OBJECTIVE: This study examined preferences regarding medical advance care planning among persons with serious mental illness, specifically, experience, beliefs, values, and concerns about health care proxies and end-of-life issues. METHODS: A structured interview, the Health Care Preferences Questionnaire, was administered to a convenience sample of 150 adults with serious mental illness who were receiving community-based services from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. Clinical information and demographic data were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 142 participants completed the questionnaire. Although more than one-quarter had thought about their medical treatment preferences in the event that they became seriously medically ill, very few had discussed these preferences. A majority of respondents (72 percent) believed that someone should be designated to make medical health care decisions for a person who is too sick to make or communicate these decisions him- or herself. Common end-of-life concerns included financial and emotional burdens on family, pain and suffering, interpersonal issues such as saying "goodbye," spiritual issues, and funeral arrangements. Participants were most uneasy about the prolonging or stopping of life support by proxy decision makers. A total of 104 respondents (69 percent) expressed interest in formally selecting a health care proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Although persons with serious and persistent mental illness have little experience with medical advance care planning, they show substantial interest in it. Furthermore, they are able to consider and communicate their preferences. This study supports the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of a standardized approach to medical advance care planning with this population.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to ascertain preferences for end-of-life care among persons with serious mental illness. METHODS: The participants were 150 community-residing adults with serious mental illness. The Health Care Preferences Questionnaire was administered to obtain information about treatment preferences in response to hypothetical medical illness scenarios: use of pain medication in the case of incurable cancer and use of artificial life support in the case of irreversible coma. Participants were asked what their treatment preferences would be for an imaginary person in each scenario ("other") as well as their preferences for themselves ("self"). RESULTS: For the scenario involving pain medication for incurable cancer, most participants chose aggressive pain management even if cognition might be affected (64 percent of respondents under the "other" scenario and 66 percent under the "self" scenario). Few participants thought a doctor should provide patients with enough medication to end their life (34 percent for self and 24 percent for other). For the scenario involving irreversible coma, respondents were divided in their choice regarding life support. Approximately one-quarter said that they would prefer to immediately terminate life support (28 percent of respondents for other and 29 percent for self), and half said they would choose to turn it off after a defined period (48 percent for other and 45 percent for self). CONCLUSIONS: Persons with serious mental illness were able to designate treatment preferences in response to end-of-life health state scenarios. Future research is needed to test advance care planning methods, assess stability of choices over time, and ascertain the utility of scenario-based preferences to guide end-of-life care decisions in this population.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe per-capita Medicaid and Medicare expenditures across age cohorts for individuals with schizophrenia and compare expenditures for patients with schizophrenia and those with depression, dementia, and non-psychiatric medical disorders. METHODS: Medicaid and Medicare claims were identified for dually-eligible beneficiaries ages 19+ in New Hampshire during 1999 (schizophrenia: N=1,423; depression: N=2,219; dementia: N=1,942; medical disorders alone: N=4,260). Annual per-capita weighted average expenditures were calculated for inpatient, outpatient, home-health, nursing home, pharmacy, physician, and other services. RESULTS: The greatest per-capita expenditures for individuals with schizophrenia were among older beneficiaries ($39,154 for ages 65-74 and $43,461 for ages 75+), versus younger beneficiaries ($25,633 for ages 19-44 and $31,529 for ages 45-64). Outpatient services were the highest expenditure among younger adults (ages 19-64), whereas nursing home services were the highest expenditure for ages 65+. Total expenditures for individuals with schizophrenia exceeded those for individuals with depression, dementia, or medical disorders across all age cohorts except age 45-64, where dementia expenditures were highest. Among individuals age 65-74, per-capita expenditures for schizophrenia were $11,304 higher than for depression and $28,256 higher than for medical disorders. CONCLUSION: Schizophrenia is one of the most expensive disorders across the adult lifespan, and expenditures increase across age cohorts. Effective interventions are needed that improve independent functioning in older age, in conjunction with innovative models of home- and community-based services that decrease high use of and expenditures for nursing homes.

Little is known about antipsychotic combination therapy, although this practice is becoming increasingly common in the treatment of schizophrenia. Medicaid pharmaceutical claims for a cohort of 836 New Hampshire beneficiaries with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were followed from 1995 through 1999. Use of traditional and atypical antipsychotic medications, antidepressants, anxiolytic hypnotics, and mood stabilizers was tracked monthly. The number of medications, frequency of coprescription, and Medicaid pharmaceutical costs are described. The proportion of individuals with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder treated with atypical antipsychotics grew from 43 percent in 1995 to 70 percent in 1999. At the same time, concurrent use of two or more antipsychotic medications quadrupled, increasing from 5.7 percent to 24.3 percent. Persons with schizophrenia were also prescribed more antidepressants (increased from 18.5% in 1995 to 35.6% in 1999), anxiolytics (increased from 19.9% to 33.5%), and mood stabilizers (increased from 17.7% to 30.0%). The increase in multiple agent therapy appears to be broad-based. Data are needed on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these practices to inform clinical decision making and health policy.

Substance abuse is the most common comorbid complication of severe mental illness. Current clinical research converges on several emerging principles of treatment that address the scope, pace, intensity, and structure of dual-diagnosis programs. They include a) assertive outreach to facilitate engagement and participation in substance abuse treatment, b) close monitoring to provide structure and social reinforcement, c) integrating substance abuse and mental health interventions in the same program, d) comprehensive, broad-based services to address other problems of adjustment, e) safe and protective living environments, f) flexibility of clinicians and programs, g) stage-wise treatment to ensure the appropriate timing of interventions, h) a longitudinal perspective that is congruent with the chronicity of dual disorders, and i) optimism.

Utilization and cost of institutional and outpatient services were prospectively measured over 1 year for three groups of schizophrenic patients: current substance abusers, past substance abusers, and those without a history of substance abuse. Current abusers had significantly greater utilization and cost of institutional (hospital and jail) services. Current abusers also had greater utilization of emergency services. There were no significant differences between the groups in utilization and cost of other services, including psychosocial rehabilitation, outpatient treatment (case management, psychotherapy, and psychiatric visits), and housing supports. The implications for developing cost-effective treatments for dually diagnosed individuals are discussed.