Federal Practitioner

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing care for more than 9 million veterans.¹ With veterans experiencing mental health conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders, and other serious mental illnesses (SMI) at higher rates compared with the general population, the VA plays an important role in the provision of mental health services.^2-5 Since the implementation of its Mental Health Strategic Plan in 2004, the VA has overseen the development of a wide array of mental health programs geared toward the complex needs of veterans. Research has demonstrated VA care outperforming Medicaid-reimbursed services in terms of the percentage of veterans filling antidepressants for at least 12 weeks after initiation of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as posthospitalization follow-up.⁶

Eligible veterans enrolled in the VA often also seek non-VA care. Medicaid covers nearly 10% of all nonelderly veterans, and of these veterans, 39% rely solely on Medicaid for health care access.⁷ Today, Medicaid is the largest payer for mental health services in the US, providing coverage for approximately 27% of Americans who have SMI and helping fulfill unmet mental health needs.^8,9 Understanding which of these systems veterans choose to use, and under which circumstances, is essential in guiding the allocation of limited health care resources.¹⁰

Beyond Medicaid, alternatives to VA care may include TRICARE, Medicare, Indian Health Services, and employer-based or self-purchased private insurance. While these options potentially increase convenience, choice, and access to health care practitioners (HCPs) and services not available at local VA systems, cross-system utilization with poor integration may cause care coordination and continuity problems, such as medication mismanagement and opioid overdose, unnecessary duplicate utilization, and possible increased mortality.^11-15 As recent national legislative changes, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, and the VA MISSION Act, continue to shift the health care landscape for veterans, questions surrounding how veterans are changing their health care use become significant.^16,17

Here, we approach the impacts of Medicaid expansion on veterans’ reliance on the VA for mental health services with a unique lens. We leverage a difference-in-difference design to study 2 historical Medicaid expansions in Arizona (AZ) and New York (NY), which extended eligibility to childless adults in 2001. Prior Medicaid dual-eligible mental health research investigated reliance shifts during the immediate postenrollment year in a subset of veterans newly enrolled in Medicaid.¹⁸ However, this study took place in a period of relative policy stability. In contrast, we investigate the potential effects of a broad policy shift by analyzing state-level changes in veterans’ reliance over 6 years after a statewide Medicaid expansion. We match expansion states with demographically similar nonexpansion states to account for unobserved trends and confounding effects. Prior studies have used this method to evaluate post-Medicaid expansion mortality changes and changes in veteran dual enrollment and hospitalizations.^10,19 While a study of ACA Medicaid expansion states would be ideal, Medicaid data from most states were only available through 2014 at the time of this analysis. Our study offers a quasi-experimental framework leveraging longitudinal data that can be applied as more post-ACA data become available.

Given the rising incidence of suicide among veterans, understanding care-seeking behaviors for depression among veterans is important as it is the most common psychiatric condition found in those who died by suicide.^20,21 Furthermore, depression may be useful as a clinical proxy for mental health policy impacts, given that the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) screening tool is well validated and increasingly research accessible, and it is a chronic condition responsive to both well-managed pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapeutic interventions.^22,23

In this study, we quantify the change in care-seeking behavior for depression among veterans after Medicaid expansion, using a quasi-experimental design. We hypothesize that new access to Medicaid would be associated with a shift away from using VA services for depression. Given the income-dependent eligibility requirements of Medicaid, we also hypothesize that veterans who qualified for VA coverage due to low income, determined by a regional means test (Priority group 5, “income-eligible”), would be more likely to shift care compared with those whose serviced-connected conditions related to their military service (Priority groups 1-4, “service-connected”) provide VA access.

Methods

To investigate the relative changes in veterans’ reliance on the VA for depression care after the 2001 NY and AZ Medicaid expansions We used a retrospective, difference-in-difference analysis. Our comparison pairings, based on prior demographic analyses were as follows: NY with Pennsylvania(PA); AZ with New Mexico and Nevada (NM/NV).¹⁹ The time frame of our analysis was 1999 to 2006, with pre- and postexpansion periods defined as 1999 to 2000 and 2001 to 2006, respectively.

Data

We included veterans aged 18 to 64 years, seeking care for depression from 1999 to 2006, who were also VA-enrolled and residing in our states of interest. We counted veterans as enrolled in Medicaid if they were enrolled at least 1 month in a given year.

Using similar methods like those used in prior studies, we selected patients with encounters documenting depression as the primary outpatient or inpatient diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes: 296.2x for a single episode of major depressive disorder, 296.3x for a recurrent episode of MDD, 300.4 for dysthymia, and 311.0 for depression not otherwise specified.^18,24 We used data from the Medicaid Analytic eXtract files (MAX) for Medicaid data and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for VA data. We chose 1999 as the first study year because it was the earliest year MAX data were available.

Our final sample included 1833 person-years pre-expansion and 7157 postexpansion in our inpatient analysis, as well as 31,767 person-years pre-expansion and 130,382 postexpansion in our outpatient analysis.

Outcomes and Variables

Our primary outcomes were comparative shifts in VA reliance between expansion and nonexpansion states after Medicaid expansion for both inpatient and outpatient depression care. For each year of study, we calculated a veteran’s VA reliance by aggregating the number of days with depression-related encounters at the VA and dividing by the total number of days with a VA or Medicaid depression-related encounters for the year. To provide context to these shifts in VA reliance, we further analyzed the changes in the proportion of annual VA-Medicaid dual users and annual per capita utilization of depression care across the VA and Medicaid. Changes in the proportion would indicate a relative shift in usage between the VA and Medicaid. Annual per capita changes demonstrate changes in the volume of usage. Understanding how proportion and volume interact is critical to understanding likely ramifications for resource management and cost. For example, a relative shift in the proportion of care toward Medicaid might be explained by a substitution effect of increased Medicaid usage and lower VA per capita usage, or an additive (or complementary) effect, with more Medicaid services coming on top of the current VA services.

We conducted subanalyses by income-eligible and service-connected veterans and adjusted our models for age, non-White race, sex, distances to the nearest inpatient and outpatient VA facilities, and VA Relative Risk Score, which is a measure of disease burden and clinical complexity validated specifically for veterans.²⁵

Statistical Analysis

We used fractional logistic regression to model the adjusted effect of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for depression care. In parallel, we leveraged ordered logit regression and negative binomial regression models to examine the proportion of VA-Medicaid dual users and the per capita utilization of Medicaid and VA depression care, respectively. To estimate the difference-in-difference effects, we used the interaction term of 2 categorical variables—expansion vs nonexpansion states and pre- vs postexpansion status—as the independent variable. We then calculated the average marginal effects with 95% CIs to estimate the differences in outcomes between expansion and nonexpansion states from pre- to postexpansion periods, as well as year-by-year shifts as a robustness check. We conducted these analyses using Stata MP, version 15.

This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB # H-40441) and the Michael E. Debakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Research and Development Committee.

Results

Baseline and postexpansion characteristics

VA Reliance

Overall, we observed postexpansion decreases in VA reliance for depression care

At the state level, reliance on the VA for inpatient depression care in NY decreased by 13.53 pp (95% CI, -22.58 to -4.49) for income-eligible veterans and 16.67 pp (95% CI, -24.53 to -8.80) for service-connected veterans. No relative differences were observed in the outpatient comparisons for both income-eligible (-0.58 pp; 95% CI, -2.13 to 0.98) and service-connected (0.05 pp; 95% CI, -1.00 to 1.10) veterans. In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased VA reliance for outpatient depression care among income-eligible veterans (-8.60 pp; 95% CI, -10.60 to -6.61), greater than that for service-connected veterans (-2.89 pp; 95% CI, -4.02 to -1.77). This decrease in VA reliance was significant in the inpatient context only for service-connected veterans (-4.55 pp; 95% CI, -8.14 to -0.97), not income-eligible veterans (-8.38 pp; 95% CI, -17.91 to 1.16).

By applying the aggregate pp changes toward the postexpansion number of visits across both expansion and nonexpansion states, we found that expansion of Medicaid across all our study states would have resulted in 996 fewer hospitalizations and 10,109 fewer outpatient visits for depression at VA in the postexpansion period vs if no states had chosen to expand Medicaid.

Dual Use/Per Capita Utilization

Overall, Medicaid expansion was associated with greater dual use for inpatient depression care—a 0.97-pp (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.48) increase among service-connected veterans and a 0.64-pp (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) increase among income-eligible veterans.
At the state level, NY similarly showed increases in dual use among both service-connected (1.48 pp; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.16) and income-eligible veterans (0.73 pp; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.07) after Medicaid expansion. However, dual use in AZ increased significantly only among service-connected veterans (0.70 pp; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.38), not income-eligible veterans (0.31 pp; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.78).

Among outpatient visits, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased dual use only for income-eligible veterans (0.16 pp; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29), and not service-connected veterans (0.09 pp; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.21). State-level analyses showed that Medicaid expansion in NY was not associated with changes in dual use for either service-connected (0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.17) or income-eligible veterans (0.03 pp; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.18), while expansion in AZ was associated with increases in dual use among both service-connected (0.42 pp; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.61) and income-eligible veterans (0.83 pp; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.07).

Concerning per capita utilization of depression care after Medicaid expansion, analyses showed no detectable changes for either inpatient or outpatient services, among both service-connected and income-eligible veterans. However, while this pattern held at the state level among hospitalizations, outpatient visit results showed divergent trends between AZ and NY. In NY, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (-0.25 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.01) and income-eligible veterans (-0.64 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.35). In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (0.62 visits annually; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91) and income-eligible veterans (2.32 visits annually; 95% CI, 1.99-2.65).

Discussion

Our study quantified changes in depression-related health care utilization after Medicaid expansions in NY and AZ in 2001. Overall, the balance of evidence indicated that Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased reliance on the VA for depression-related services. There was an exception: income-eligible veterans in AZ did not shift their hospital care away from the VA in a statistically discernible way, although the point estimate was lower. More broadly, these findings concerning veterans’ reliance varied not only in inpatient vs outpatient services and income- vs service-connected eligibility, but also in the state-level contexts of veteran dual users and per capita utilization.

Given that the overall per capita utilization of depression care was unchanged from pre- to postexpansion periods, one might interpret the decreases in VA reliance and increases in Medicaid-VA dual users as a substitution effect from VA care to non-VA care. This could be plausible for hospitalizations where state-level analyses showed similarly stable levels of per capita utilization. However, state-level trends in our outpatient utilization analysis, especially with a substantial 2.32 pp increase in annual per capita visits among income-eligible veterans in AZ, leave open the possibility that in some cases veterans may be complementing VA care with Medicaid-reimbursed services.

The causes underlying these differences in reliance shifts between NY and AZ are likely also influenced by the policy contexts of their respective Medicaid expansions. For example, in 1999, NY passed Kendra’s Law, which established a procedure for obtaining court orders for assisted outpatient mental health treatment for individuals deemed unlikely to survive safely in the community.²⁶ A reasonable inference is that there was less unfulfilled outpatient mental health need in NY under the existing accessibility provisioned by Kendra’s Law. In addition, while both states extended coverage to childless adults under 100% of the Federal Poverty level (FPL), the AZ Medicaid expansion was via a voters’ initiative and extended family coverage to 200% FPL vs 150% FPL for families in NY. Given that the AZ Medicaid expansion enjoyed both broader public participation and generosity in terms of eligibility, its uptake and therefore effect size may have been larger than in NY for nonacute outpatient care.

Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature surrounding the changes in health care utilization after Medicaid expansion, specifically for a newly dual-eligible population of veterans seeking mental health services for depression. While prior research concerning Medicare dual-enrolled veterans has shown high reliance on the VA for both mental health diagnoses and services, scholars have established the association of Medicaid enrollment with decreased VA reliance.^27-29 Our analysis is the first to investigate state-level effects of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for a single mental health condition using a natural experimental framework. We focus on a population that includes a large portion of veterans who are newly Medicaid-eligible due to a sweeping policy change and use demographically matched nonexpansion states to draw comparisons in VA reliance for depression care. Our findings of Medicaid expansion–associated decreases in VA reliance for depression care complement prior literature that describe Medicaid enrollment–associated decreases in VA reliance for overall mental health care.

Implications

From a systems-level perspective, the implications of shifting services away from the VA are complex and incompletely understood. The VA lacks interoperability with the electronic health records (EHRs) used by Medicaid clinicians. Consequently, significant issues of service duplication and incomplete clinical data exist for veterans seeking treatment outside of the VA system, posing health care quality and safety concerns.³⁰ On one hand, Medicaid access is associated with increased health care utilization attributed to filling unmet needs for Medicare dual enrollees, as well as increased prescription filling for psychiatric medications.^31,32 Furthermore, the only randomized control trial of Medicaid expansion to date was associated with a 9-pp decrease in positive screening rates for depression among those who received access at around 2 years postexpansion.³³ On the other hand, the VA has developed a mental health system tailored to the particular needs of veterans, and health care practitioners at the VA have significantly greater rates of military cultural competency compared to those in nonmilitary settings (70% vs 24% in the TRICARE network and 8% among those with no military or TRICARE affiliation).³⁴ Compared to individuals seeking mental health services with private insurance plans, veterans were about twice as likely to receive appropriate treatment for schizophrenia and depression at the VA.³⁵ These documented strengths of VA mental health care may together help explain the small absolute number of visits that were associated with shifts away from VA overall after Medicaid expansion.

Finally, it is worth considering extrinsic factors that influence utilization among newly dual-eligible veterans. For example, hospitalizations are less likely to be planned than outpatient services, translating to a greater importance of proximity to a nearby medical facility than a veteran’s preference of where to seek care. In the same vein, major VA medical centers are fewer and more distant on average than VA outpatient clinics, therefore reducing the advantage of a Medicaid-reimbursed outpatient clinic in terms of distance.³⁶ These realities may partially explain the proportionally larger shifts away from the VA for hospitalizations compared to outpatient care for depression.

These shifts in utilization after Medicaid expansion may have important implications for VA policymakers. First, more study is needed to know which types of veterans are more likely to use Medicaid instead of VA services—or use both Medicaid and VA services. Our research indicates unsurprisingly that veterans without service-connected disability ratings and eligible for VA services due to low income are more likely to use at least some Medicaid services. Further understanding of who switches will be useful for the VA both tailoring its services to those who prefer VA and for reaching out to specific types of patients who might be better served by staying within the VA system. Finally, VA clinicians and administrators can prioritize improving care coordination for those who chose to use both Medicaid and VA services.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our results should be interpreted within methodological and data limitations. With only 2 states in our sample, NY demonstrably skewed overall results, contributing 1.7 to 3 times more observations than AZ across subanalyses—a challenge also cited by Sommers and colleagues.¹⁹ Our veteran groupings were also unable to distinguish those veterans classified as service-connected who may also have qualified by income-eligible criteria (which would tend to understate the size of results) and those veterans who gained and then lost Medicaid coverage in a given year. Our study also faces limitations in generalizability and establishing causality. First, we included only 2 historical state Medicaid expansions, compared with the 38 states and Washington, DC, that have now expanded Medicaid to date under the ACA. Just in the 2 states from our study, we noted significant heterogeneity in the shifts associated with Medicaid expansion, which makes extrapolating specific trends difficult. Differences in underlying health care resources, legislation, and other external factors may limit the applicability of Medicaid expansion in the era of the ACA, as well as the Veterans Choice and MISSION acts. Second, while we leveraged a difference-in-difference analysis using demographically matched, neighboring comparison states, our findings are nevertheless drawn from observational data obviating causality. VA data for other sources of coverage such as private insurance are limited and not included in our study, and MAX datasets vary by quality across states, translating to potential gaps in our study cohort.²⁸ Finally, as in any study using diagnoses, visits addressing care for depression may have been missed if other diagnoses were noted as primary (eg, VA clinicians carrying forward old diagnoses, like PTSD, on the problem list) or nondepression care visits may have been captured if a depression diagnosis was used by default.

Moving forward, our study demonstrates the potential for applying a natural experimental approach to studying dual-eligible veterans at the interface of Medicaid expansion. We focused on changes in VA reliance for the specific condition of depression and, in doing so, invite further inquiry into the impact of state mental health policy on outcomes more proximate to veterans’ outcomes. Clinical indicators, such as rates of antidepressant filling, utilization and duration of psychotherapy, and PHQ-9 scores, can similarly be investigated by natural experimental design. While current limits of administrative data and the siloing of EHRs may pose barriers to some of these avenues of research, multidisciplinary methodologies and data querying innovations such as natural language processing algorithms for clinical notes hold exciting opportunities to bridge the gap between policy and clinical efficacy.

Conclusions

This study applied a difference-in-difference analysis and found that Medicaid expansion is associated with decreases in VA reliance for both inpatient and outpatient services for depression. As additional data are generated from the Medicaid expansions of the ACA, similarly robust methods should be applied to further explore the impacts associated with such policy shifts and open the door to a better understanding of implications at the clinical level.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the efforts of Janine Wong, who proofread and formatted the manuscript.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing care for more than 9 million veterans.¹ With veterans experiencing mental health conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders, and other serious mental illnesses (SMI) at higher rates compared with the general population, the VA plays an important role in the provision of mental health services.^2-5 Since the implementation of its Mental Health Strategic Plan in 2004, the VA has overseen the development of a wide array of mental health programs geared toward the complex needs of veterans. Research has demonstrated VA care outperforming Medicaid-reimbursed services in terms of the percentage of veterans filling antidepressants for at least 12 weeks after initiation of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as posthospitalization follow-up.⁶

Eligible veterans enrolled in the VA often also seek non-VA care. Medicaid covers nearly 10% of all nonelderly veterans, and of these veterans, 39% rely solely on Medicaid for health care access.⁷ Today, Medicaid is the largest payer for mental health services in the US, providing coverage for approximately 27% of Americans who have SMI and helping fulfill unmet mental health needs.^8,9 Understanding which of these systems veterans choose to use, and under which circumstances, is essential in guiding the allocation of limited health care resources.¹⁰

Beyond Medicaid, alternatives to VA care may include TRICARE, Medicare, Indian Health Services, and employer-based or self-purchased private insurance. While these options potentially increase convenience, choice, and access to health care practitioners (HCPs) and services not available at local VA systems, cross-system utilization with poor integration may cause care coordination and continuity problems, such as medication mismanagement and opioid overdose, unnecessary duplicate utilization, and possible increased mortality.^11-15 As recent national legislative changes, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, and the VA MISSION Act, continue to shift the health care landscape for veterans, questions surrounding how veterans are changing their health care use become significant.^16,17

Here, we approach the impacts of Medicaid expansion on veterans’ reliance on the VA for mental health services with a unique lens. We leverage a difference-in-difference design to study 2 historical Medicaid expansions in Arizona (AZ) and New York (NY), which extended eligibility to childless adults in 2001. Prior Medicaid dual-eligible mental health research investigated reliance shifts during the immediate postenrollment year in a subset of veterans newly enrolled in Medicaid.¹⁸ However, this study took place in a period of relative policy stability. In contrast, we investigate the potential effects of a broad policy shift by analyzing state-level changes in veterans’ reliance over 6 years after a statewide Medicaid expansion. We match expansion states with demographically similar nonexpansion states to account for unobserved trends and confounding effects. Prior studies have used this method to evaluate post-Medicaid expansion mortality changes and changes in veteran dual enrollment and hospitalizations.^10,19 While a study of ACA Medicaid expansion states would be ideal, Medicaid data from most states were only available through 2014 at the time of this analysis. Our study offers a quasi-experimental framework leveraging longitudinal data that can be applied as more post-ACA data become available.

Given the rising incidence of suicide among veterans, understanding care-seeking behaviors for depression among veterans is important as it is the most common psychiatric condition found in those who died by suicide.^20,21 Furthermore, depression may be useful as a clinical proxy for mental health policy impacts, given that the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) screening tool is well validated and increasingly research accessible, and it is a chronic condition responsive to both well-managed pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapeutic interventions.^22,23

In this study, we quantify the change in care-seeking behavior for depression among veterans after Medicaid expansion, using a quasi-experimental design. We hypothesize that new access to Medicaid would be associated with a shift away from using VA services for depression. Given the income-dependent eligibility requirements of Medicaid, we also hypothesize that veterans who qualified for VA coverage due to low income, determined by a regional means test (Priority group 5, “income-eligible”), would be more likely to shift care compared with those whose serviced-connected conditions related to their military service (Priority groups 1-4, “service-connected”) provide VA access.

Methods

To investigate the relative changes in veterans’ reliance on the VA for depression care after the 2001 NY and AZ Medicaid expansions We used a retrospective, difference-in-difference analysis. Our comparison pairings, based on prior demographic analyses were as follows: NY with Pennsylvania(PA); AZ with New Mexico and Nevada (NM/NV).¹⁹ The time frame of our analysis was 1999 to 2006, with pre- and postexpansion periods defined as 1999 to 2000 and 2001 to 2006, respectively.

Data

We included veterans aged 18 to 64 years, seeking care for depression from 1999 to 2006, who were also VA-enrolled and residing in our states of interest. We counted veterans as enrolled in Medicaid if they were enrolled at least 1 month in a given year.

Using similar methods like those used in prior studies, we selected patients with encounters documenting depression as the primary outpatient or inpatient diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes: 296.2x for a single episode of major depressive disorder, 296.3x for a recurrent episode of MDD, 300.4 for dysthymia, and 311.0 for depression not otherwise specified.^18,24 We used data from the Medicaid Analytic eXtract files (MAX) for Medicaid data and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for VA data. We chose 1999 as the first study year because it was the earliest year MAX data were available.

Our final sample included 1833 person-years pre-expansion and 7157 postexpansion in our inpatient analysis, as well as 31,767 person-years pre-expansion and 130,382 postexpansion in our outpatient analysis.

Outcomes and Variables

Our primary outcomes were comparative shifts in VA reliance between expansion and nonexpansion states after Medicaid expansion for both inpatient and outpatient depression care. For each year of study, we calculated a veteran’s VA reliance by aggregating the number of days with depression-related encounters at the VA and dividing by the total number of days with a VA or Medicaid depression-related encounters for the year. To provide context to these shifts in VA reliance, we further analyzed the changes in the proportion of annual VA-Medicaid dual users and annual per capita utilization of depression care across the VA and Medicaid. Changes in the proportion would indicate a relative shift in usage between the VA and Medicaid. Annual per capita changes demonstrate changes in the volume of usage. Understanding how proportion and volume interact is critical to understanding likely ramifications for resource management and cost. For example, a relative shift in the proportion of care toward Medicaid might be explained by a substitution effect of increased Medicaid usage and lower VA per capita usage, or an additive (or complementary) effect, with more Medicaid services coming on top of the current VA services.

