The Economics of Integrated Depression Care: The University of Michigan Study

A goal of the Robert Wood Johnson Depression and Primary Care Initiative at the University of Michigan is to create and implement the clinical care and financial systems necessary to enable links between primary care and mental health specialty depression care. This paper describes the economic issues related to resources required, the mechanisms to distribute those resources, and the support that must be garnered from stakeholders. By systematic measurement and application, we assess the cost, price and selected consequences of these efforts. The study illustrates the need for both centralized and distributed capacity and support for innovative models of care.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44096/1/10488_2005_Article_4231.pd

Generalist care managers for the treatment of depressed medicaid patients in North Carolina: A pilot study

BACKGROUND: In most states, mental illness costs are an increasing share of Medicaid expenditures. Specialized depression care managers (CM) have consistently demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes relative to usual primary care (UC), but are costly and may not be fully utilized in smaller practices. A generalist care manager (GCM) could manage multiple chronic conditions and be more accepted and cost-effective than the specialist depression CM. We designed a pilot program to demonstrate the feasibility of training/deploying GCMs into primary care settings. METHODS: We randomized depressed adult Medicaid patients in 2 primary care practices in Western North Carolina to a GCM intervention or to UC. GCMs, already providing services in diabetes and asthma in both study arms, were further trained to provide depression services including self-management, decision support, use of information systems, and care management. The following data were analyzed: baseline, 3- and 6-month Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) scores; baseline and 6-month Short Form (SF) 12 scores; Medicaid claims data; questionnaire on patients' perceptions of treatment; GCM case notes; physician and office staff time study; and physician and office staff focus group discussions. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled, the majority with preexisting depression. Both groups improved; the GCM group did not demonstrate better clinical and functional outcomes than the UC group. Patients in the GCM group were more likely to have prescriptions of correct dosing by chart data. GCMs most often addressed comorbid conditions (36%), then social issues (27%) and appointment reminders (14%). GCMs recorded an average of 46 interactions per patient in the GCM arm. Focus group data demonstrated that physicians valued using GCMs. A time study documented that staff required no more time interacting with GCMs, whereas physicians spent an average of 4 minutes more per week. CONCLUSION: GCMs can be trained in care of depression and other chronic illnesses, are acceptable to practices and patients, and result in physicians prescribing guideline concordant care. GCMs appear to be a feasible intervention for community medical practices and to warrant a larger scale trial to test their appropriateness for Medicaid programs nationally

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

Background. The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care. Methods. A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported. Results. 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were$24. Conclusions. Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations

Racial Disparities in the Treatment of Depression in Low-Income Persons With Diabetes

Individuals with diabetes are at higher risk for depression than the general population. Although depression can be treated with antidepressant medications, patients with diabetes and comorbid depression often go untreated. The goal of this study was to examine racial disparities in the treatment of depression with antidepressant medication in the southeastern U.S

Evaluation of a system of structured, pro-active care for chronic depression in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Background: People with chronic depression are frequently lost from effective care, with resulting psychological, physical and social morbidity and considerable social and financial societal costs. This randomised controlled trial will evaluate whether regular structured practice nurse reviews lead to better mental health and social outcomes for these patients and will assess the cost-effectiveness of the structured reviews compared to usual care. The hypothesis is that structured, pro-active care of patients with chronic depression in primary care will lead to a cost-effective improvement in medical and social outcomes when compared with usual general practitioner (GP) care.Methods/Design: Participants were recruited from 42 general practices throughout the United Kingdom. Eligible participants had to have a history of chronic major depression, recurrent major depression or chronic dsythymia confirmed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). They also needed to score 14 or above on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at recruitment.Once consented, participants were randomised to treatment as usual from their general practice (controls) or the practice nurse led intervention. The intervention includes a specially prepared education booklet and a comprehensive baseline assessment of participants' mood and any associated physical and psycho-social factors, followed by regular 3 monthly reviews by the nurse over the 2 year study period. At these appointments intervention participants' mood will be reviewed, together with their current pharmacological and psychological treatments and any relevant social factors, with the nurse suggesting possible amendments according to evidence based guidelines. This is a chronic disease management model, similar to that used for other long-term conditions in primary care. The primary outcome is the BDI-II, measured at baseline and 6 monthly by self-complete postal questionnaire. Secondary outcomes collected by self-complete questionnaire at baseline and 2 years include social functioning, quality of life and data for the economic analyses. Health service data will be collected from GP notes for the 24 months before recruitment and the 24 months of the study.Discussion: 558 participants were recruited, 282 to the intervention and 276 to the control arm. The majority were recruited via practice database searches using relevant READ codes

