Patricia Camp

COMPARISON OF HEALTH OUTCOMES AT A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANISATION WITH THOSE OF FEE-FOR-SERVICE CARE

To determine whether health outcomes in a health maintenance organisation (HMO) differed from those in the fee-for-service (FFS) system, 1673 individuals ages 14 to 61 were randomly assigned to one HMO or to an FFS insurance plan in Seattle, Washington for 3 or 5 years. For non-poor individuals assigned to the HMO who were initially in good health there were no adverse effects. Health outcomes in the two systems of care differed for high and low income individuals who began the experiment with health problems. For the high income initially sick group, the HMO produced significant improvements in cholesterol levels and in general health ratings by comparison with free FFS care. The low income initially sick group assigned to the HMO reported significantly more bed-days per year due to poor health and more serious symptoms than those assigned free FFS care, and a greater risk of dying by comparison with pay FFS plans.

Depression and health-related quality of life in ethnic minorities seeking care in general medical settings

BACKGROUND To examine ethnic groups differences in (a) prevalence of depressive disorders and (b) health related quality of life in fee-for-service and managed care patients (n=21504) seeking care in general medical settings. METHODS Data are from the Medical Outcomes Study, a multi-site observational study of outpatient practices. The study screened patients of clinicians (family practice, internal medicine, cardiology, diabetology and endocrinology) for four chronic medical conditions; depression, coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. A brief eight-item depression screener followed by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-Depression Section (DIS) for screener positives identified depressed patients (n=2195). The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) assessed health-related quality of life. Patient self-report determined ethnicity. RESULTS Before adjusting for demographic factors, African-Americans and Hispanics had highest rates of depressive symptoms. Asian-Americans had the lowest. After adjusting for demographics (particularly gender and income), we found few statistically significant differences in prevalence or severity of depression. However, among the depressed, Whites were the most, and African-Americans the least likely to report suicidal ideation (p<0. 01), and Hispanics and Whites were more likely to have melancholia (p<0.01). African-Americans reported the poorest quality of life. LIMITATIONS DSM III criteria (though few changes in DSM IV), and relatively small sample size of Asian-Americans compared to other groups. CONCLUSIONS Gender and socioeconomic status are more significant factors than ethnicity in determining risk for depressive disorder. However, ethnic differences in symptom presentation, and health-related quality of life could have clinical and social consequences, and merit further study.

Health status, sociodemographic factors, and the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs.

The relations among sociodemographic factors, health status, and use of prescribed sleeping pills and tranquilizers are examined. The data are from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, which has a random sample of the nonaged, noninstitutionalized, civilian population in six U.S. sites. Information on sociodemographic factors, health status, and the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs during the previous 3 months was obtained from self-report questionnaires collected at enrollment. Mental and physical health status have large independent and significant effects on the probability of use of both prescribed tranquilizers (P < 0.0001) and sleeping pills (P < 0.0001), whether or not we remove the effects of sociodemographic factors. For the probability of tranquilizer use, there is no significant interaction between gender and mental health or between mental health and physical health. Age and gender have large and significant effects on the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs even after controlling for differences in health status and other demographic factors. The effects of site and socioeconomic status are modest compared with the effects of health, age, and gender.

Severity of depression in prepaid and fee-for-service general medical and mental health specialty practices

This study compares severity of depression for patients of general medical clinicians, psychiatrists, and nonphysician therapists receiving prepaid or fee-for-service care. Cross-sectional severity comparisons were conducted among 715 outpatients with current major depression or dysthymia, by independent assessment. Severity was assessed by counts of current and lifetime depressive symptoms, prognostic and treatment response indicators, and global measures of psychological and physical sickness. Patients of psychiatrists were the most psychologically ill, patients of nonphysician therapists were intermediate, and general medical patients were least ill; but even in the general medical sector, depression severity was at least moderate. No differences in global physical sickness by specialty remained after demographic adjustment. General medical patients whose depression had been detected were only slightly sicker than undetected cases. Type of payment was not consistently related to either psychological or physical aspects of sickness, and payment did not interact with specialty. Mental health specialists, especially psychiatrists, encountered more severely depressed patients, but patients in all sectors were sick enough to warrant treatment. Even undetected patients in the general medical sector were relatively sick, raising questions about gatekeeper policies. There was no evidence of a greater severity gradient by specialty in prepaid care. Because payment was unrelated to severity, treatment implications are similar under prepaid and fee-for-service care. Implications for clinical practice, public policy, and outcomes research design are discussed.

Effects of Cost-Containment Strategies Within Managed Care on Continuity of The Relationship Between Patients with Depression and Their Primary Care Providers

Background.Continuity of the relationship between patients and primary care providers (PCPs) is an important component of care from the consumer perspective that may be affected by variation in cost containment strategies within managed care. Objective.To evaluate the effects of cost containment strategies on the continuity of the relationship between their patients with depression and their PCPs. Design.Observational analysis of a 2-year panel of depressed patients who participated in a quality improvement intervention trial in 46 managed care practices. Participants.One thousand two hundred four patients with current depression who enrolled in a longitudinal study, completed the baseline survey, and were followed for 2 years. Main Measures. The dependent variable is probability of continuing the relationship between patients and their PCPs; explanatory variables include individual patient mental health benefits and cost-sharing, individual provider financial incentives, supply-side managed care policies, and patient ratings of the care received. Results.The average duration of the patient-PCP relationship was significantly longer among depressed patients who initially had less generous benefits for specialty care (higher copays, P = 0.02 and fewer visits covered, P = 0.002) and for patients whose PCPs received a performance-based salary bonus from a risk pool (P = 0.07). Conclusions.For depressed patients, cost containment strategies, such as limits on specialty benefits and presence of clinician bonus payments typically used within managed care may increase, rather than decrease, PCP continuity. Whether increased PCP continuity is a desirable outcome depends on whether health care systems can provide high quality primary care and this merits further study.