We conducted subanalyses by income-eligible and service-connected veterans and adjusted our models for age, non-White race, sex, distances to the nearest inpatient and outpatient VA facilities, and VA Relative Risk Score, which is a measure of disease burden and clinical complexity validated specifically for veterans.²⁵

Statistical Analysis

We used fractional logistic regression to model the adjusted effect of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for depression care. In parallel, we leveraged ordered logit regression and negative binomial regression models to examine the proportion of VA-Medicaid dual users and the per capita utilization of Medicaid and VA depression care, respectively. To estimate the difference-in-difference effects, we used the interaction term of 2 categorical variables—expansion vs nonexpansion states and pre- vs postexpansion status—as the independent variable. We then calculated the average marginal effects with 95% CIs to estimate the differences in outcomes between expansion and nonexpansion states from pre- to postexpansion periods, as well as year-by-year shifts as a robustness check. We conducted these analyses using Stata MP, version 15.

This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB # H-40441) and the Michael E. Debakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Research and Development Committee.

Results

Baseline and postexpansion characteristics

VA Reliance

Overall, we observed postexpansion decreases in VA reliance for depression care

At the state level, reliance on the VA for inpatient depression care in NY decreased by 13.53 pp (95% CI, -22.58 to -4.49) for income-eligible veterans and 16.67 pp (95% CI, -24.53 to -8.80) for service-connected veterans. No relative differences were observed in the outpatient comparisons for both income-eligible (-0.58 pp; 95% CI, -2.13 to 0.98) and service-connected (0.05 pp; 95% CI, -1.00 to 1.10) veterans. In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased VA reliance for outpatient depression care among income-eligible veterans (-8.60 pp; 95% CI, -10.60 to -6.61), greater than that for service-connected veterans (-2.89 pp; 95% CI, -4.02 to -1.77). This decrease in VA reliance was significant in the inpatient context only for service-connected veterans (-4.55 pp; 95% CI, -8.14 to -0.97), not income-eligible veterans (-8.38 pp; 95% CI, -17.91 to 1.16).

By applying the aggregate pp changes toward the postexpansion number of visits across both expansion and nonexpansion states, we found that expansion of Medicaid across all our study states would have resulted in 996 fewer hospitalizations and 10,109 fewer outpatient visits for depression at VA in the postexpansion period vs if no states had chosen to expand Medicaid.

Dual Use/Per Capita Utilization

Overall, Medicaid expansion was associated with greater dual use for inpatient depression care—a 0.97-pp (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.48) increase among service-connected veterans and a 0.64-pp (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) increase among income-eligible veterans.
At the state level, NY similarly showed increases in dual use among both service-connected (1.48 pp; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.16) and income-eligible veterans (0.73 pp; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.07) after Medicaid expansion. However, dual use in AZ increased significantly only among service-connected veterans (0.70 pp; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.38), not income-eligible veterans (0.31 pp; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.78).

Among outpatient visits, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased dual use only for income-eligible veterans (0.16 pp; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29), and not service-connected veterans (0.09 pp; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.21). State-level analyses showed that Medicaid expansion in NY was not associated with changes in dual use for either service-connected (0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.17) or income-eligible veterans (0.03 pp; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.18), while expansion in AZ was associated with increases in dual use among both service-connected (0.42 pp; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.61) and income-eligible veterans (0.83 pp; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.07).

Concerning per capita utilization of depression care after Medicaid expansion, analyses showed no detectable changes for either inpatient or outpatient services, among both service-connected and income-eligible veterans. However, while this pattern held at the state level among hospitalizations, outpatient visit results showed divergent trends between AZ and NY. In NY, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (-0.25 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.01) and income-eligible veterans (-0.64 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.35). In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (0.62 visits annually; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91) and income-eligible veterans (2.32 visits annually; 95% CI, 1.99-2.65).

Discussion

Our study quantified changes in depression-related health care utilization after Medicaid expansions in NY and AZ in 2001. Overall, the balance of evidence indicated that Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased reliance on the VA for depression-related services. There was an exception: income-eligible veterans in AZ did not shift their hospital care away from the VA in a statistically discernible way, although the point estimate was lower. More broadly, these findings concerning veterans’ reliance varied not only in inpatient vs outpatient services and income- vs service-connected eligibility, but also in the state-level contexts of veteran dual users and per capita utilization.

Given that the overall per capita utilization of depression care was unchanged from pre- to postexpansion periods, one might interpret the decreases in VA reliance and increases in Medicaid-VA dual users as a substitution effect from VA care to non-VA care. This could be plausible for hospitalizations where state-level analyses showed similarly stable levels of per capita utilization. However, state-level trends in our outpatient utilization analysis, especially with a substantial 2.32 pp increase in annual per capita visits among income-eligible veterans in AZ, leave open the possibility that in some cases veterans may be complementing VA care with Medicaid-reimbursed services.

The causes underlying these differences in reliance shifts between NY and AZ are likely also influenced by the policy contexts of their respective Medicaid expansions. For example, in 1999, NY passed Kendra’s Law, which established a procedure for obtaining court orders for assisted outpatient mental health treatment for individuals deemed unlikely to survive safely in the community.²⁶ A reasonable inference is that there was less unfulfilled outpatient mental health need in NY under the existing accessibility provisioned by Kendra’s Law. In addition, while both states extended coverage to childless adults under 100% of the Federal Poverty level (FPL), the AZ Medicaid expansion was via a voters’ initiative and extended family coverage to 200% FPL vs 150% FPL for families in NY. Given that the AZ Medicaid expansion enjoyed both broader public participation and generosity in terms of eligibility, its uptake and therefore effect size may have been larger than in NY for nonacute outpatient care.

Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature surrounding the changes in health care utilization after Medicaid expansion, specifically for a newly dual-eligible population of veterans seeking mental health services for depression. While prior research concerning Medicare dual-enrolled veterans has shown high reliance on the VA for both mental health diagnoses and services, scholars have established the association of Medicaid enrollment with decreased VA reliance.^27-29 Our analysis is the first to investigate state-level effects of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for a single mental health condition using a natural experimental framework. We focus on a population that includes a large portion of veterans who are newly Medicaid-eligible due to a sweeping policy change and use demographically matched nonexpansion states to draw comparisons in VA reliance for depression care. Our findings of Medicaid expansion–associated decreases in VA reliance for depression care complement prior literature that describe Medicaid enrollment–associated decreases in VA reliance for overall mental health care.

Implications

From a systems-level perspective, the implications of shifting services away from the VA are complex and incompletely understood. The VA lacks interoperability with the electronic health records (EHRs) used by Medicaid clinicians. Consequently, significant issues of service duplication and incomplete clinical data exist for veterans seeking treatment outside of the VA system, posing health care quality and safety concerns.³⁰ On one hand, Medicaid access is associated with increased health care utilization attributed to filling unmet needs for Medicare dual enrollees, as well as increased prescription filling for psychiatric medications.^31,32 Furthermore, the only randomized control trial of Medicaid expansion to date was associated with a 9-pp decrease in positive screening rates for depression among those who received access at around 2 years postexpansion.³³ On the other hand, the VA has developed a mental health system tailored to the particular needs of veterans, and health care practitioners at the VA have significantly greater rates of military cultural competency compared to those in nonmilitary settings (70% vs 24% in the TRICARE network and 8% among those with no military or TRICARE affiliation).³⁴ Compared to individuals seeking mental health services with private insurance plans, veterans were about twice as likely to receive appropriate treatment for schizophrenia and depression at the VA.³⁵ These documented strengths of VA mental health care may together help explain the small absolute number of visits that were associated with shifts away from VA overall after Medicaid expansion.

Finally, it is worth considering extrinsic factors that influence utilization among newly dual-eligible veterans. For example, hospitalizations are less likely to be planned than outpatient services, translating to a greater importance of proximity to a nearby medical facility than a veteran’s preference of where to seek care. In the same vein, major VA medical centers are fewer and more distant on average than VA outpatient clinics, therefore reducing the advantage of a Medicaid-reimbursed outpatient clinic in terms of distance.³⁶ These realities may partially explain the proportionally larger shifts away from the VA for hospitalizations compared to outpatient care for depression.

These shifts in utilization after Medicaid expansion may have important implications for VA policymakers. First, more study is needed to know which types of veterans are more likely to use Medicaid instead of VA services—or use both Medicaid and VA services. Our research indicates unsurprisingly that veterans without service-connected disability ratings and eligible for VA services due to low income are more likely to use at least some Medicaid services. Further understanding of who switches will be useful for the VA both tailoring its services to those who prefer VA and for reaching out to specific types of patients who might be better served by staying within the VA system. Finally, VA clinicians and administrators can prioritize improving care coordination for those who chose to use both Medicaid and VA services.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our results should be interpreted within methodological and data limitations. With only 2 states in our sample, NY demonstrably skewed overall results, contributing 1.7 to 3 times more observations than AZ across subanalyses—a challenge also cited by Sommers and colleagues.¹⁹ Our veteran groupings were also unable to distinguish those veterans classified as service-connected who may also have qualified by income-eligible criteria (which would tend to understate the size of results) and those veterans who gained and then lost Medicaid coverage in a given year. Our study also faces limitations in generalizability and establishing causality. First, we included only 2 historical state Medicaid expansions, compared with the 38 states and Washington, DC, that have now expanded Medicaid to date under the ACA. Just in the 2 states from our study, we noted significant heterogeneity in the shifts associated with Medicaid expansion, which makes extrapolating specific trends difficult. Differences in underlying health care resources, legislation, and other external factors may limit the applicability of Medicaid expansion in the era of the ACA, as well as the Veterans Choice and MISSION acts. Second, while we leveraged a difference-in-difference analysis using demographically matched, neighboring comparison states, our findings are nevertheless drawn from observational data obviating causality. VA data for other sources of coverage such as private insurance are limited and not included in our study, and MAX datasets vary by quality across states, translating to potential gaps in our study cohort.²⁸ Finally, as in any study using diagnoses, visits addressing care for depression may have been missed if other diagnoses were noted as primary (eg, VA clinicians carrying forward old diagnoses, like PTSD, on the problem list) or nondepression care visits may have been captured if a depression diagnosis was used by default.

Moving forward, our study demonstrates the potential for applying a natural experimental approach to studying dual-eligible veterans at the interface of Medicaid expansion. We focused on changes in VA reliance for the specific condition of depression and, in doing so, invite further inquiry into the impact of state mental health policy on outcomes more proximate to veterans’ outcomes. Clinical indicators, such as rates of antidepressant filling, utilization and duration of psychotherapy, and PHQ-9 scores, can similarly be investigated by natural experimental design. While current limits of administrative data and the siloing of EHRs may pose barriers to some of these avenues of research, multidisciplinary methodologies and data querying innovations such as natural language processing algorithms for clinical notes hold exciting opportunities to bridge the gap between policy and clinical efficacy.