Management of major depression in outpatients attending a cancer centre: a preliminary evaluation of a multicomponent cancer nurse-delivered intervention

A novel nurse-delivered multicomponent intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) in cancer outpatients was compared with usual care alone in a nonrandomised matched group design (n=30 per group). At the final 6-month outcome, 38.5% (95% CI, 5.4-57%) fewer patients in the intervention group still met the criteria for MDD

Managed care and patient ratings of the quality of specialty care among patients with pain or depressive symptoms

BACKGROUND: Managed care efforts to regulate access to specialists and reduce costs may lower quality of care. Few studies have examined whether managed care is associated with patient perceptions of the quality of care provided by physician and non-physician specialists. Aim is to determine whether associations exist between managed care controls and patient ratings of the quality of specialty care among primary care patients with pain and depressive symptoms who received specialty care for those conditions. METHODS: A prospective cohort study design was conducted in the offices of 261 primary physicians in private practice in Seattle in 1997. Patients (N = 17,187) were screened in waiting rooms, yielding a sample of 1,514 patients with pain only, 575 patients with depressive symptoms only, and 761 patients with pain and depressive symptoms. Patients (n = 1,995) completed a 6-month follow-up survey. Of these, 691 patients received specialty care for pain, and 356 patients saw mental health specialists. For each patient, managed care was measured by the intensity of managed care controls in the patient's health plan and primary care office. Quality of specialty care at follow-up was measured by patient rating of care provided by the specialists. Outcomes were pain interference and bothersomeness, Symptom Checklist for Depression, and restricted activity days. RESULTS: The intensity of managed care controls in health plans and primary care offices was generally not associated with patient ratings of the quality of specialty care. However, pain patients in more-managed primary care offices had lower ratings of the quality of specialty care from physician specialists and ancillary providers. CONCLUSION: For primary care patients with pain or depressive symptoms and who see specialists, managed care controls may influence ratings of specialty care for patients with pain but not patients with depressive symptoms

Type 2 diabetes, depressive symptoms and trajectories of cognitive decline in a national sample of community-dwellers: a prospective cohort study

We examined the individual and synergistic effects of type 2 diabetes and elevated depressive symptoms on memory and executive function trajectories over 10 and eight years of follow-up, respectively. Our sample comprised 10,524 community-dwellers aged ≥50 years in 2002±03 from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. With respect to memory (word recall), participants with either diabetes or elevated depressive symptoms recalled significantly fewer words compared with those free of these conditions (reference category), but more words compared with those with both conditions. There was a significant acceleration in the rate of memory decline in participants aged ≤50±64 years with both conditions (-0.27, 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.08, per study wave), which was not observed in those with either condition or aged ≥65 years. With respect to executive function (animal naming), participants aged 65 years with diabetes or those with elevated depressive symptoms named significantly fewer animals compared with the reference category, while those with both conditions named fewer animals compared with any other category. The rate of executive function decline was significantly greater in participants with both conditions (-0.54, 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.10; and ±0.71, 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.27, per study wave, for those aged 50±64 and ≥65 years, respectively), but not in participants with either condition. Diabetes and elevated depressive symptoms are inversely associated with memory and executive function, but, individually, do not accelerate cognitive decline. The co-occurrence of diabetes and elevated depressive symptoms significantly accelerates cognitive decline over time, especially among those aged 50±64 years