[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
February 16, 2022

Estimating Psychiatric Bed Shortages in the US

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Health Care Delivery, RAND Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Division of Health Care Delivery, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(4):279-280. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4462

The US is confronting an urgent and worsening shortage of psychiatric beds. For example, in Massachusetts, hundreds of patients have been wait-listed for acute inpatient psychiatric beds.1 In California, well over a thousand individuals deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial have been housed in county jails, awaiting placement at psychiatric facilities.2

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this dynamic, creating an epidemic within the broader pandemic.3 The percentage of the US populace reporting serious psychological distress—a marker of need for inpatient psychiatric services—has risen from 4% in 2018 to 13% in 2020.4 Meanwhile, psychiatric facilities have experienced disrupted continuity of operations and reduced bed capacity—for example, by converting double-occupancy rooms to single-occupancy rooms to reduce viral spread.

A Renewed Discourse on Psychiatric Beds

While the COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the shortcomings of psychiatric bed infrastructure, the decline in bed capacity has progressed steadily for more than 50 years. This progression was driven, in part, by declining lengths of stays at psychiatric facilities, as well as the promise of community-based care that appropriately and humanely responded to patient needs. In practice, however, availability of community mental health services has remained lacking in many quarters.

Today, there is renewed discourse on the urgency of expanding psychiatric beds. States ranging from New York to Oregon to Illinois have required that health care systems offer services consonant with guidelines—such as the Level of Care Utilization System—which operationally defines appropriate care based on individuals’ level of need. Mental health parity legislation and court cases, such as Wit v United Behavioral Health, have provided further leverage to compel insurers to pay for services throughout this continuum.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 20215 ratified $4.25 billion to state investments in psychiatric services. Legislation that is currently being deliberated in Congress could add further provisions. Meanwhile, states have begun passing legislation to substantively overhaul their mental health systems, raising real promise about the potential to expand psychiatric beds.

Challenges in Estimating Psychiatric Bed Shortages

What remains worrisome is that there are no standardized approaches or best practices for determining psychiatric bed need. Central to this shortcoming is the fact that not all psychiatric beds are alike; they are situated in facilities that represent distinct levels of care—ranging from acute inpatient hospitals to residential treatment facilities. In fact, what even counts as a psychiatric bed is a topic of debate.6

A root cause of this paralysis in estimating bed shortages is that states often have bottlenecks at multiple levels. For example, an acute inpatient hospital may be at full-bed occupancy because it is unable to transfer patients to a lower level of care that would be more appropriate; as a result, beds at this lower level of care are also operating at capacity. In this context, it may be imprudent to expand acute inpatient hospital beds when the source of the bottleneck pertains to bed capacity at the lower level.

A second issue is that individuals with certain backgrounds or needs are remarkably hard to place in psychiatric beds, owing to liabilities and resource constraints. These populations include individuals with a history of violent behavior, a criminal conviction of arson, or comorbid dementia. In short, theoretical bed capacity does not always (or often) align with practical bed capacity.

A third issue is that demand may be a weak proxy for need, particularly at lower levels of care. Patients who need services may refrain from seeking care because of stigma, lack of insurance, or an inability to vocalize their needs. This raises a difficult question: should systems focus on addressing the gap between capacity and demand, or between capacity and need as indicated by epidemiological data? If the latter, then another issue arises: we have limited epidemiological information on the relationship between prevalence of mental health conditions and need for specific types of psychiatric beds.

A 3-Stage Approach to Estimation

In response to this conundrum, we propose that states and counties assume a staged approach, one that accounts for information uncertainty by triangulating multiple sources of information. As a starting point (stage 1), states should generate an inventory of current bed occupancy rates, average length of stay, wait list volume, transfer requests to higher and lower levels of care, and the types of patients that facilities are unable to place. By gathering this information, states should be able to identify main bottlenecks and estimate demand for psychiatric beds at each level of care. This approach has been articulated by O’Reilly and colleagues7 as an “observed outcomes” approach; health systems can observe how the present infrastructure is resulting in a specific array of outcomes, such as wait times or emergency department boarding volume, modify infrastructure based on these observations, and then reobserve outcomes.

