Bill Overview
Title: Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Improvement Act
Description: This bill requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to revise payments under the Medicare prospective payment system for psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units based on newly collected data, which may include data on charges, the required intensity of behavioral monitoring, and interventions. Psychiatric hospitals and units must also submit patient assessment data through a standardized instrument developed by the CMS.
Sponsors: Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People utilizing psychiatric hospitals and units globally
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill impacts psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units which receive Medicare payments.
- The bill requires data collection and submission from these facilities, impacting their administrative procedures.
- Patients in these facilities could be impacted indirectly by changes in payment systems, which might affect care quality and availability.
- Changes in funding or resource allocation in psychiatric facilities could impact the services provided to patients.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes patients in psychiatric hospitals and units that receive Medicare payments.
- The policy is likely to affect hospitals' operations and potentially the quality of patient care through changes in payment structures and data requirements.
- The budget constraints may influence the extent of improvements or services that can be implemented immediately, especially in the first year with a budget of $12,000,000 USD.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this bill will improve the care I receive, especially around emergency interventions.
- Better funding might mean more staff at the facility, which would be great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the payments are increased, it might improve staffing levels and resources.
- I worry about any administrative delays or complications affecting my care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent assessments might actually help in better managing my condition.
- I hope this will mean more personalized and attentive care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Freelance Artist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that there will be more data-based decisions in care.
- I've seen units struggle with understaffing; maybe this will help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Psychiatric Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The revisions might finally address some of the funding issues we face daily.
- I'm optimistic about improvements in care standards if this policy increases funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Hospital Administrator (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for our funding needs.
- Submitting assessment data could be an administrative challenge, but it's necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope there won't be any disruptions in my current treatment.
- It's important that this improves patient care long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Unemployed (Detroit, MI)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvement in care quality would really help people like me.
- Let's hope this means more accessible and effective treatments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Psychiatrist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could balance our budget and allow us to focus more on patient care.
- Data standardization is necessary but requires training and resources upfront.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Therapist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced funding might help in offering better therapeutic services.
- I hope the assessment data will be used to genuinely improve patient care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $23000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $28000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's focus on more accurate and standardized data collection could significantly improve the understanding and management of psychiatric care needs.
- Startup costs are associated with system changes, but should be evaluated against potential long-term efficiencies and improvements.
- Engagement with healthcare providers is crucial to ensure successful implementation and adherence to new reporting requirements.