Conclusions

This study applied a difference-in-difference analysis and found that Medicaid expansion is associated with decreases in VA reliance for both inpatient and outpatient services for depression. As additional data are generated from the Medicaid expansions of the ACA, similarly robust methods should be applied to further explore the impacts associated with such policy shifts and open the door to a better understanding of implications at the clinical level.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the efforts of Janine Wong, who proofread and formatted the manuscript.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing care for more than 9 million veterans.¹ With veterans experiencing mental health conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders, and other serious mental illnesses (SMI) at higher rates compared with the general population, the VA plays an important role in the provision of mental health services.^2-5 Since the implementation of its Mental Health Strategic Plan in 2004, the VA has overseen the development of a wide array of mental health programs geared toward the complex needs of veterans. Research has demonstrated VA care outperforming Medicaid-reimbursed services in terms of the percentage of veterans filling antidepressants for at least 12 weeks after initiation of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as posthospitalization follow-up.⁶

Eligible veterans enrolled in the VA often also seek non-VA care. Medicaid covers nearly 10% of all nonelderly veterans, and of these veterans, 39% rely solely on Medicaid for health care access.⁷ Today, Medicaid is the largest payer for mental health services in the US, providing coverage for approximately 27% of Americans who have SMI and helping fulfill unmet mental health needs.^8,9 Understanding which of these systems veterans choose to use, and under which circumstances, is essential in guiding the allocation of limited health care resources.¹⁰

Beyond Medicaid, alternatives to VA care may include TRICARE, Medicare, Indian Health Services, and employer-based or self-purchased private insurance. While these options potentially increase convenience, choice, and access to health care practitioners (HCPs) and services not available at local VA systems, cross-system utilization with poor integration may cause care coordination and continuity problems, such as medication mismanagement and opioid overdose, unnecessary duplicate utilization, and possible increased mortality.^11-15 As recent national legislative changes, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, and the VA MISSION Act, continue to shift the health care landscape for veterans, questions surrounding how veterans are changing their health care use become significant.^16,17

Here, we approach the impacts of Medicaid expansion on veterans’ reliance on the VA for mental health services with a unique lens. We leverage a difference-in-difference design to study 2 historical Medicaid expansions in Arizona (AZ) and New York (NY), which extended eligibility to childless adults in 2001. Prior Medicaid dual-eligible mental health research investigated reliance shifts during the immediate postenrollment year in a subset of veterans newly enrolled in Medicaid.¹⁸ However, this study took place in a period of relative policy stability. In contrast, we investigate the potential effects of a broad policy shift by analyzing state-level changes in veterans’ reliance over 6 years after a statewide Medicaid expansion. We match expansion states with demographically similar nonexpansion states to account for unobserved trends and confounding effects. Prior studies have used this method to evaluate post-Medicaid expansion mortality changes and changes in veteran dual enrollment and hospitalizations.^10,19 While a study of ACA Medicaid expansion states would be ideal, Medicaid data from most states were only available through 2014 at the time of this analysis. Our study offers a quasi-experimental framework leveraging longitudinal data that can be applied as more post-ACA data become available.

Given the rising incidence of suicide among veterans, understanding care-seeking behaviors for depression among veterans is important as it is the most common psychiatric condition found in those who died by suicide.^20,21 Furthermore, depression may be useful as a clinical proxy for mental health policy impacts, given that the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) screening tool is well validated and increasingly research accessible, and it is a chronic condition responsive to both well-managed pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapeutic interventions.^22,23

In this study, we quantify the change in care-seeking behavior for depression among veterans after Medicaid expansion, using a quasi-experimental design. We hypothesize that new access to Medicaid would be associated with a shift away from using VA services for depression. Given the income-dependent eligibility requirements of Medicaid, we also hypothesize that veterans who qualified for VA coverage due to low income, determined by a regional means test (Priority group 5, “income-eligible”), would be more likely to shift care compared with those whose serviced-connected conditions related to their military service (Priority groups 1-4, “service-connected”) provide VA access.

Methods

To investigate the relative changes in veterans’ reliance on the VA for depression care after the 2001 NY and AZ Medicaid expansions We used a retrospective, difference-in-difference analysis. Our comparison pairings, based on prior demographic analyses were as follows: NY with Pennsylvania(PA); AZ with New Mexico and Nevada (NM/NV).¹⁹ The time frame of our analysis was 1999 to 2006, with pre- and postexpansion periods defined as 1999 to 2000 and 2001 to 2006, respectively.

Data

We included veterans aged 18 to 64 years, seeking care for depression from 1999 to 2006, who were also VA-enrolled and residing in our states of interest. We counted veterans as enrolled in Medicaid if they were enrolled at least 1 month in a given year.

Using similar methods like those used in prior studies, we selected patients with encounters documenting depression as the primary outpatient or inpatient diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes: 296.2x for a single episode of major depressive disorder, 296.3x for a recurrent episode of MDD, 300.4 for dysthymia, and 311.0 for depression not otherwise specified.^18,24 We used data from the Medicaid Analytic eXtract files (MAX) for Medicaid data and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for VA data. We chose 1999 as the first study year because it was the earliest year MAX data were available.

Our final sample included 1833 person-years pre-expansion and 7157 postexpansion in our inpatient analysis, as well as 31,767 person-years pre-expansion and 130,382 postexpansion in our outpatient analysis.

Outcomes and Variables

Our primary outcomes were comparative shifts in VA reliance between expansion and nonexpansion states after Medicaid expansion for both inpatient and outpatient depression care. For each year of study, we calculated a veteran’s VA reliance by aggregating the number of days with depression-related encounters at the VA and dividing by the total number of days with a VA or Medicaid depression-related encounters for the year. To provide context to these shifts in VA reliance, we further analyzed the changes in the proportion of annual VA-Medicaid dual users and annual per capita utilization of depression care across the VA and Medicaid. Changes in the proportion would indicate a relative shift in usage between the VA and Medicaid. Annual per capita changes demonstrate changes in the volume of usage. Understanding how proportion and volume interact is critical to understanding likely ramifications for resource management and cost. For example, a relative shift in the proportion of care toward Medicaid might be explained by a substitution effect of increased Medicaid usage and lower VA per capita usage, or an additive (or complementary) effect, with more Medicaid services coming on top of the current VA services.

We conducted subanalyses by income-eligible and service-connected veterans and adjusted our models for age, non-White race, sex, distances to the nearest inpatient and outpatient VA facilities, and VA Relative Risk Score, which is a measure of disease burden and clinical complexity validated specifically for veterans.²⁵

Statistical Analysis

We used fractional logistic regression to model the adjusted effect of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for depression care. In parallel, we leveraged ordered logit regression and negative binomial regression models to examine the proportion of VA-Medicaid dual users and the per capita utilization of Medicaid and VA depression care, respectively. To estimate the difference-in-difference effects, we used the interaction term of 2 categorical variables—expansion vs nonexpansion states and pre- vs postexpansion status—as the independent variable. We then calculated the average marginal effects with 95% CIs to estimate the differences in outcomes between expansion and nonexpansion states from pre- to postexpansion periods, as well as year-by-year shifts as a robustness check. We conducted these analyses using Stata MP, version 15.

This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB # H-40441) and the Michael E. Debakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Research and Development Committee.

Results

Baseline and postexpansion characteristics

VA Reliance

Overall, we observed postexpansion decreases in VA reliance for depression care

At the state level, reliance on the VA for inpatient depression care in NY decreased by 13.53 pp (95% CI, -22.58 to -4.49) for income-eligible veterans and 16.67 pp (95% CI, -24.53 to -8.80) for service-connected veterans. No relative differences were observed in the outpatient comparisons for both income-eligible (-0.58 pp; 95% CI, -2.13 to 0.98) and service-connected (0.05 pp; 95% CI, -1.00 to 1.10) veterans. In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased VA reliance for outpatient depression care among income-eligible veterans (-8.60 pp; 95% CI, -10.60 to -6.61), greater than that for service-connected veterans (-2.89 pp; 95% CI, -4.02 to -1.77). This decrease in VA reliance was significant in the inpatient context only for service-connected veterans (-4.55 pp; 95% CI, -8.14 to -0.97), not income-eligible veterans (-8.38 pp; 95% CI, -17.91 to 1.16).

By applying the aggregate pp changes toward the postexpansion number of visits across both expansion and nonexpansion states, we found that expansion of Medicaid across all our study states would have resulted in 996 fewer hospitalizations and 10,109 fewer outpatient visits for depression at VA in the postexpansion period vs if no states had chosen to expand Medicaid.

Dual Use/Per Capita Utilization

Overall, Medicaid expansion was associated with greater dual use for inpatient depression care—a 0.97-pp (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.48) increase among service-connected veterans and a 0.64-pp (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) increase among income-eligible veterans.
At the state level, NY similarly showed increases in dual use among both service-connected (1.48 pp; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.16) and income-eligible veterans (0.73 pp; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.07) after Medicaid expansion. However, dual use in AZ increased significantly only among service-connected veterans (0.70 pp; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.38), not income-eligible veterans (0.31 pp; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.78).

Among outpatient visits, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased dual use only for income-eligible veterans (0.16 pp; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29), and not service-connected veterans (0.09 pp; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.21). State-level analyses showed that Medicaid expansion in NY was not associated with changes in dual use for either service-connected (0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.17) or income-eligible veterans (0.03 pp; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.18), while expansion in AZ was associated with increases in dual use among both service-connected (0.42 pp; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.61) and income-eligible veterans (0.83 pp; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.07).

Concerning per capita utilization of depression care after Medicaid expansion, analyses showed no detectable changes for either inpatient or outpatient services, among both service-connected and income-eligible veterans. However, while this pattern held at the state level among hospitalizations, outpatient visit results showed divergent trends between AZ and NY. In NY, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (-0.25 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.01) and income-eligible veterans (-0.64 visits annually; 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.35). In AZ, Medicaid expansion was associated with increased per capita utilization of outpatient depression care among both service-connected (0.62 visits annually; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91) and income-eligible veterans (2.32 visits annually; 95% CI, 1.99-2.65).

Discussion

Our study quantified changes in depression-related health care utilization after Medicaid expansions in NY and AZ in 2001. Overall, the balance of evidence indicated that Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased reliance on the VA for depression-related services. There was an exception: income-eligible veterans in AZ did not shift their hospital care away from the VA in a statistically discernible way, although the point estimate was lower. More broadly, these findings concerning veterans’ reliance varied not only in inpatient vs outpatient services and income- vs service-connected eligibility, but also in the state-level contexts of veteran dual users and per capita utilization.

Given that the overall per capita utilization of depression care was unchanged from pre- to postexpansion periods, one might interpret the decreases in VA reliance and increases in Medicaid-VA dual users as a substitution effect from VA care to non-VA care. This could be plausible for hospitalizations where state-level analyses showed similarly stable levels of per capita utilization. However, state-level trends in our outpatient utilization analysis, especially with a substantial 2.32 pp increase in annual per capita visits among income-eligible veterans in AZ, leave open the possibility that in some cases veterans may be complementing VA care with Medicaid-reimbursed services.

The causes underlying these differences in reliance shifts between NY and AZ are likely also influenced by the policy contexts of their respective Medicaid expansions. For example, in 1999, NY passed Kendra’s Law, which established a procedure for obtaining court orders for assisted outpatient mental health treatment for individuals deemed unlikely to survive safely in the community.²⁶ A reasonable inference is that there was less unfulfilled outpatient mental health need in NY under the existing accessibility provisioned by Kendra’s Law. In addition, while both states extended coverage to childless adults under 100% of the Federal Poverty level (FPL), the AZ Medicaid expansion was via a voters’ initiative and extended family coverage to 200% FPL vs 150% FPL for families in NY. Given that the AZ Medicaid expansion enjoyed both broader public participation and generosity in terms of eligibility, its uptake and therefore effect size may have been larger than in NY for nonacute outpatient care.

Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature surrounding the changes in health care utilization after Medicaid expansion, specifically for a newly dual-eligible population of veterans seeking mental health services for depression. While prior research concerning Medicare dual-enrolled veterans has shown high reliance on the VA for both mental health diagnoses and services, scholars have established the association of Medicaid enrollment with decreased VA reliance.^27-29 Our analysis is the first to investigate state-level effects of Medicaid expansion on VA reliance for a single mental health condition using a natural experimental framework. We focus on a population that includes a large portion of veterans who are newly Medicaid-eligible due to a sweeping policy change and use demographically matched nonexpansion states to draw comparisons in VA reliance for depression care. Our findings of Medicaid expansion–associated decreases in VA reliance for depression care complement prior literature that describe Medicaid enrollment–associated decreases in VA reliance for overall mental health care.

Implications

From a systems-level perspective, the implications of shifting services away from the VA are complex and incompletely understood. The VA lacks interoperability with the electronic health records (EHRs) used by Medicaid clinicians. Consequently, significant issues of service duplication and incomplete clinical data exist for veterans seeking treatment outside of the VA system, posing health care quality and safety concerns.³⁰ On one hand, Medicaid access is associated with increased health care utilization attributed to filling unmet needs for Medicare dual enrollees, as well as increased prescription filling for psychiatric medications.^31,32 Furthermore, the only randomized control trial of Medicaid expansion to date was associated with a 9-pp decrease in positive screening rates for depression among those who received access at around 2 years postexpansion.³³ On the other hand, the VA has developed a mental health system tailored to the particular needs of veterans, and health care practitioners at the VA have significantly greater rates of military cultural competency compared to those in nonmilitary settings (70% vs 24% in the TRICARE network and 8% among those with no military or TRICARE affiliation).³⁴ Compared to individuals seeking mental health services with private insurance plans, veterans were about twice as likely to receive appropriate treatment for schizophrenia and depression at the VA.³⁵ These documented strengths of VA mental health care may together help explain the small absolute number of visits that were associated with shifts away from VA overall after Medicaid expansion.

Finally, it is worth considering extrinsic factors that influence utilization among newly dual-eligible veterans. For example, hospitalizations are less likely to be planned than outpatient services, translating to a greater importance of proximity to a nearby medical facility than a veteran’s preference of where to seek care. In the same vein, major VA medical centers are fewer and more distant on average than VA outpatient clinics, therefore reducing the advantage of a Medicaid-reimbursed outpatient clinic in terms of distance.³⁶ These realities may partially explain the proportionally larger shifts away from the VA for hospitalizations compared to outpatient care for depression.

These shifts in utilization after Medicaid expansion may have important implications for VA policymakers. First, more study is needed to know which types of veterans are more likely to use Medicaid instead of VA services—or use both Medicaid and VA services. Our research indicates unsurprisingly that veterans without service-connected disability ratings and eligible for VA services due to low income are more likely to use at least some Medicaid services. Further understanding of who switches will be useful for the VA both tailoring its services to those who prefer VA and for reaching out to specific types of patients who might be better served by staying within the VA system. Finally, VA clinicians and administrators can prioritize improving care coordination for those who chose to use both Medicaid and VA services.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our results should be interpreted within methodological and data limitations. With only 2 states in our sample, NY demonstrably skewed overall results, contributing 1.7 to 3 times more observations than AZ across subanalyses—a challenge also cited by Sommers and colleagues.¹⁹ Our veteran groupings were also unable to distinguish those veterans classified as service-connected who may also have qualified by income-eligible criteria (which would tend to understate the size of results) and those veterans who gained and then lost Medicaid coverage in a given year. Our study also faces limitations in generalizability and establishing causality. First, we included only 2 historical state Medicaid expansions, compared with the 38 states and Washington, DC, that have now expanded Medicaid to date under the ACA. Just in the 2 states from our study, we noted significant heterogeneity in the shifts associated with Medicaid expansion, which makes extrapolating specific trends difficult. Differences in underlying health care resources, legislation, and other external factors may limit the applicability of Medicaid expansion in the era of the ACA, as well as the Veterans Choice and MISSION acts. Second, while we leveraged a difference-in-difference analysis using demographically matched, neighboring comparison states, our findings are nevertheless drawn from observational data obviating causality. VA data for other sources of coverage such as private insurance are limited and not included in our study, and MAX datasets vary by quality across states, translating to potential gaps in our study cohort.²⁸ Finally, as in any study using diagnoses, visits addressing care for depression may have been missed if other diagnoses were noted as primary (eg, VA clinicians carrying forward old diagnoses, like PTSD, on the problem list) or nondepression care visits may have been captured if a depression diagnosis was used by default.

Moving forward, our study demonstrates the potential for applying a natural experimental approach to studying dual-eligible veterans at the interface of Medicaid expansion. We focused on changes in VA reliance for the specific condition of depression and, in doing so, invite further inquiry into the impact of state mental health policy on outcomes more proximate to veterans’ outcomes. Clinical indicators, such as rates of antidepressant filling, utilization and duration of psychotherapy, and PHQ-9 scores, can similarly be investigated by natural experimental design. While current limits of administrative data and the siloing of EHRs may pose barriers to some of these avenues of research, multidisciplinary methodologies and data querying innovations such as natural language processing algorithms for clinical notes hold exciting opportunities to bridge the gap between policy and clinical efficacy.

Conclusions

This study applied a difference-in-difference analysis and found that Medicaid expansion is associated with decreases in VA reliance for both inpatient and outpatient services for depression. As additional data are generated from the Medicaid expansions of the ACA, similarly robust methods should be applied to further explore the impacts associated with such policy shifts and open the door to a better understanding of implications at the clinical level.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the efforts of Janine Wong, who proofread and formatted the manuscript.

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) represent some of the most debilitating mental health disorders.¹ While these disorders have myriad presentations, the prototypical patient with SSD is often thought to possess positive symptoms. More recently, clinicians and researchers are raising awareness of another presentation of SSD: predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms. This symptom profile is not a novel phenomenon; for many years this presentation was recognized as a “deficit” presentation, referring to negative symptoms as the prominent feature.^2,3 However, it presents unique diagnostic and treatment considerations that are often underappreciated in clinical settings.

Negative symptoms (blunted/flat affect, avolition, alogia, anhedonia, asociality) have long been identified as key features of SSD and are widely recognized as predictive of poor prognostic outcomes for patients with SSDs.¹ In many patients, negative symptoms may precede the development of positive symptoms and emerge as a more robust predictor of functional outcomes than positive symptoms.¹ Negative symptoms also appear to be inextricably linked to cognitive symptoms. Specifically, patients with primary negative symptoms seem to perform poorly on measures of global cognitive functioning.¹ Similar to negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms of SSDs are a primary source of functional impairment and persistent disability.¹ Despite this, little attention is given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to the neurocognitive and social cognitive deficits seen in patients with SSDs. Previous research highlights broad deficits in a range of neurocognitive abilities, including attention, working memory, processing speed, executive functioning, learning and memory, and receptive and expressive language.⁴ Similarly, patients also display deficits in domains of social cognition, such as emotion processing, identifying and utilizing social cues, evaluating attributions of others, and perspective-taking.⁵

A predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation can present diagnostic and treatment challenges. We present a case of a patient with such a presentation and the unique considerations given to diagnostic clarification and her treatment.

Case Presentation

A 33-year-old female veteran presented to the emergency department (ED) at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, in 2020. She was brought to the ED by local police following an attempted assault of her neighbor. Per collateral information from the police, the veteran stated she “had the urge to hurt someone” but was unable to provide any other information about this event. The veteran demonstrated diminished speech output, providing 2- to 3-word responses before refusing to speak entirely. She also presented with markedly blunted affect and tangential speech. She was not oriented to situation, stating confusion as to how she was brought to the hospital, and appeared to be responding to internal stimuli. She was subsequently admitted to the inpatient mental health unit due to unspecified psychosis.

The veteran presented as an unreliable historian, and much of her medical history was obtained via a review of US Department of Defense (DoD) records and collateral interview with her parents. Before her hospitalization, the veteran had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) and adjustment disorder while serving in the Navy. Her psychiatric history before her military career was otherwise unremarkable. At that time, she began a trial of sertraline 50 mg and completed 10 sessions of psychotherapy. After approximately 1 year, she elected to stop taking sertraline due to improved mental health. However, shortly after this she began experiencing significant depressive symptoms and was ultimately released early from the Navy due to her mental health concerns.

The veteran’s parents provided interim history between her discharge and establishing care at MEDVAMC as the veteran was reluctant to discuss this period of her life. According to her parents the veteran had prior diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD and had difficulty adhering to her current medications (bupropion and duloxetine) for about 1 month before her hospitalization. During the previous month, her parents observed her staying in her room around the clock and “[going] mute.”

The veteran remained hospitalized for about 1 month, during which she was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and stabilized on injections of long-acting olanzapine 210 mg (administered every 2 weeks). She was referred for outpatient psychotherapy in a specialty clinic for veterans with SSDs. However, she did not attend her initial intake assessment.

About 2 weeks after discharge from the hospital, the veteran presented for her injection appointment. At this time, she was noted to be disorganized in her thinking and behavior, displaying thought blocking and catatonic behavior. Her parents also described concerning behavior since her discharge. They stated she went to a hotel after her discharge and spent all her available money. She then returned to her parents’ home, where she did not sleep or bathe for several days. She was observed wandering around the house aimlessly and in a confused manner and had become verbally aggressive and threatening toward her parents. The veteran was again psychiatrically admitted due to psychosis and concerns for her safety. She was discharged about 2 weeks later and continued olanzapine injections. She was also referred for outpatient psychotherapy; although she did not initially engage in psychotherapy, she was referred again about 5 months after discharge and began psychotherapy at that time.

The veteran began a course of weekly outpatient psychotherapy employing cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp).⁶ During this time, she described her primary concerns as anxiety and feeling disconnected from others. She reported a history of depression but not of schizoaffective disorder. When asked about this, the veteran stated that she did not feel this diagnosis was accurate and instead believed she had severe depression. When asked why she was prescribed olanzapine, the veteran stated that this medication was for depression. As with her inpatient stays, the veteran demonstrated several negative symptoms during her course of psychotherapy. She presented with noticeably blunted affect, evidenced by lack of facial expression and monotonic speech. She also routinely displayed alogia (ie, lack of speech), often stating that she “did not feel like talking much.” She described difficulty finding motivation to initiate tasks (avolition) as well as a tendency toward social isolation (asociality).

The veteran also described concerns related to neurocognitive and social cognitive symptoms. She reported difficulties in processing speed, cognitive set-shifting (mentally switching between tasks), and inhibition, describing how these concerns interfered with her occupational functioning. She noted difficulty maintaining the expected pace of work at her previous positions, stating that she felt it took her longer to complete tasks compared with others. In addition, she displayed some difficulties with attention and memory. On more than one occasion, she seemed to have forgotten the previous day’s conversations with clinicians. Regarding social cognitive symptoms, she noted difficulties in emotion processing, indicating that it was difficult for her to identify and manage her emotions. This was especially prominent during times of depressed mood.

She also displayed a hostile attribution bias, or tendency to overattribute hostile intent to others’ ambiguous actions. For example, she described an instance where a family member sat too close to her on the couch, stating that she felt this behavior indicated the family member did not care about her. Relatedly, the veteran demonstrated difficulty with perspective taking, which became evident during cognitive restructuring regarding interpretations of her family’s behavior. Finally, the veteran displayed some deficits in social perception, or the ability to identify social context and rules based on nonverbal communication, verbal cues, and vocal intonation. She stated that she often felt conversing with others was difficult for her and indicated that she was “not good at conversations.” This may have in part been due to deficits in social perception.

