Affordable Care Act and Dual Diagnosis: Addressing Persistent Barriers to Integrated Care

The promise of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to revolutionize healthcare access and integration, particularly for vulnerable populations, sparked hope for individuals grappling with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, often termed “dual diagnosis.” This article delves into the ongoing challenges in delivering truly integrated care for this population, even in the era of healthcare reform. Drawing upon a detailed study of mental health service providers’ experiences within a transformed system, we uncover the persistent barriers that hinder effective treatment for those with dual diagnoses, and explore what the ACA’s emphasis on integrated care means in practice.

Lingering Obstacles in Dual Diagnosis Treatment Despite Healthcare Transformation

The landmark 2003 President’s New Freedom Commission Report envisioned a transformed mental health system capable of seamlessly addressing the complex needs of individuals with co-occurring disorders. This vision aimed to dismantle the historical silos separating mental health and substance abuse treatment, which have long impeded effective care. However, the question remains: has system transformation truly resolved these deeply entrenched issues?

A qualitative study, focusing on the perspectives of providers within a large mental health system undergoing significant transformation, sheds light on the realities of dual diagnosis service delivery. This research, conducted through focus groups with mental health professionals, reveals that despite systemic efforts and policy shifts, substantial barriers continue to undermine the provision of integrated care. These obstacles exist both within the mental health system itself and in the crucial area of collaboration with specialized substance abuse treatment providers.

Persistent Challenges Within Mental Health Systems

The study identified several key areas within mental health organizations that continue to impede effective dual diagnosis treatment. These include:

Organizational Failure to Sustain Integrated Care Initiatives: A recurring theme was the lack of sustained organizational commitment to integrated care models. Providers reported that initial enthusiasm and resources dedicated to addressing co-occurring disorders often waned over time. Examples included the discontinuation of expert consultations, abandonment of drug testing protocols, and failure to implement planned integrated care procedures. This suggests a gap between initial policy intentions and the long-term organizational support required to embed integrated practices into routine care.
Limited Support for Dual Diagnosis Training: Despite the high prevalence of co-occurring disorders among their clientele, many clinicians reported feeling inadequately trained to address substance use issues. While acknowledging the need for specialized training, providers cited limited access to such opportunities. The pressure to maintain productivity and billable hours often overshadowed professional development needs, leaving clinicians reliant on informal, on-the-job learning rather than structured education in dual diagnosis treatment. This lack of formal training contributes to discomfort and potential hesitancy in addressing substance use with clients, hindering effective integrated care.
Diagnostic and Billing Restrictions: The financial structure of mental health services, with its emphasis on diagnosing and billing for mental disorders, creates a significant barrier to integrated care. Services are primarily reimbursable when directly tied to a mental health diagnosis. This system necessitates framing substance use interventions as secondary to mental health outcomes, even when substance abuse is a central concern. Providers described navigating these bureaucratic constraints by focusing documentation on mental health diagnoses, even when treatment efforts were primarily directed at substance use. This artificial separation between mental health and substance use in billing and documentation can undermine a truly integrated treatment approach.

Barriers to Coordination with Substance Abuse Treatment Providers

Effective dual diagnosis treatment often necessitates seamless collaboration between mental health and substance abuse treatment systems. However, the study highlighted significant challenges in this inter-agency coordination:

Shortcomings of the Substance Abuse Treatment System: Providers frequently perceived the substance abuse treatment landscape as fragmented, difficult to navigate, and lacking in capacity. Limited awareness of available services, cumbersome referral processes, and extensive waitlists for programs were commonly reported. The scarcity of treatment slots and demanding admission procedures were seen as counterproductive, particularly given the often-fleeting window of opportunity to engage individuals in substance abuse treatment. Furthermore, the brevity of many available substance abuse programs and limited aftercare options raised concerns about the long-term effectiveness of these services in supporting individuals with dual diagnoses.
Communication Challenges: Effective care coordination relies on clear and consistent communication. However, providers reported significant obstacles in communicating with substance abuse treatment programs. Regulations in some residential programs restricting client communication with outside providers, coupled with heavy caseloads and time constraints, made regular contact impractical. “Phone tag,” confidentiality concerns, and agency policies regarding information sharing further complicated communication. The administrative burden of billing for interagency communication also disincentivized collaborative efforts, making routine coordination a significant challenge.
Conflicting Treatment Approaches: Differing philosophies and treatment approaches between mental health and substance abuse systems presented another layer of complexity. Providers highlighted instances where clients attending 12-step programs were discouraged from using prescribed psychiatric medications, even when deemed necessary by mental health professionals. These conflicting messages and approaches can undermine treatment adherence and create crises, emphasizing the need for better alignment and understanding between different treatment modalities to ensure cohesive care for individuals with dual diagnoses.

Implications for the Affordable Care Act and Integrated Care

The findings of this study carry significant implications for the ongoing implementation and impact of the Affordable Care Act. While the ACA aimed to expand access to both mental health and substance use disorder services and promote integrated care, the persistent barriers identified in this research underscore the complexities of achieving true integration in practice.