A complementary, normative approach (stage 2) should focus on accumulating epidemiologic and demographic data to recalibrate information from stage 1. Despite the limitations of epidemiologic information described above, states could nevertheless inspect relationships between county-level demographic composition, such as sex, race and ethnicity, age distribution, and levels of psychological distress, that correlate with need for inpatient services. This should yield insights about the alignment (or misalignment) of demand and need.

A third approach—which, historically, has been the most widely adopted—is to convene experts, including epidemiologists, methodologists, and clinicians, to deliberate evidence and theoretical considerations (stage 3). Today, the most cited estimate of psychiatric bed need in the US is 40 to 60 beds per 100 000 population, based on a panel convened by the Treatment Advocacy Center in 2008.8 However, this estimate does not indicate how to allocate beds among different types of facilities and may be more or less appropriate in settings with alternative models of care. From our vantage point, convening experts should serve 2 functions: to review estimates from stages 1 and 2 to provide feedback, and to propose a conceptually based alternative estimate for psychiatric bed need that can be used as a comparator for stage 1 and stage 2 estimates.

Recommendations for the Field

All 3 approaches have shortcomings, not least that they yield static estimates in response to dynamic circumstances. However, as states and counties build infrastructure, they should iteratively reassess psychiatric bed needs to fine-tune their efforts. Specifically, when a shortage of beds is identified, governments should consider several questions to guide investments, including: What level or levels of care are leading to the largest bottlenecks? Are specific types of infrastructure required for hard-to-place populations? In both absolute and relative terms (ie, number of beds and number of beds per 100 000 population), where is the need greatest?

The credibility of these efforts will, necessarily, be tied to the quality and precision of underlying inputs. Without deliberate effort to collate facility-level estimates on occupancy rates, length of stay, wait list volume, and transfer requests, any undertaking will be prone to estimation error. We therefore recommend conducting a survey of facilities as a starting point. Furthermore, those considering implementation might look to past large-scale efforts in settings such as Queensland, Australia,9 or domestic efforts underway in California.10 Though the task may seem daunting, we believe there is promise in a data-driven approach that inspects psychiatric bed shortages from multiple vantage points in an ongoing manner.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Ryan K. McBain, PhD, MPH, RAND Corporation, Division of Health Care Delivery, 20 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116 (rmcbain@rand.org).

Published Online: February 16, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4462

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Eberhart reported that this article was informed by work supported by the California Mental Health Services Authority, for which she is the principal investigator. No other disclosures were reported.

