078 women aged 18 to 55 randomly sampled from a U.S. national probability panel. We estimated women's preferred and usual sources of care (reproductive health providers, generalists, other) for various primary care and mental health care services using weighted statistics and multiple logistic regression.Main FindingsAmong women using health care in the past 5 years (n = 981), 88% received primary and/or mental health care, including a routine medical checkup (78%), urgent/acute (48%), chronic disease (27%), depression/anxiety (21%), stress (16%), and intimate partner violence (2%) visits. Of those, reproductive health providers were the source of checkup (14%), urgent/acute (3%), chronic disease (6%), depression/anxiety (6%), stress (11%), and intimate partner violence (3%) services. Preference for specific reproductive health-provided primary/mental health care services ranged from 7% to 20%. Among women having used primary/mental health care services (N = 894), more women (1%–17%) preferred than had received primary/mental health care from reproductive health providers. Nearly one-quarter (22%) identified reproductive health providers as their single most preferred source of care. Contraceptive use was the strongest predictor of preference for reproductive health-provided primary/mental health care (odds ratios range, 2.11–3.30).ConclusionsReproductive health providers are the sole source of health care for a substantial proportion of reproductive-aged women—the same groups at risk for unmet primary and mental health care needs. Findings have implications for reproductive health providers' role in comprehensive women's health care provision and potentially for informing patient-centered, integrated models of care in current health systems.     

Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care

BACKGROUND: Primary care treatment of depression needs improvement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 augmentations to antidepressant drug treatment. DESIGN: Randomized trial comparing usual care, telehealth care, and telehealth care plus peer support; assessments were conducted at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. SETTING: Two managed care adult primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 302 patients starting antidepressant drug therapy. INTERVENTIONS: For telehealth care: emotional support and focused behavioral interventions in ten 6-minute calls during 4 months by primary care nurses; and for peer support: telephone and in-person supportive contacts by trained health plan members recovered from depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For depression: the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory; and for mental and physical functioning: the SF-12 Mental and Physical Composite Scales and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Nurse-based telehealth patients with or without peer support more often experienced 50% improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 6 weeks (50% vs 37%; P =.01) and 6 months (57% vs 38%; P =.003) and on the Beck Depression Inventory at 6 months (48% vs 37%; P =. 05) and greater quantitative reduction in symptom scores on the Hamilton scale at 6 months (10.38 vs 8.12; P =.006). Telehealth care improved mental functioning at 6 weeks (47.07 vs 42.64; P =.004) and treatment satisfaction at 6 weeks (4.41 vs 4.17; P =.004) and 6 months (4.20 vs 3.94; P =.001). Adding peer support to telehealth care did not improve the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Nurse telehealth care improves clinical outcomes of antidepressant drug treatment and patient satisfaction and fits well within busy primary care settings.     

Depression in primary care: bringing behavioral health care into the mainstream

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's national program, Depression in Primary Care: Linking Clinical and Systems Strategies, funds three related components to stimulate innovation in primary depression care. The incentives, value, and leadership components evaluate and implement strategies for financing and sustaining use of clinical best practices despite barriers created by economic and organizational structures that fragment behavioral and general health care. A challenge for policymakers is how to link depression care with the management of other chronic conditions, so that they are integrated into the quality improvement agenda of purchasers, payers, and providers without becoming submerged in health care's mainstream.     

A challenge for primary health care: mental health care implementation

The objective of this study was to evaluate mental health care provided within a primary health care setting. The study was conducted in a Primary Health Care Center (PHC) in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. A comparative study was made between pediatricians' diagnosis of mental health problems and those identified by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in children (5-11 years) from August to October 2000. Eleven pediatricians were interviewed for more in-depth analysis. The study analyzed 411 patient charts and held 206 interviews with the children's parents. Analysis of the resulting data shows that the pediatricians provided a diagnosis of mental health problems in 17.5% of the children examined. When compared with probable mental health problems identified by the CBCL, only 25.3% of the children were diagnosed by the physician as having mental health problems. Interviews with pediatricians identified difficulties in the definition and conceptualization of mental health problems, lack of organization in the referral system, and insufficient technical support.     

Practical mental health assessment in primary care. Validity and utility of the Quick PsychoDiagnostics Panel

BACKGROUND: Many case-finding instruments are available to help primary care physicians (PCPs) diagnose depression, but they are not widely used. Physicians often consider these instruments too time consuming or feel they do not provide sufficient diagnostic information. Our study examined the validity and utility of the Quick PsychoDiagnostics (QPD) Panel, an automated mental health test designed to meet the special needs of PCPs. The test screens for 9 common psychiatric disorders and requires no physician time to administer or score. METHODS: We evaluated criterion validity relative to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), and evaluated convergent validity by correlating QPD Panel scores with established mental health measures. Sensitivity to change was examined by readministering the test to patients pretreatment and posttreatment. Utility was evaluated through physician and patient satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: For major depression, sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 96%, respectively. For other disorders, sensitivities ranged from 69% to 98%, and specificities ranged from 90% to 97%. The depression severity score correlated highly with the Beck, Hamilton, Zung, and CES-D depression scales, and the anxiety score correlated highly with the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the anxiety subscale of the Symptom Checklist 90 (Ps <.001). The test was sensitive to change. All PCPs agreed or strongly agreed that the QPD Panel "is convenient and easy to use," "can be used immediately by any physician," and "helps provide better patient care." Patients also rated the test favorably. CONCLUSIONS: The QPD Panel is a valid mental health assessment tool that can diagnose a range of common psychiatric disorders and is practical for routine use in primary care.     