During the first 2 months of psychotherapy, the veteran regularly attended sessions (conducted over telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and was adherent to twice-weekly olanzapine injections. Despite this, she began experiencing an increase in depressive symptoms accompanied by a noticeable worsening of her blunted affect, alogia, and avolition. After about 2 months of psychotherapy, she described active suicidal ideation and requested to be voluntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, the veteran was consulted about the use of clozapine in treatment-refractory conditions and began a trial of clozapine 400 mg. She demonstrated marked improvement in her depressed mood after taking the medication and was discharged about 2 weeks after admission. The veteran completed 10 sessions of CBTp before electing to terminate due to an upcoming move. She was adherent to weekly blood draws per the requirements of clozapine and described intentions to engage in mental health care after her move. The patient’s mother contacted the clinic to inform the treatment team that the patient and her family had moved to a different city and the patient had started receiving care at the VAMC in that city.

Discussion

As the veteran’s case highlights, a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation may present diagnostic challenges. Since this presentation may not be viewed as representative of SSDs, patients with this presentation may be misdiagnosed. This was evident in the current case, not only in the veteran’s prodromal phase of illness while in the Navy, but also in her reported previous diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD. More than one clinician at the MEDVAMC provisionally considered a diagnosis of MDD before collecting collateral information from the veteran’s family regarding her clear psychotic symptoms. Unfortunately, such misdiagnoses may have prevented early intervention of the veteran’s schizoaffective disorder, which is found to be instrumental in reducing impairment and disability among patients with SSDs.^7,8

These misdiagnoses are understandable given the considerable symptom overlap between SSDs and other mental health disorders. For instance, anhedonia and avolition are 2 key symptoms seen in depressive episodes. Both anhedonia and lack of positive emotion are often seen in posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, anxiety disorders may induce a lack of positive emotion, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities, and lack of motivation secondary to primary symptoms of anxiety. Furthermore, schizoaffective disorder requires the presence of a major mood episode. In the absence of apparent positive symptoms (as is the case for patients with a predominantly negative symptom presentation), schizoaffective disorder may be easily misdiagnosed as a mood disorder.

Patients with predominantly negative or cognitive symptoms may also be less accepting of a diagnosis of SSD. A wealth of research points to the clear stigma of SSDs, with many suggesting that these disorders are among the most stigmatized mental health disorders.⁹ Therefore, patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms may be more likely to attribute their symptoms to another, less stigmatized mental health disorder. This was seen in the current case, as the veteran repeatedly denied a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and instead claimed to have severe depression. This reluctance to accept a diagnosis of an SSD, coupled with the diagnostic ambiguity of negative symptoms, is likely to make it challenging for clinicians to accurately identify patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation of SSDs.

Clinicians working within a team-based setting may be less likely to misdiagnose patients as they can consult others. Diagnostic clarity in the current case was undoubtedly facilitated by the multidisciplinary team involved in the veteran’s care; clinicians involved in her care were able to consult with one another to determine that her symptoms were indicative of an SSD rather than a mood disorder. Mental health professionals in private practice are unlikely to have access to such multidisciplinary specialty services and may be particularly vulnerable to misdiagnoses.

Treatment Considerations

This case also highlights several psychotherapy and psychopharmacology treatment considerations for patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation. The veteran was initially difficult to engage in psychotherapy. Although patients with SSDs often have difficulty engaging in treatment, patients with a predominant negative and cognitive symptom profile may experience more difficulty doing so.¹⁰ Previous research suggests that both negative symptoms and cognitive symptoms are inversely related to treatment engagement.^11,12

By their very nature, negative symptoms may make it difficult to fully engage in psychotherapy. First, avolition and amotivation likely make it difficult for patients to attend psychotherapy appointments. Furthermore, negative symptoms may make it difficult to emotionally engage with the content of psychotherapy, thus limiting the potential benefits. Cognitive symptoms may also make it more difficult for patients to fully reap the benefits of psychotherapy. Deficits in attention, memory, and abstract reasoning seen in other mental health and medical conditions are associated with poorer treatment outcomes in psychotherapy.^13,14 Thus, it may be especially difficult to engage patients with primarily negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs in psychotherapy. However, given the link between these symptoms and functional impairment, it is even more important to evaluate and address such barriers to treatment.

This case highlights the utility of clozapine in the treatment of SSDs. Many commonly prescribed antipsychotic medications have questionable efficacy in treating negative symptoms, and none of the currently available antipsychotics are approved for this indication.¹⁵ In our case, the veteran saw a limited reduction of her negative or cognitive symptoms from her use of olanzapine. However, case reports, naturalistic follow-up, and open-label studies suggest that clozapine may be efficacious in targeting negative symptoms of SSDs.^16-19 Previous research also suggests clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotic medications, including olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in decreasing overall SSD symptoms.^20,21 Additionally, there is initial evidence of the efficacy of clozapine in treating cognitive symptoms, suggesting that some areas of cognition may improve in response to this medication.^22-24 On the other hand, a recent case study suggests high doses of clozapine may be associated with cognitive impairment, although cognitive impairment was still greater without medication than at this higher dose.²⁵ Thus, further research is needed to refine our understanding of the impact of clozapine on cognitive symptoms in SSDs.

Despite the promising research behind clozapine, it remains widely underprescribed, likely due to concerns regarding the potential adverse effects.^26,27 Clozapine has been associated with many adverse effects, the most concerning being neutropenia, which can lead to serious infection and death. Thus, one concern among clinicians may be the potential lethality of clozapine. However, a wealth of research indicates clozapine can be safely administered under medical supervision.^26,28 In fact, clozapine has been linked to lower all-cause mortality rates and lower mortality rates by suicide compared with other antipsychotic medications.^29-31 It may therefore be argued that clozapine lowers the overall risk of mortality. Prescribers may also be weary of adherence to regular blood tests that patients must undergo to monitor their risk for neutropenia. This is the most frequently cited anticipated barrier to beginning a trial of clozapine.²⁷ These concerns may not be unfounded; indeed, if avolition and amotivation make it difficult to attend psychotherapy sessions, these factors may logically make it difficult to attend blood draw appointments. In response to such barriers, several solutions have been suggested regarding potential blood draw nonadherence, including the use of in-home treatment teams and point-of-care monitoring.^32,33

Conclusions

Predominant negative and cognitive symptom presentations of SSDs require unique considerations to accurately identify and provide optimal treatment for patients with such presentations. As our case highlights, patients with such presentations may often be misdiagnosed, as negative and cognitive symptoms may be attributed to other disorders. Additionally, patients with this presentation may experience difficulty engaging in psychotherapy and may not see the same benefits from common antipsychotic medications as patients with predominantly positive symptoms. Clozapine emerges as a promising treatment for addressing negative and cognitive symptoms, although it remains widely underutilized. In cases where clinicians encounter patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, we strongly recommend consultation and referral to psychiatric care for medication management.

The current case highlights the need for individually tailored treatment plans for individuals seeking mental health care. Clinicians of patients with any mental disorder, but especially those with SSDs of predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, should carefully formulate a treatment plan based on relevant case history, presentation, and current empirical literature. A singular, one-size-fits-all approach should not be universally implemented for such patients. Our case demonstrates how careful multidisciplinary evaluations, review of medical records, collateral information from patients’ family members, and other diagnostic and treatment considerations in patients with predominant negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs can refine and enhance the clinical care offered to such patients.

Acknowledgments

A.K. is supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and the VISN 17 Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans.

Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) represent some of the most debilitating mental health disorders.¹ While these disorders have myriad presentations, the prototypical patient with SSD is often thought to possess positive symptoms. More recently, clinicians and researchers are raising awareness of another presentation of SSD: predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms. This symptom profile is not a novel phenomenon; for many years this presentation was recognized as a “deficit” presentation, referring to negative symptoms as the prominent feature.^2,3 However, it presents unique diagnostic and treatment considerations that are often underappreciated in clinical settings.

Negative symptoms (blunted/flat affect, avolition, alogia, anhedonia, asociality) have long been identified as key features of SSD and are widely recognized as predictive of poor prognostic outcomes for patients with SSDs.¹ In many patients, negative symptoms may precede the development of positive symptoms and emerge as a more robust predictor of functional outcomes than positive symptoms.¹ Negative symptoms also appear to be inextricably linked to cognitive symptoms. Specifically, patients with primary negative symptoms seem to perform poorly on measures of global cognitive functioning.¹ Similar to negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms of SSDs are a primary source of functional impairment and persistent disability.¹ Despite this, little attention is given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to the neurocognitive and social cognitive deficits seen in patients with SSDs. Previous research highlights broad deficits in a range of neurocognitive abilities, including attention, working memory, processing speed, executive functioning, learning and memory, and receptive and expressive language.⁴ Similarly, patients also display deficits in domains of social cognition, such as emotion processing, identifying and utilizing social cues, evaluating attributions of others, and perspective-taking.⁵

A predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation can present diagnostic and treatment challenges. We present a case of a patient with such a presentation and the unique considerations given to diagnostic clarification and her treatment.

Case Presentation

A 33-year-old female veteran presented to the emergency department (ED) at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, in 2020. She was brought to the ED by local police following an attempted assault of her neighbor. Per collateral information from the police, the veteran stated she “had the urge to hurt someone” but was unable to provide any other information about this event. The veteran demonstrated diminished speech output, providing 2- to 3-word responses before refusing to speak entirely. She also presented with markedly blunted affect and tangential speech. She was not oriented to situation, stating confusion as to how she was brought to the hospital, and appeared to be responding to internal stimuli. She was subsequently admitted to the inpatient mental health unit due to unspecified psychosis.

The veteran presented as an unreliable historian, and much of her medical history was obtained via a review of US Department of Defense (DoD) records and collateral interview with her parents. Before her hospitalization, the veteran had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) and adjustment disorder while serving in the Navy. Her psychiatric history before her military career was otherwise unremarkable. At that time, she began a trial of sertraline 50 mg and completed 10 sessions of psychotherapy. After approximately 1 year, she elected to stop taking sertraline due to improved mental health. However, shortly after this she began experiencing significant depressive symptoms and was ultimately released early from the Navy due to her mental health concerns.

The veteran’s parents provided interim history between her discharge and establishing care at MEDVAMC as the veteran was reluctant to discuss this period of her life. According to her parents the veteran had prior diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD and had difficulty adhering to her current medications (bupropion and duloxetine) for about 1 month before her hospitalization. During the previous month, her parents observed her staying in her room around the clock and “[going] mute.”

The veteran remained hospitalized for about 1 month, during which she was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and stabilized on injections of long-acting olanzapine 210 mg (administered every 2 weeks). She was referred for outpatient psychotherapy in a specialty clinic for veterans with SSDs. However, she did not attend her initial intake assessment.

About 2 weeks after discharge from the hospital, the veteran presented for her injection appointment. At this time, she was noted to be disorganized in her thinking and behavior, displaying thought blocking and catatonic behavior. Her parents also described concerning behavior since her discharge. They stated she went to a hotel after her discharge and spent all her available money. She then returned to her parents’ home, where she did not sleep or bathe for several days. She was observed wandering around the house aimlessly and in a confused manner and had become verbally aggressive and threatening toward her parents. The veteran was again psychiatrically admitted due to psychosis and concerns for her safety. She was discharged about 2 weeks later and continued olanzapine injections. She was also referred for outpatient psychotherapy; although she did not initially engage in psychotherapy, she was referred again about 5 months after discharge and began psychotherapy at that time.