Bebinger  M. 716 Psych patients are stuck in emergency rooms waiting for care, Mass. report shows. WBUR. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/11/massachusetts-mental-health-boarding-report
Faster jail transfers to California mental hospitals upheld. AP News. June 17, 2021. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/ca-state-wire-california-health-government-and-politics-0415f03107fbf25c59ca215593927e42
Öngür  D, Perlis  R, Goff  D.  Psychiatry and COVID-19.   JAMA. 2020;324(12):1149-1150. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14294PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
McGinty  EE, Presskreischer  R, Anderson  KE, Han  H, Barry  CL.  Psychological distress and COVID-19-related stressors reported in a longitudinal cohort of US adults in April and July 2020.   JAMA. 2020;324(24):2555-2557. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.21231PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Cuellar  H, US Senate, House of Foreign Affairs. H.R.133—Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133/text
Pinals  DA, Fuller  DA.  The vital role of a full continuum of psychiatric care beyond beds.   Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(7):713-721. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201900516Google ScholarCrossref
O’Reilly  R, Allison  S, Bastiampiallai  T.  Observed outcomes: an approach to calculate the optimum number of psychiatric beds.   Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019;46(4):507-517. doi:10.1007/s10488-018-00917-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Torrey  EF, Entsminger  K, Geller  J, Stanley  J, Jaffe  DJ. The shortage of public hospital beds for mentally ill persons. Treatment Advocacy Center. Accessed January 11, 2022. https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/the_shortage_of_publichospital_beds.pdf
Harris  MG, Buckingham  WJ, Pirkis  J, Groves  A, Whiteford  H.  Planning estimates for the provision of core mental health services in Queensland 2007 to 2017.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012;46(10):982-994. doi:10.1177/0004867412452942PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
McBain  RK, Cantor  JH, Eberhart  NK, Huilgol  SS, Estrada-Darley  I; RAND Corporation.  Adult psychiatric bed capacity, need, and shortage estimates in California—2021.  Accessed January 2, 2022. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1824-1-v2.html
1 Comment for this article
The Delphi method for estimating psychiatric bed shortages in the US
Adrian Philipp Mundt, PhD | Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile
McBain et al. present a novel and sequential 3-stage approach to estimate psychiatric bed needs in the US.1 First, they recommend to assess on the facility level waiting lists (e.g. emergency department) and to also address bottlenecks for the release of patients from hospitalization, in line with the observed outcomes approach.2 In a second stage, they propose to acknowledge specific epidemiological and demographic data within the catchment area to recalibrate information obtained from step 1. Thirdly, they recommend to convene experts to deliberate on the evidence and estimate the need. This was important, since the referenced recommendation from the year 2008 of 50 psychiatric beds per 100 000 population for the US by the Treatment Advocacy Centre is somewhat outdated, and has the methodological shortcoming that it does not state how the experts reached consensus.3 We recently presented evidence from a consensus process with 67 experts from 40 countries worldwide, including amongst those consulted the US and Canada.4 The study showed how stages one and two that were addressed as the acknowledgment of relevant contextual factors and stage 3, the numerical recommendation of an expert panel could interact in a reiterative process, which is characteristic of the Delphi method. First, the experts proposed the contextual factors that should be acknowledged, and these were then grouped into themes and ranked by importance. This pointed to the role of community care and continuity of care, described as the bottlenecks for release in stage 1, relevant epidemiological factors, discussed in stage 2, and a clear definition of what was considered a psychiatric bed among others.4 Along with deliberating upon the importance of contextual factors, experts reached a consensus for the minimum number of psychiatric beds at 30 per 100 000 population, and the optimum at 60 per 100 000. Ranges of mild (25-30/100,000), moderate (15-25/100,000) and severe (less than 15/100,000) psychiatric bed shortage were also defined. The US has 21 psychiatric beds per 100,000 which suggests an overall moderate shortage of beds.5 There is also significant variation between the 50 US states with respect to psychiatric bed numbers. After this worldwide effort, the Delphi method may also be useful for the more regional and local level planning and connect with facility level surveys to provide more precise estimates for specific psychiatric settings.

1. McBain RK, Cantor JH, Eberhart NK. Estimating Psychiatric Bed Shortages in the US. JAMA Psychiatry 2022 doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4462 [published Online First: 2022/02/17]
2. O'Reilly R, Allison S, Bastiampiallai T. Observed Outcomes: An Approach to Calculate the Optimum Number of Psychiatric Beds. Adm Policy Ment Health 2019;46(4):507-17. doi: 10.1007/s10488-018-00917-8 [published Online First: 2019/02/20]
3. Torrey EF, Entsminger K, Geller J, et al. The Shortage of Public Hospital Beds for Mentally Ill Persons - A Report of the Treatment Advocacy Center. 2008
4. Mundt AP, Rozas Serri E, Irarrazaval M, et al. Minimum and optimal numbers of psychiatric beds: expert consensus using a Delphi process. Mol Psychiatry 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41380-021-01435-0 [published Online First: 2022/01/23]
5. Sisti DA, Sinclair EA, Sharfstein SS. Bedless Psychiatry-Rebuilding Behavioral Health Service Capacity. JAMA Psychiatry 2018;75(5):417-18. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0219 [published Online First: 2018/03/16]

Adrian P Mundt, PhD; Stephen Allison, MBBS; Enzo Rozas Serri, MD; Tarun Bastiampillai MBBS