Consumer-directed mental health services
Statutory, regulatory, administrative, and other barriers to consumer-directed mental health care
Issues in measuring the quality of care for adults and children with mental and substance-use problems and illnesses
The experience of the Veterans Health Administration in measuring the quality of care for mental and substance-use conditions
The safety of health care for mental and substance-use conditions
Legal, policy, and programmatic considerations in patient-centered and self-directed care
School-based mental health services
Treatment services for mental and substance-use conditions for children involved in child welfare
Health care for mental and substance-use conditions and the criminal justice system
Improving treatment services for mental and substance-use conditions for children and adolescents in juvenile justice systems
Workforce issues in health care for mental and substance-use conditions
Constraints on sharing information on treatment for mental and substance-use conditions imposed by federal and state medical records privacy laws
The authors of these papers are listed in the acknowledgements section in the front of this report.
During this time, the committee also performed additional evidence review and analysis pertaining to its charge. Some of the extensive evidence reviewed by the committee came from the specialty mental health and substance-use health care fields, some from health services research and other empirical evidence from general health care, and some from other disciplines. The committee’s interdisciplinary review of the evidence was completed in June 2005. A draft report containing the committee’s recommendations was completed in July 2005 and was sent for external review in August 2005. The committee finalized the report in October 2005.
With respect to the organization of this report, although the committee used the aims and rules of the Quality Chasm report as its analytic framework, it was not possible to fully organize this report according to those aims or rules, for several reasons. First, there is a great deal of overlap among the aims and rules, as would be expected. The aims are the goals to be achieved; the rules are recommended strategies for achieving those goals. As a result, the rules were often more useful as an analytic approach than were the aims. For example, the aims are silent on the issue of care coordination, whereas care coordination and collaboration are explicitly discussed in the rules.