Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.

ABSTRACT: Collaborative care for depression in primary care settings is effective and cost-effective. However, there is minimal evidence to support the choice of on-site versus off-site models. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of on-site practice-based collaborative care (PBCC) versus off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care (TBCC) for depression in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).In a multisite, randomized, pragmatic comparative cost-effectiveness trial, 19,285 patients were screened for depression, 2,863 (14.8%) screened positive, and 364 were enrolled. Telephone interview data were collected at baseline and at six, 12, and 18 months. Base case analysis used Arkansas FQHC health care costs, and secondary analysis used national cost estimates. Effectiveness measures were depression-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from depression-free days, the 12-Item Short-Form Survey, and the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale. Nonparametric bootstrap with replacement methods were used to generate an empirical joint distribution of incremental costs and QALYs and acceptability curves.The TBCC intervention resulted in more depression-free days and QALYs but at a greater cost than the PBCC intervention. The disease-specific (depression-free day) and generic (QALY) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were below their respective ICER thresholds for implementation, suggesting that the TBCC intervention was more cost effective than the PBCC intervention.These results support the cost-effectiveness of TBCC in medically underserved primary care settings. Information about whether to insource (make) or outsource (buy) depression care management is important, given the current interest in patient-centered medical homes, value-based purchasing, and bundled payments for depression care.

SUBMITTER: Pyne JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5968353 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.

Pyne Jeffrey M JM Fortney John C JC Mouden Sip S Lu Liya L Hudson Teresa J TJ Mittal Dinesh D

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20150217 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Collaborative care for depression in primary care settings is effective and cost-effective. However, there is minimal evidence to support the choice of on-site versus off-site models. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of on-site practice-based collaborative care (PBCC) versus off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care (TBCC) for depression in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).<h4>Methods</h4>In a multisite, randomized, pragmatic comparative cost-effectiven ...[more]

PMID: 25686811

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.MethodsThis prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.ResultsWe found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).ConclusionsWe found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.Trial registrationNCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:ContextPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), or both have higher medical complication rates and higher health care costs, suggesting that more effective care management of psychiatric and medical disease control might also reduce medical service use and enhance quality of life.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative treatment program (TEAMcare) compared with usual primary care (UC) in outpatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.DesignRandomized controlled trial of a systematic care management program aimed at improving depression scores and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.SettingFourteen primary care clinics of an integrated health care system.PatientsPopulation-based screening identified 214 adults with depressive disorder and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.InterventionPhysician-supervised nurses collaborated with primary care physicians to provide treatment of multiple disease risk factors.Main outcome measuresBlinded assessments evaluated depressive symptoms, SBP, and HbA(1c) at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Fasting LDL-C concentration was assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. Health plan accounting records were used to assess medical service costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed using a previously developed regression model based on intervention vs UC differences in HbA(1c), LDL-C, and SBP levels over 24 months.ResultsOver 24 months, compared with UC controls, intervention patients had a mean of 114 (95% CI, 79 to 149) additional depression-free days and an estimated 0.335 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.85) additional QALYs. Intervention patients also had lower mean outpatient health costs of $594 per patient (95% CI, -$3241 to $2053) relative to UC patients.ConclusionsFor adults with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, CHD, or both, a systematic intervention program aimed at improving depression scores and HbA(1c), SBP, and LDL-C levels seemed to be a high-value program that for no or modest additional cost markedly improved QALYs.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00468676

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets