Designing payment for Collaborative Care for Depression in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To design a bundled case rate for Collaborative Care for Depression (CCD) that aligns incentives with evidence-based depression care in primary care.Data sources
A clinical information system used by all care managers in a randomized controlled trial of CCD for older primary care patients.Study design
We conducted an empirical investigation of factors accounting for variation in CCD resource use over time and across patients. CCD resource use at the patient-episode and patient-month levels was measured by number of care manager contacts and direct patient contact time and analyzed with count data (Poisson or negative binomial) models.Principal findings
Episode-level resource use varies substantially with patient's time in the program. Monthly use declines sharply in the first 6 months regardless of treatment response or remission status, but it remains stable afterwards. An adjusted episode or monthly case rate design better matches payment with variation in resource use compared with a fixed design.Conclusions
Our findings lend support to an episode payment adjusted by number of months receiving CCD and a monthly payment adjusted by the ordinal month. Nonpayment tools including program certification and performance evaluation and reward systems are needed to fully align incentives.
SUBMITTER: Bao Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3168701 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceUp to 20% of adolescents experience an episode of major depression by age 18 years yet few receive evidence-based treatments for their depression.ObjectiveTo determine whether a collaborative care intervention for adolescents with depression improves depressive outcomes compared with usual care.DesignRandomized trial with blinded outcome assessment conducted between April 2010 and April 2013.SettingNine primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 13-17 years) who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9] score ≥10) on 2 occasions or who screened positive and met criteria for major depression, spoke English, and had telephone access were recruited. Exclusions included alcohol/drug misuse, suicidal plan or recent attempt, bipolar disorder, developmental delay, and seeing a psychiatrist.InterventionsTwelve-month collaborative care intervention including an initial in-person engagement session and regular follow-up by master's-level clinicians. Usual care control youth received depression screening results and could access mental health services through Group Health.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms on a modified version of the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; score range, 14-94) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Columbia Impairment Scale score (CIS), depression response (≥50% decrease on the CDRS-R), and remission (PHQ-9 score <5).ResultsIntervention youth (n = 50), compared with those randomized to receive usual care (n = 51), had greater decreases in CDRS-R scores such that by 12 months intervention youth had a mean score of 27.5 (95% CI, 23.8-31.1) compared with 34.6 (95% CI, 30.6-38.6) in control youth (overall intervention effect: F2,747.3 = 7.24, P < .001). Both intervention and control youth experienced improvement on the CIS with no significant differences between groups. At 12 months, intervention youth were more likely than control youth to achieve depression response (67.6% vs 38.6%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P = .009) and remission (50.4% vs 20.7%, OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.6; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adolescents with depression seen in primary care, a collaborative care intervention resulted in greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 months than usual care. These findings suggest that mental health services for adolescents with depression can be integrated into primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.
| S-EPMC4492537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study examined whether psychiatric case review was associated with depression medication modification in a large implementation program of collaborative care for depression in safety-net primary care clinics. METHODS:Registry data were examined from an implementation of the collaborative care model in Washington State. A total of 14,960 adults from 178 primary care clinics who initiated care between January 1, 2008, and September 30, 2014, and who had a baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score of 10 or higher were included. Rates of psychiatric case reviews and receipt of new depression medications were extracted from the registry for all patients and for a subset of patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment (did not achieve a PHQ-9 score of less than 10 or a reduction in PHQ-9 score of 50% or more, compared with baseline). RESULTS:One-half of patients received a new depression medication. Psychiatric case review in any given month was associated with a doubling of the probability of receiving a new medication in the following month. Among patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment, a psychiatric case review during weeks 8-12 was associated with a higher rate of receipt of new medications during weeks 8-16 or weeks 8-20. CONCLUSIONS:In a collaborative care program, psychiatric case review was associated with higher rates of subsequent receipt of a new depression medication. This finding supports the importance of psychiatric case review in reducing clinical inertia in collaborative care treatment of depression.
| S-EPMC6063310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated a large demonstration project of collaborative care of depression at community health centers by examining the role of clinic site on two measures of quality care (early follow-up and appropriate pharmacotherapy) and on improvement of symptoms (score on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 reduced by 50% or ? 5). METHODS:A quasi-experimental study examined data on the treatment of 2,821 patients aged 18 and older with depression symptoms between 2006 and 2009 at six community health organizations selected in a competitive process to implement a model of collaborative care. The model's key elements were use of a Web-based disease registry to track patients, care management to support primary care providers and offer proactive follow-up of patients, and organized psychiatric consultation. RESULTS:Across all sites, a plurality of patients achieved meaningful improvement in depression, and in many sites, improvement occurred rapidly. After adjustment for patient characteristics, multivariate logistic regression models revealed significant differences across clinics in the probability of receiving early follow-up (range .34-.88) or appropriate pharmacotherapy (range .27-.69) and in experiencing improvement (.36 to .84). Similarly, after adjustment for patient characteristics, Cox proportional hazards models revealed that time elapsed between first evaluation and the occurrence of improvement differed significantly across clinics (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Despite receiving similar training and resources, organizations exhibited substantial variability in enacting change in clinical care systems, as evidenced by both quality indicators and outcomes. Sites that performed better on quality indicators had better outcomes, and the differences were not attributable to patients' characteristics.
