Effect of antidepressant therapy on health care utilization and costs in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Four groups of patients receiving different antidepressant drugs in a primary care setting were compared in terms of duration of antidepressant therapy and health and mental health care utilization and costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the medical and pharmacy claims of an employed population and their families was conducted. A total of 1,242 patients with a diagnosis of depression were included in the analyses. The four antidepressant cohorts were fluoxetine (N = 799), trazodone (N = 89), the tricyclics amitriptyline and imipramine (N = 104), and the secondary amine tricyclics desipramine and nortriptyline (N = 250). The primary outcome measures were total health care charges, total charges for mental health services, and the pattern of antidepressant use. Secondary measures included charges for outpatient care and pharmacy and the number of outpatient visits. Data analysis involved use of two-stage multivariate regression modeling known as sample selection models. RESULTS: Patients taking fluoxetine achieved higher rates of continuous use for at least six months compared with those taking the other drugs. After selection bias due to observed and unobserved characteristics and other confounding variables was adjusted for, no significant differences were found between drug cohorts in total medical charges. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the process of care at no apparent increase in total charges appear possible through appropriate medication therapy.

Valuation of medical resource units collected in health economic studies.

This paper reviews the issues that are critical for the valuation of medical resources in the context of health economic studies. There are several points to consider when undertaking the valuation of medical resources. The perspective of the analysis should be established before determining the valuation process. Future costs should be discounted to present values, and time and effort spent in assigning a monetary value to a medical resource should be proportional to its importance in the analysis. Prices vary considerably based on location of the service and the severity of the illness episode. Because of the wide variability in pricing data, sensitivity analysis is an important component of validation of study results. A variety of data sources have been applied to the valuation of medical resources. Several types of data are reviewed in this paper, including claims data, national survey data, administrative data, and marketing research data. Valuation of medical resources collected in clinical trials is complex because of the lack of standardization of the data sources. A national pricing data source for health economic valuation would greatly facilitate study analysis and make comparisons between results more meaningful.

Health insurance and health status: implications for financing health care reform.

Self-reported health status measures from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey indicate significant differences among each of five population groups defined by current health insurance coverage. These differences in health status imply that the groups are likely to exhibit different patterns of expenditures, even if enrolled in the same health insurance after health care reform. The healthiest group along most dimensions is the population covered by employer-sponsored insurance, followed in order by the population with nongroup private insurance, the uninsured population, the population that qualifies for public coverage based on income, and the population that qualifies for public coverage based on medical need. While the general health and mental health of the uninsured are slightly worse in comparison to the privately insured, the uninsured have fewer chronic health problems. The uninsured who recently lost private insurance or who live in working families are significantly healthier than the long-term or low-income and nonworking uninsured.