ABSTRACT
With these goals in mind, it is possible to clarify the value and utility of the non-hospital options for acutely ill individuals. First and foremost, for patients who can safely be diverted from inpatient admission, the “alternatives” appear to be at least as effective as hospital care in terms of reducing symptoms and preventing relapse, and may at times produce superior results in terms of improved social functioning (Hoge, Davidson, Hill, Turner, & Ameli, 1992; Kiesler, 1982). Second, these alternatives are cost-efficient in that per episode costs can be reduced from approximately 10-50% (Burns, Raftery, Beadsmoore, McGuigan, & Dickson, 1993; Fenton,
Tessier, Contandriopoulos, Nguyen, & Struening, 1982, Hoge et al., 1992), and the diversion of a patient from hospital level care appears to decrease the probability of future hospital admissions (Kiesler, 1982). By virtue of the fact that “alternatives” are typically located in the patient’s home community, the ongoing involvement of outpatient treaters is more likely, resulting in enhanced continuity.