Comparison of dermatologic diagnoses by primary care practitioners and dermatologists. A review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Cost-containment efforts in the United States have led to a greater emphasis on health care delivery by primary care physicians as opposed to specialists, who are assumed to be more costly. With this approach, it is incumbent on the primary care physician to be able to accurately diagnose and treat common maladies, including skin disease. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether differences in performance were detectable between groups of physicians when presented with color slides or high-quality transparencies. DESIGN: We performed a critical review of published studies. RESULTS: Overall, dermatologists (93% correct) performed better than nondermatologists (52% correct) (P < .001). No difference was appreciable between dermatology residents (91% correct) and practicing dermatologists (96% correct) or between internal medicine residents (45% correct) and family practice residents (48% correct). In addition, family medicine attending physicians (70% correct) performed better than internal medicine attending physicians (52% correct) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians should receive more training in the diagnosis of skin disease.     

Improving the detection of drug abuse,alcohol abuse,and depression in community health centers

Up to 35 percent of primary care patients suffer from substance abuse or mental disorders, and most of these patients receive care from general medical professionals rather than mental health specialists. Accumulating evidence suggests that primary care physicians often fail to recognize, diagnose, and treat their patients with mental and substance use disorders; only about 5 percent of primary care visits result in a mental or substance use diagnosis. The goals of this project were to evaluate the feasibility of screening for drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and major depression at two federally funded urban Community/Migrant Health Centers (C/MHCs), in Newark, New Jersey, and Bronx, New York, and to examine the effects of a clinical tool designed to guide primary care clinicians in the identification and treatment of substance use and depression, assess provider perceptions of the screening form, and determine the concordance between provider and patient reports of assessment and management.     

Posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers are aware of the importance of identifying depression and anxiety in their patients. The diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), however, is less of a priority. METHODS: Primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in an outpatient facility of a large health maintenance organization administered a psychiatric screening questionnaire to patients whom they suspected had depression or anxiety. Patients with positive results were referred for immediate consultation with a clinical psychologist. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen (38.6%) of the 296 patients referred for consultation met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The most frequent traumas associated with PTSD were adult domestic violence and childhood abuse. Patients with a diagnosis of PTSD were frequent users of medical services in the 12 months before diagnosis. The majority of patients sought treatment in primary care settings, not mental health settings. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PTSD often visit outpatient primary care settings. Medical providers may identify symptoms of depression or anxiety but may not recognize PTSD because of the high degree of overlap between these conditions, and the lack of familiarity with PTSD diagnostic criteria. We provide screening questions that may help physicians detect PTSD in their practices.     

Risk adjustment alternatives in paying for behavioral health care under Medicaid

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of various risk adjustment models in behavioral health applications such as setting mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) capitation payments or overall capitation payments for populations including MH/SA users. DATA SOURCES/STUDY DESIGN: The 1991-93 administrative data from the Michigan Medicaid program were used. We compared mean absolute prediction error for several risk adjustment models and simulated the profits and losses that behavioral health care carve outs and integrated health plans would experience under risk adjustment if they enrolled beneficiaries with a history of MH/SA problems. Models included basic demographic adjustment, Adjusted Diagnostic Groups, Hierarchical Condition Categories, and specifications designed for behavioral health. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Differences in predictive ability among risk adjustment models were small and generally insignificant. Specifications based on relatively few MH/SA diagnostic categories did as well as or better than models controlling for additional variables such as medical diagnoses at predicting MH/SA expenditures among adults. Simulation analyses revealed that among both adults and minors considerable scope remained for behavioral health care carve outs to make profits or losses after risk adjustment based on differential enrollment of severely ill patients. Similarly, integrated health plans have strong financial incentives to avoid MH/SA users even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Current risk adjustment methodologies do not eliminate the financial incentives for integrated health plans and behavioral health care carve-out plans to avoid high-utilizing patients with psychiatric disorders.     

