User login
Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.
In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).
The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.
The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).
When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.
The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.
In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).
The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.
The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).
When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.
The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.
In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).
The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.
The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).
When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.
The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
Key clinical point: Team-based care for treating adolescent depression is cost effective over time and meets strict willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Major finding: The cost of integrated care totaled between $18,239 and $24,408 in quality-adjusted life-years gained, well below the $50,000 per QALY demanded by most insurers.
Data source: Randomized, controlled, multisite study of 101 teens given depression care for a year.
Disclosures: None of the study authors reported any disclosures. The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.