The veteran began a course of weekly outpatient psychotherapy employing cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp).⁶ During this time, she described her primary concerns as anxiety and feeling disconnected from others. She reported a history of depression but not of schizoaffective disorder. When asked about this, the veteran stated that she did not feel this diagnosis was accurate and instead believed she had severe depression. When asked why she was prescribed olanzapine, the veteran stated that this medication was for depression. As with her inpatient stays, the veteran demonstrated several negative symptoms during her course of psychotherapy. She presented with noticeably blunted affect, evidenced by lack of facial expression and monotonic speech. She also routinely displayed alogia (ie, lack of speech), often stating that she “did not feel like talking much.” She described difficulty finding motivation to initiate tasks (avolition) as well as a tendency toward social isolation (asociality).

The veteran also described concerns related to neurocognitive and social cognitive symptoms. She reported difficulties in processing speed, cognitive set-shifting (mentally switching between tasks), and inhibition, describing how these concerns interfered with her occupational functioning. She noted difficulty maintaining the expected pace of work at her previous positions, stating that she felt it took her longer to complete tasks compared with others. In addition, she displayed some difficulties with attention and memory. On more than one occasion, she seemed to have forgotten the previous day’s conversations with clinicians. Regarding social cognitive symptoms, she noted difficulties in emotion processing, indicating that it was difficult for her to identify and manage her emotions. This was especially prominent during times of depressed mood.

She also displayed a hostile attribution bias, or tendency to overattribute hostile intent to others’ ambiguous actions. For example, she described an instance where a family member sat too close to her on the couch, stating that she felt this behavior indicated the family member did not care about her. Relatedly, the veteran demonstrated difficulty with perspective taking, which became evident during cognitive restructuring regarding interpretations of her family’s behavior. Finally, the veteran displayed some deficits in social perception, or the ability to identify social context and rules based on nonverbal communication, verbal cues, and vocal intonation. She stated that she often felt conversing with others was difficult for her and indicated that she was “not good at conversations.” This may have in part been due to deficits in social perception.

During the first 2 months of psychotherapy, the veteran regularly attended sessions (conducted over telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and was adherent to twice-weekly olanzapine injections. Despite this, she began experiencing an increase in depressive symptoms accompanied by a noticeable worsening of her blunted affect, alogia, and avolition. After about 2 months of psychotherapy, she described active suicidal ideation and requested to be voluntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, the veteran was consulted about the use of clozapine in treatment-refractory conditions and began a trial of clozapine 400 mg. She demonstrated marked improvement in her depressed mood after taking the medication and was discharged about 2 weeks after admission. The veteran completed 10 sessions of CBTp before electing to terminate due to an upcoming move. She was adherent to weekly blood draws per the requirements of clozapine and described intentions to engage in mental health care after her move. The patient’s mother contacted the clinic to inform the treatment team that the patient and her family had moved to a different city and the patient had started receiving care at the VAMC in that city.

Discussion

As the veteran’s case highlights, a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation may present diagnostic challenges. Since this presentation may not be viewed as representative of SSDs, patients with this presentation may be misdiagnosed. This was evident in the current case, not only in the veteran’s prodromal phase of illness while in the Navy, but also in her reported previous diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD. More than one clinician at the MEDVAMC provisionally considered a diagnosis of MDD before collecting collateral information from the veteran’s family regarding her clear psychotic symptoms. Unfortunately, such misdiagnoses may have prevented early intervention of the veteran’s schizoaffective disorder, which is found to be instrumental in reducing impairment and disability among patients with SSDs.^7,8

These misdiagnoses are understandable given the considerable symptom overlap between SSDs and other mental health disorders. For instance, anhedonia and avolition are 2 key symptoms seen in depressive episodes. Both anhedonia and lack of positive emotion are often seen in posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, anxiety disorders may induce a lack of positive emotion, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities, and lack of motivation secondary to primary symptoms of anxiety. Furthermore, schizoaffective disorder requires the presence of a major mood episode. In the absence of apparent positive symptoms (as is the case for patients with a predominantly negative symptom presentation), schizoaffective disorder may be easily misdiagnosed as a mood disorder.

Patients with predominantly negative or cognitive symptoms may also be less accepting of a diagnosis of SSD. A wealth of research points to the clear stigma of SSDs, with many suggesting that these disorders are among the most stigmatized mental health disorders.⁹ Therefore, patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms may be more likely to attribute their symptoms to another, less stigmatized mental health disorder. This was seen in the current case, as the veteran repeatedly denied a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and instead claimed to have severe depression. This reluctance to accept a diagnosis of an SSD, coupled with the diagnostic ambiguity of negative symptoms, is likely to make it challenging for clinicians to accurately identify patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation of SSDs.

Clinicians working within a team-based setting may be less likely to misdiagnose patients as they can consult others. Diagnostic clarity in the current case was undoubtedly facilitated by the multidisciplinary team involved in the veteran’s care; clinicians involved in her care were able to consult with one another to determine that her symptoms were indicative of an SSD rather than a mood disorder. Mental health professionals in private practice are unlikely to have access to such multidisciplinary specialty services and may be particularly vulnerable to misdiagnoses.

Treatment Considerations

This case also highlights several psychotherapy and psychopharmacology treatment considerations for patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation. The veteran was initially difficult to engage in psychotherapy. Although patients with SSDs often have difficulty engaging in treatment, patients with a predominant negative and cognitive symptom profile may experience more difficulty doing so.¹⁰ Previous research suggests that both negative symptoms and cognitive symptoms are inversely related to treatment engagement.^11,12

By their very nature, negative symptoms may make it difficult to fully engage in psychotherapy. First, avolition and amotivation likely make it difficult for patients to attend psychotherapy appointments. Furthermore, negative symptoms may make it difficult to emotionally engage with the content of psychotherapy, thus limiting the potential benefits. Cognitive symptoms may also make it more difficult for patients to fully reap the benefits of psychotherapy. Deficits in attention, memory, and abstract reasoning seen in other mental health and medical conditions are associated with poorer treatment outcomes in psychotherapy.^13,14 Thus, it may be especially difficult to engage patients with primarily negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs in psychotherapy. However, given the link between these symptoms and functional impairment, it is even more important to evaluate and address such barriers to treatment.

This case highlights the utility of clozapine in the treatment of SSDs. Many commonly prescribed antipsychotic medications have questionable efficacy in treating negative symptoms, and none of the currently available antipsychotics are approved for this indication.¹⁵ In our case, the veteran saw a limited reduction of her negative or cognitive symptoms from her use of olanzapine. However, case reports, naturalistic follow-up, and open-label studies suggest that clozapine may be efficacious in targeting negative symptoms of SSDs.^16-19 Previous research also suggests clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotic medications, including olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in decreasing overall SSD symptoms.^20,21 Additionally, there is initial evidence of the efficacy of clozapine in treating cognitive symptoms, suggesting that some areas of cognition may improve in response to this medication.^22-24 On the other hand, a recent case study suggests high doses of clozapine may be associated with cognitive impairment, although cognitive impairment was still greater without medication than at this higher dose.²⁵ Thus, further research is needed to refine our understanding of the impact of clozapine on cognitive symptoms in SSDs.

Despite the promising research behind clozapine, it remains widely underprescribed, likely due to concerns regarding the potential adverse effects.^26,27 Clozapine has been associated with many adverse effects, the most concerning being neutropenia, which can lead to serious infection and death. Thus, one concern among clinicians may be the potential lethality of clozapine. However, a wealth of research indicates clozapine can be safely administered under medical supervision.^26,28 In fact, clozapine has been linked to lower all-cause mortality rates and lower mortality rates by suicide compared with other antipsychotic medications.^29-31 It may therefore be argued that clozapine lowers the overall risk of mortality. Prescribers may also be weary of adherence to regular blood tests that patients must undergo to monitor their risk for neutropenia. This is the most frequently cited anticipated barrier to beginning a trial of clozapine.²⁷ These concerns may not be unfounded; indeed, if avolition and amotivation make it difficult to attend psychotherapy sessions, these factors may logically make it difficult to attend blood draw appointments. In response to such barriers, several solutions have been suggested regarding potential blood draw nonadherence, including the use of in-home treatment teams and point-of-care monitoring.^32,33

Conclusions

Predominant negative and cognitive symptom presentations of SSDs require unique considerations to accurately identify and provide optimal treatment for patients with such presentations. As our case highlights, patients with such presentations may often be misdiagnosed, as negative and cognitive symptoms may be attributed to other disorders. Additionally, patients with this presentation may experience difficulty engaging in psychotherapy and may not see the same benefits from common antipsychotic medications as patients with predominantly positive symptoms. Clozapine emerges as a promising treatment for addressing negative and cognitive symptoms, although it remains widely underutilized. In cases where clinicians encounter patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, we strongly recommend consultation and referral to psychiatric care for medication management.

The current case highlights the need for individually tailored treatment plans for individuals seeking mental health care. Clinicians of patients with any mental disorder, but especially those with SSDs of predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, should carefully formulate a treatment plan based on relevant case history, presentation, and current empirical literature. A singular, one-size-fits-all approach should not be universally implemented for such patients. Our case demonstrates how careful multidisciplinary evaluations, review of medical records, collateral information from patients’ family members, and other diagnostic and treatment considerations in patients with predominant negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs can refine and enhance the clinical care offered to such patients.

Acknowledgments

A.K. is supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and the VISN 17 Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans.

Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) represent some of the most debilitating mental health disorders.¹ While these disorders have myriad presentations, the prototypical patient with SSD is often thought to possess positive symptoms. More recently, clinicians and researchers are raising awareness of another presentation of SSD: predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms. This symptom profile is not a novel phenomenon; for many years this presentation was recognized as a “deficit” presentation, referring to negative symptoms as the prominent feature.^2,3 However, it presents unique diagnostic and treatment considerations that are often underappreciated in clinical settings.

Negative symptoms (blunted/flat affect, avolition, alogia, anhedonia, asociality) have long been identified as key features of SSD and are widely recognized as predictive of poor prognostic outcomes for patients with SSDs.¹ In many patients, negative symptoms may precede the development of positive symptoms and emerge as a more robust predictor of functional outcomes than positive symptoms.¹ Negative symptoms also appear to be inextricably linked to cognitive symptoms. Specifically, patients with primary negative symptoms seem to perform poorly on measures of global cognitive functioning.¹ Similar to negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms of SSDs are a primary source of functional impairment and persistent disability.¹ Despite this, little attention is given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to the neurocognitive and social cognitive deficits seen in patients with SSDs. Previous research highlights broad deficits in a range of neurocognitive abilities, including attention, working memory, processing speed, executive functioning, learning and memory, and receptive and expressive language.⁴ Similarly, patients also display deficits in domains of social cognition, such as emotion processing, identifying and utilizing social cues, evaluating attributions of others, and perspective-taking.⁵

A predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation can present diagnostic and treatment challenges. We present a case of a patient with such a presentation and the unique considerations given to diagnostic clarification and her treatment.

Case Presentation

A 33-year-old female veteran presented to the emergency department (ED) at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, in 2020. She was brought to the ED by local police following an attempted assault of her neighbor. Per collateral information from the police, the veteran stated she “had the urge to hurt someone” but was unable to provide any other information about this event. The veteran demonstrated diminished speech output, providing 2- to 3-word responses before refusing to speak entirely. She also presented with markedly blunted affect and tangential speech. She was not oriented to situation, stating confusion as to how she was brought to the hospital, and appeared to be responding to internal stimuli. She was subsequently admitted to the inpatient mental health unit due to unspecified psychosis.