Sharing a Playbook: Integrated Care in Community Health Centers in the United States

Objectives. We investigated basic measures used to assess collaboration between colocated providers and to gauge the extent to which health centers practice integrated care.Methods. We used the Assessment of Behavioral Health Services survey and the 2010 Uniform Data System to explore the elements of integrated care for behavioral health conditions. We used multivariable regression models to examine the correlates of integrated care.Results. More than 85% of health centers provided mental health services in 2010, and almost half offered substance use treatment. Health centers commonly reported shared access to information among behavioral health and medical providers and joint care planning. A higher degree of integrated care involving joint case conferences was less common. Health centers without electronic health records and those with lower percentages of total staff composed of behavioral health workers were less likely to provide integrated care.Conclusions. A 2-pronged strategy involving financial incentives and technical assistance to spread best practices might increase integrated care, particularly among health centers that are not maximizing the potential of electronic health records and health centers with low behavioral health staffing levels.The treatment of behavioral health conditions is a key component of quality care.1 Behavioral health encompasses mental health and substance use disorders as well as health behaviors.2 Improving access to screening and treatment services for mental health and substance use disorders is critical to the success of wider efforts to improve the health care system to pursue the triple aim3 of better health, better care, and lower per-person costs.4,5 However, medical and behavioral health care providers have historically practiced in isolation, with little communication or coordination. The need to better integrate behavioral and medical care is especially pronounced for underserved patients; according to the Institute of Medicine, “[t]he single greatest flaw of the mental health safety net is its nearly total disconnection from the core [general medical] safety net.”6^(p189)Mental health and substance use disorder services are frequently provided in primary care settings; in fact, many patients with behavioral health disorders never receive care in a specialty behavioral health setting.7,8 Community health centers are key portals of access to medical and behavioral health services in underserved communities.9 Community health centers are also called “federally qualified health centers” or “health centers.” We used data from federally qualified health centers that received grant funding in 2010 under Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act through the Bureau of Primary Care at the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Because many health center patients face additional access barriers—40% of health center patients were uninsured in 2010—treatment initiation and engagement might be improved if on-site behavioral health services are available where patients access medical care and links to social services.10 The “warm handoff” to a behavioral health provider can create trust, because colocation with medical services can destigmatize behavioral health treatment. Patients already visit health centers for medical and other types of services, so accessing behavioral health services on-site at the health center is likely to be convenient.11 In addition, colocating primary care and behavioral health services is a strategy to mitigate barriers to accessing care related to cultural beliefs among patients.12Health centers are required to provide mental health and substance use disorder services on-site or by referral. Most health centers have on-site behavioral health specialists, particularly larger health centers, those located in urban areas, in the Northeast and West, in local areas with greater availability of behavioral health specialists, and in states that allow Medicaid same-day billing for medical and behavioral health services.13,14 Health center capacity is expanding under the Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 855 [March 2010]) to increase access to care for underserved patients and communities.15 Improving access to behavioral health services at health centers is currently a priority; more than 1 in 3 health centers received funding to expand behavioral health capacity in 2014 of more than $105 million.16Building on the foundation of colocated behavioral health specialists and primary care providers, health centers are exploring how to integrate behavioral health services into primary care.17,18 A commonly used continuum specifies 3 basic levels of orchestration between behavioral health and medical care: coordinated from 2 separate locations, colocated in a shared space, or integrated.10,19 The definition is still evolving, but integrated care is distinguished by colocated, team-based care and, optimally, a shared care plan with both behavioral health and medical elements.10,20–23Integrated care typically refers to providing behavioral health services in the primary care setting, whereas the closely related terms “coordination” and “collaboration” are used to describe shared access to information, communication, and consultation between medical and behavioral health providers, regardless of whether the services are colocated.24,25 We examined the processes used by primary care and behavioral health clinicians in health centers to conduct evidence-based activities to improve integration: colocating medical and behavioral health services, shared access to information in patient records, joint case conferences, and joint care planning.26It is important to note that colocating medical and behavioral health services does not necessarily lead to communication and collaboration; sustained technical assistance might be needed to support providers as they make the necessary changes to cultures, structures, and processes to allow more interdisciplinary communication and collaboration.27,28 Barriers to integrated care include a lack of consensus regarding team members’ roles29,30 and interprofessional conflict stemming from differing cultural norms and mental models of practice.31 The siloed and fragmented reimbursement landscape is another factor, particularly because reimbursement is often fee for service on the basis of the volume of patient encounters; funding streams that cover provider-to-provider communication might be necessary to support integrated care.32^,33Prohibitions on same-day billing for medical and behavioral health services are another roadblock.13,34 Additional financial barriers include staffing costs and health information technology (IT) implementation costs.35 There are many other issues related to health IT, including usability issues of care coordination and registry functions, limited interoperability hindering health information exchange, and additional privacy protections for information on substance use disorders.20,36–39We explored some basic measures that can be used to assess collaboration between colocated providers and to gauge the extent to which a health center is practicing integrated care. We asked 2 main questions. First, to what extent is integrated care occurring for health center patients with behavioral health conditions? Second, which health center characteristics are associated with practicing integrated care? We hypothesized that larger health centers, those with electronic health records (EHRs), and those with higher percentages of total staffing composed of behavioral health specialists might be more likely to provide integrated care.Our study makes a unique contribution to the literature by presenting nationally representative data on the elements of integrated care for patients with behavioral health conditions in health centers. The findings on contextual and health center characteristics associated with practicing integrated care in health centers might guide policies designed to reduce unmet needs for behavioral health treatment services among underserved patients.