| S-EPMC3250309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn primary care (PC) many patients suffer from multimorbidity involving depression and/or anxiety. Collaborative care (CC) has shown promising results for patients with depression, anxiety, and multimorbidity involving depression. However, specific content in CC for patients with multimorbidity involving depression and/or anxiety is unknown.Objective(i) To examine the effect of CC interventions in patients with multimorbidity involving depression and/or anxiety compared with usual care; (ii) to identify specific content of CC.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trial studies evaluating CC models for adults with multimorbidity involving depression and/or anxiety in PC settings. PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycInfo were searched in December 2019. We conducted a qualitative synthesis using an existing framework and developed a new framework to map the content for each studied intervention.ResultsWe identified 1,447 studies. Twelve publications were included. Eleven had medium-to-high quality of CC for patients with multimorbidity involving depression. Specific content of CC in these studies is: A stepped care model, involving medication and psychotherapy delivered by a nurse or psychologist Care Manager (CM) focusing on problem-solving techniques; follow-up including monitoring of symptoms and function, and relapse prevention strategies; scheduled CM supervision.ConclusionsSpecific content for CC for patients with multimorbidity involving depression is identified from current research. Research gaps were found regarding CC for patients with multimorbidity and anxiety, depression and anxiety, and depression and/or anxiety and more than 2 diseases.
| S-EPMC9295603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a large statewide initiative, New York State implemented collaborative care (CC) from 2012 to 2014 in 32 primary care settings where residents were trained and supported its sustainability through payment reforms implemented in 2015. Twenty-six clinics entered the sustainability phase and six opted out, providing an opportunity to examine factors predicting continued CC participation and fidelity.MethodsWe used descriptive statistics to assess implementation metrics in sustaining vs. opt-out clinics and trends in implementation fidelity 1 and 2 years into the sustainability phase among sustaining clinics. To characterize barriers and facilitators, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists, clinic administrators, primary care physicians, and depression care managers (24 at sustaining, 7 at opt-out clinics).ResultsAt the end of the implementation phase, clinics opting to continue the program had significantly higher care manager full-time equivalents (FTEs) and achieved greater clinical improvement rates (46% vs. 7.5%, p?=?0.004) than opt-out clinics. At 1 and 2 years into sustainability, the 26 sustaining clinics had steady rates of depression screening, staffing FTEs and treatment titration rates, significantly higher contacts/patient and improvement rates and fewer enrolled patients/FTE. During the sustainability phase, opt-out sites reported lower patient caseloads/FTE, psychiatry and care manager FTEs, and physician/psychiatrist CC involvement compared to sustaining clinics. Key barriers to sustainability noted by respondents included time/resources/personnel (71% of respondents from sustaining clinics vs. 86% from opt-out), patient engagement (67% vs. 43%), and staff/provider engagement (50% vs. 43%). Fewer respondents mentioned early implementation barriers such as leadership support, training, finance, and screening/referral logistics. Facilitators included engaging patients (e.g., warm handoffs) (79% vs. 86%) and staff/providers (71% vs. 100%), and hiring personnel (75% vs. 57%), particularly paraprofessionals for administrative tasks (67% vs. 0%).ConclusionsClinics that saw early clinical improvement and who invested in staffing FTEs were more likely to elect to enter the sustainability phase. Structural rules (e.g., payment reform) both encouraged participation in the sustainability phase and boosted long-term outcomes. While limited to settings with academic affiliations, these results demonstrate that patient and provider engagement and care manager resources are critical factors to ensuring sustainability.
| S-EPMC6186053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many wish to change incentives for primary care practices through bundled population-based payments and substantial performance feedback and bonus payments. Recognizing patient differences in costs and outcomes is crucial, but customized risk adjustment for such purposes is underdeveloped.Using MarketScan's claims-based data on 17.4 million commercially insured lives, we modeled bundled payment to support expected primary care activity levels (PCAL) and 9 patient outcomes for performance assessment. We evaluated models using 457,000 people assigned to 436 primary care physician panels, and among 13,000 people in a distinct multipayer medical home implementation with commercially insured, Medicare, and Medicaid patients.Each outcome is separately predicted from age, sex, and diagnoses. We define the PCAL outcome as a subset of all costs that proxies the bundled payment needed for comprehensive primary care. Other expected outcomes are used to establish targets against which actual performance can be fairly judged. We evaluate model performance using R(2)'s at patient and practice levels, and within policy-relevant subgroups.The PCAL model explains 67% of variation in its outcome, performing well across diverse patient ages, payers, plan types, and provider specialties; it explains 72% of practice-level variation. In 9 performance measures, the outcome-specific models explain 17%-86% of variation at the practice level, often substantially outperforming a generic score like the one used for full capitation payments in Medicare: for example, with grouped R(2)'s of 47% versus 5% for predicting "prescriptions for antibiotics of concern."Existing data can support the risk-adjusted bundled payment calculations and performance assessments needed to encourage desired transformations in primary care.
| S-EPMC3394905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meta-analyses show collaborative care models (CCMs) with nurse care management are effective for improving primary care for depression. This study aimed to develop CCM approaches that could be sustained and spread within Veterans Affairs (VA). Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) uses QI approaches within a research/clinical partnership to redesign care. The study used EBQI methods for CCM redesign, tested the effectiveness of the locally adapted model as implemented, and assessed the contextual factors shaping intervention effectiveness.The study intervention is EBQI as applied to CCM implementation. The study uses a cluster randomized design as a formative evaluation tool to test and improve the effectiveness of the redesign process, with seven intervention and three non-intervention VA primary care practices in five different states. The primary study outcome is patient antidepressant use. The context evaluation is descriptive and uses subgroup analysis. The primary context evaluation measure is naturalistic primary care clinician (PCC) predilection to adopt CCM.For the randomized evaluation, trained telephone research interviewers enrolled consecutive primary care patients with major depression in the evaluation, referred enrolled patients in intervention practices to the implemented CCM, and re-surveyed at seven months.Interviewers enrolled 288 CCM site and 258 non-CCM site patients. Enrolled intervention site patients were more likely to receive appropriate antidepressant care (66% versus 43%, p = 0.01), but showed no significant difference in symptom improvement compared to usual care. In terms of context, only 40% of enrolled patients received complete care management per protocol. PCC predilection to adopt CCM had substantial effects on patient participation, with patients belonging to early adopter clinicians completing adequate care manager follow-up significantly more often than patients of clinicians with low predilection to adopt CCM (74% versus 48%%, p = 0.003).Depression CCM designed and implemented by primary care practices using EBQI improved antidepressant initiation. Combining QI methods with a randomized evaluation proved challenging, but enabled new insights into the process of translating research-based CCM into practice. Future research on the effects of PCC attitudes and skills on CCM results, as well as on enhancing the link between improved antidepressant use and symptom outcomes, is needed.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00105820.
| S-EPMC3219630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.AimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.MethodsAn economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane.ResultsThe collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual.ConclusionCollaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.
| S-EPMC4133193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices designed for large urban clinics are not necessarily portable into smaller isolated clinics. Implementing practice-based collaborative care for depression in smaller primary care clinics presents unique challenges because it is often not feasible to employ on-site psychiatrists. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the Telemedicine Enhanced Antidepressant Management (TEAM) study was to evaluate a telemedicine-based collaborative care model adapted for small clinics without on-site psychiatrists. DESIGN: Matched sites were randomized to the intervention or usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Small VA Community-based outpatient clinics with no on-site psychiatrists, but access to telepsychiatrists. In 2003-2004, 395 primary care patients with PHQ9 depression severity scores > or = 12 were enrolled, and followed for 12 months. Patients with serious mental illness and current substance dependence were excluded. MEASURES: Medication adherence, treatment response, remission, health status, health-related quality of life, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: The sample comprised mostly elderly, white, males with substantial physical and behavioral health comorbidity. At baseline, subjects had moderate depression severity (Hopkins Symptom Checklist, SCL-20 = 1.8), 3.7 prior depression episodes, and 67% had received prior depression treatment. Multivariate analyses indicated that intervention patients were more likely to be adherent at both 6 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, p = .04) and 12 months (OR = 2.7, p = .01). Intervention patients were more likely to respond by 6 months (OR = 2.0, p = .02), and remit by 12 months (OR = 2.4, p = .02). Intervention patients reported larger gains in mental health status and health-related quality of life, and reported higher satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care can be successfully adapted for primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists using telemedicine technologies.
| S-EPMC2305730 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patient's primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect.ResultsAs compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P=0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001).ConclusionsAs compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.).
| S-EPMC3312811 | biostudies-literature