The veteran presented as an unreliable historian, and much of her medical history was obtained via a review of US Department of Defense (DoD) records and collateral interview with her parents. Before her hospitalization, the veteran had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) and adjustment disorder while serving in the Navy. Her psychiatric history before her military career was otherwise unremarkable. At that time, she began a trial of sertraline 50 mg and completed 10 sessions of psychotherapy. After approximately 1 year, she elected to stop taking sertraline due to improved mental health. However, shortly after this she began experiencing significant depressive symptoms and was ultimately released early from the Navy due to her mental health concerns.

The veteran’s parents provided interim history between her discharge and establishing care at MEDVAMC as the veteran was reluctant to discuss this period of her life. According to her parents the veteran had prior diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD and had difficulty adhering to her current medications (bupropion and duloxetine) for about 1 month before her hospitalization. During the previous month, her parents observed her staying in her room around the clock and “[going] mute.”

The veteran remained hospitalized for about 1 month, during which she was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and stabilized on injections of long-acting olanzapine 210 mg (administered every 2 weeks). She was referred for outpatient psychotherapy in a specialty clinic for veterans with SSDs. However, she did not attend her initial intake assessment.

About 2 weeks after discharge from the hospital, the veteran presented for her injection appointment. At this time, she was noted to be disorganized in her thinking and behavior, displaying thought blocking and catatonic behavior. Her parents also described concerning behavior since her discharge. They stated she went to a hotel after her discharge and spent all her available money. She then returned to her parents’ home, where she did not sleep or bathe for several days. She was observed wandering around the house aimlessly and in a confused manner and had become verbally aggressive and threatening toward her parents. The veteran was again psychiatrically admitted due to psychosis and concerns for her safety. She was discharged about 2 weeks later and continued olanzapine injections. She was also referred for outpatient psychotherapy; although she did not initially engage in psychotherapy, she was referred again about 5 months after discharge and began psychotherapy at that time.

The veteran began a course of weekly outpatient psychotherapy employing cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp).⁶ During this time, she described her primary concerns as anxiety and feeling disconnected from others. She reported a history of depression but not of schizoaffective disorder. When asked about this, the veteran stated that she did not feel this diagnosis was accurate and instead believed she had severe depression. When asked why she was prescribed olanzapine, the veteran stated that this medication was for depression. As with her inpatient stays, the veteran demonstrated several negative symptoms during her course of psychotherapy. She presented with noticeably blunted affect, evidenced by lack of facial expression and monotonic speech. She also routinely displayed alogia (ie, lack of speech), often stating that she “did not feel like talking much.” She described difficulty finding motivation to initiate tasks (avolition) as well as a tendency toward social isolation (asociality).

The veteran also described concerns related to neurocognitive and social cognitive symptoms. She reported difficulties in processing speed, cognitive set-shifting (mentally switching between tasks), and inhibition, describing how these concerns interfered with her occupational functioning. She noted difficulty maintaining the expected pace of work at her previous positions, stating that she felt it took her longer to complete tasks compared with others. In addition, she displayed some difficulties with attention and memory. On more than one occasion, she seemed to have forgotten the previous day’s conversations with clinicians. Regarding social cognitive symptoms, she noted difficulties in emotion processing, indicating that it was difficult for her to identify and manage her emotions. This was especially prominent during times of depressed mood.

She also displayed a hostile attribution bias, or tendency to overattribute hostile intent to others’ ambiguous actions. For example, she described an instance where a family member sat too close to her on the couch, stating that she felt this behavior indicated the family member did not care about her. Relatedly, the veteran demonstrated difficulty with perspective taking, which became evident during cognitive restructuring regarding interpretations of her family’s behavior. Finally, the veteran displayed some deficits in social perception, or the ability to identify social context and rules based on nonverbal communication, verbal cues, and vocal intonation. She stated that she often felt conversing with others was difficult for her and indicated that she was “not good at conversations.” This may have in part been due to deficits in social perception.

During the first 2 months of psychotherapy, the veteran regularly attended sessions (conducted over telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and was adherent to twice-weekly olanzapine injections. Despite this, she began experiencing an increase in depressive symptoms accompanied by a noticeable worsening of her blunted affect, alogia, and avolition. After about 2 months of psychotherapy, she described active suicidal ideation and requested to be voluntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, the veteran was consulted about the use of clozapine in treatment-refractory conditions and began a trial of clozapine 400 mg. She demonstrated marked improvement in her depressed mood after taking the medication and was discharged about 2 weeks after admission. The veteran completed 10 sessions of CBTp before electing to terminate due to an upcoming move. She was adherent to weekly blood draws per the requirements of clozapine and described intentions to engage in mental health care after her move. The patient’s mother contacted the clinic to inform the treatment team that the patient and her family had moved to a different city and the patient had started receiving care at the VAMC in that city.

Discussion

As the veteran’s case highlights, a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation may present diagnostic challenges. Since this presentation may not be viewed as representative of SSDs, patients with this presentation may be misdiagnosed. This was evident in the current case, not only in the veteran’s prodromal phase of illness while in the Navy, but also in her reported previous diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and MDD. More than one clinician at the MEDVAMC provisionally considered a diagnosis of MDD before collecting collateral information from the veteran’s family regarding her clear psychotic symptoms. Unfortunately, such misdiagnoses may have prevented early intervention of the veteran’s schizoaffective disorder, which is found to be instrumental in reducing impairment and disability among patients with SSDs.^7,8

These misdiagnoses are understandable given the considerable symptom overlap between SSDs and other mental health disorders. For instance, anhedonia and avolition are 2 key symptoms seen in depressive episodes. Both anhedonia and lack of positive emotion are often seen in posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, anxiety disorders may induce a lack of positive emotion, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities, and lack of motivation secondary to primary symptoms of anxiety. Furthermore, schizoaffective disorder requires the presence of a major mood episode. In the absence of apparent positive symptoms (as is the case for patients with a predominantly negative symptom presentation), schizoaffective disorder may be easily misdiagnosed as a mood disorder.

Patients with predominantly negative or cognitive symptoms may also be less accepting of a diagnosis of SSD. A wealth of research points to the clear stigma of SSDs, with many suggesting that these disorders are among the most stigmatized mental health disorders.⁹ Therefore, patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms may be more likely to attribute their symptoms to another, less stigmatized mental health disorder. This was seen in the current case, as the veteran repeatedly denied a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and instead claimed to have severe depression. This reluctance to accept a diagnosis of an SSD, coupled with the diagnostic ambiguity of negative symptoms, is likely to make it challenging for clinicians to accurately identify patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation of SSDs.

Clinicians working within a team-based setting may be less likely to misdiagnose patients as they can consult others. Diagnostic clarity in the current case was undoubtedly facilitated by the multidisciplinary team involved in the veteran’s care; clinicians involved in her care were able to consult with one another to determine that her symptoms were indicative of an SSD rather than a mood disorder. Mental health professionals in private practice are unlikely to have access to such multidisciplinary specialty services and may be particularly vulnerable to misdiagnoses.

Treatment Considerations

This case also highlights several psychotherapy and psychopharmacology treatment considerations for patients with a predominantly negative and cognitive symptom presentation. The veteran was initially difficult to engage in psychotherapy. Although patients with SSDs often have difficulty engaging in treatment, patients with a predominant negative and cognitive symptom profile may experience more difficulty doing so.¹⁰ Previous research suggests that both negative symptoms and cognitive symptoms are inversely related to treatment engagement.^11,12

By their very nature, negative symptoms may make it difficult to fully engage in psychotherapy. First, avolition and amotivation likely make it difficult for patients to attend psychotherapy appointments. Furthermore, negative symptoms may make it difficult to emotionally engage with the content of psychotherapy, thus limiting the potential benefits. Cognitive symptoms may also make it more difficult for patients to fully reap the benefits of psychotherapy. Deficits in attention, memory, and abstract reasoning seen in other mental health and medical conditions are associated with poorer treatment outcomes in psychotherapy.^13,14 Thus, it may be especially difficult to engage patients with primarily negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs in psychotherapy. However, given the link between these symptoms and functional impairment, it is even more important to evaluate and address such barriers to treatment.

This case highlights the utility of clozapine in the treatment of SSDs. Many commonly prescribed antipsychotic medications have questionable efficacy in treating negative symptoms, and none of the currently available antipsychotics are approved for this indication.¹⁵ In our case, the veteran saw a limited reduction of her negative or cognitive symptoms from her use of olanzapine. However, case reports, naturalistic follow-up, and open-label studies suggest that clozapine may be efficacious in targeting negative symptoms of SSDs.^16-19 Previous research also suggests clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotic medications, including olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone, in decreasing overall SSD symptoms.^20,21 Additionally, there is initial evidence of the efficacy of clozapine in treating cognitive symptoms, suggesting that some areas of cognition may improve in response to this medication.^22-24 On the other hand, a recent case study suggests high doses of clozapine may be associated with cognitive impairment, although cognitive impairment was still greater without medication than at this higher dose.²⁵ Thus, further research is needed to refine our understanding of the impact of clozapine on cognitive symptoms in SSDs.

Despite the promising research behind clozapine, it remains widely underprescribed, likely due to concerns regarding the potential adverse effects.^26,27 Clozapine has been associated with many adverse effects, the most concerning being neutropenia, which can lead to serious infection and death. Thus, one concern among clinicians may be the potential lethality of clozapine. However, a wealth of research indicates clozapine can be safely administered under medical supervision.^26,28 In fact, clozapine has been linked to lower all-cause mortality rates and lower mortality rates by suicide compared with other antipsychotic medications.^29-31 It may therefore be argued that clozapine lowers the overall risk of mortality. Prescribers may also be weary of adherence to regular blood tests that patients must undergo to monitor their risk for neutropenia. This is the most frequently cited anticipated barrier to beginning a trial of clozapine.²⁷ These concerns may not be unfounded; indeed, if avolition and amotivation make it difficult to attend psychotherapy sessions, these factors may logically make it difficult to attend blood draw appointments. In response to such barriers, several solutions have been suggested regarding potential blood draw nonadherence, including the use of in-home treatment teams and point-of-care monitoring.^32,33

Conclusions

Predominant negative and cognitive symptom presentations of SSDs require unique considerations to accurately identify and provide optimal treatment for patients with such presentations. As our case highlights, patients with such presentations may often be misdiagnosed, as negative and cognitive symptoms may be attributed to other disorders. Additionally, patients with this presentation may experience difficulty engaging in psychotherapy and may not see the same benefits from common antipsychotic medications as patients with predominantly positive symptoms. Clozapine emerges as a promising treatment for addressing negative and cognitive symptoms, although it remains widely underutilized. In cases where clinicians encounter patients with predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, we strongly recommend consultation and referral to psychiatric care for medication management.

The current case highlights the need for individually tailored treatment plans for individuals seeking mental health care. Clinicians of patients with any mental disorder, but especially those with SSDs of predominantly negative and cognitive symptoms, should carefully formulate a treatment plan based on relevant case history, presentation, and current empirical literature. A singular, one-size-fits-all approach should not be universally implemented for such patients. Our case demonstrates how careful multidisciplinary evaluations, review of medical records, collateral information from patients’ family members, and other diagnostic and treatment considerations in patients with predominant negative and cognitive symptoms of SSDs can refine and enhance the clinical care offered to such patients.

Acknowledgments

A.K. is supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and the VISN 17 Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.