The ACA’s emphasis on parity – ensuring mental health and substance use disorder benefits are comparable to physical health benefits – is a crucial step. However, parity alone may not be sufficient to overcome the systemic and organizational barriers that hinder integrated care delivery. The study highlights the need for a multi-faceted approach that goes beyond policy mandates and addresses the practical, on-the-ground challenges faced by providers.

Moving Forward: Towards Truly Integrated Care

Addressing the persistent barriers to dual diagnosis treatment requires concerted efforts at multiple levels:

Sustained Organizational Commitment: Mental health organizations need to prioritize and consistently support integrated care initiatives. This includes allocating dedicated resources, providing ongoing training opportunities, and fostering a culture that values and rewards integrated practices.
Enhanced Training and Workforce Development: Investing in comprehensive training programs for mental health professionals in dual diagnosis treatment is essential. This training should equip clinicians with the skills and confidence to effectively address substance use issues as part of integrated mental health care.
Streamlined Billing and Diagnostic Systems: Reforming billing and diagnostic systems to better accommodate integrated care models is crucial. This may involve developing billing codes and procedures that recognize and reimburse services addressing both mental health and substance use concurrently, reducing the artificial separation imposed by current systems.
Improved Care Coordination Mechanisms: Developing and implementing effective mechanisms for care coordination between mental health and substance abuse treatment providers is paramount. This includes establishing clear communication protocols, facilitating information sharing (while respecting confidentiality), and fostering collaborative relationships between agencies.
Bridging Treatment Philosophy Differences: Efforts to bridge the gap between different treatment philosophies, particularly between mental health and 12-step oriented substance abuse programs, are needed. Promoting mutual understanding and respect for diverse approaches can enhance collaborative care and minimize conflicting messages for clients.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Journey to Integrated Care

This study serves as a critical reminder that despite significant policy shifts and systemic transformation efforts, long-standing barriers continue to impede the delivery of integrated care for individuals with co-occurring disorders. The promise of the Affordable Care Act and similar healthcare reforms to improve access and integration for this vulnerable population remains partially unfulfilled. Overcoming these persistent obstacles requires a sustained, multi-pronged approach that addresses organizational culture, workforce development, financial structures, and inter-agency collaboration. Only through such comprehensive efforts can we hope to realize the vision of truly integrated care for those navigating the complexities of dual diagnosis.

BARRIERS TO TREATING CO-OCCURRING DISORDERS: INSIGHTS FROM CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS

Systemic Barriers Within Mental Health Care

Lack of sustained organizational support for integrated care models.
Limited access to specialized training in co-occurring disorder treatment for staff.
Restrictive diagnostic criteria and billing practices that hinder integrated service delivery.

Challenges in Coordinating Care with Substance Abuse Treatment Providers

Perceived limitations and fragmentation within the substance use disorder treatment system.
Significant obstacles in communication and information sharing between mental health and substance abuse providers.
Difficulties in reconciling differing treatment approaches and philosophies across systems.

Acknowledgments

The research and writing presented in this report were supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant R21DA03563401 (Dr. Guerrero, principal investigator), National Institute of Mental Health grant R25MH080916-01A2, a University of Southern California Office of the Provost Zumberge Award (Dr. Guerrero), and University of California Los Angeles Clinical Translational Science Institute–Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health Translational Research Fellowship UL1TR000124 (Dr. Braslow, co-principal investigator).

Footnotes

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Contributor Information

Dr. Howard Padwa, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles ([email protected])

Dr. Erick G. Guerrero, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Dr. Joel T. Braslow, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles

Ms. Karissa M. Fenwick, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

REFERENCES

[1] Regier, D. A., Farmer, M. E., Rae, D. S., Locke, B. Z., Keith, S. J., Judd, L. L., & Goodwin, F. K. (1990). Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse. JAMA, 264(19), 2511-2518.

[2] Minkoff, K. (2001). Program components for integrated treatment of patients with co-occurring substance disorders and mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 505-512.

[3] Clark, R. E. (2005). Dual diagnosis capability in community mental health agencies: organizational, staffing, and financial relationships. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 32(4), 424-439.

[4] Drake, R. E., Mercer-McFadden, C., Mueser, K. T., McHugo, G. J., & Bond, G. R. (1998). Review of integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment for patients with dual disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24(4), 589-608.

[5] Osher, F. C., & Drake, R. E. (2003). Public health policy for persons with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1287-1290.

[6] Sacks, S., Banks, S., McKendrick, K., & Harle, T. (2008). Dual diagnosis services in public mental health settings: current capacity and planned expansion. Psychiatric Services, 59(8), 878-881.

[7] McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689-1695.

[8] President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: transforming mental health care in America: final report. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[9] California Department of Mental Health. (2009). Mental health services act: component plan guidance. Sacramento: Author.

[10] Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[11] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[12] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[13] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).

[14] Snowden, L. R., & Yamada, A. M. (2005). Cultural competence recognition and performance in mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33(1), 35-47.