The Quality Improvement for Depression collaboration: general analytic strategies for a coordinated study of quality improvement in depression care.

It is difficult to evaluate the promise of primary care quality-improvement interventions for depression because published studies have evaluated diverse interventions by using different research designs in dissimilar populations. Preplanned meta-analysis provides an alternative to derive more precise and generalizable estimates of intervention effects; however, this approach requires the resolution of analytic challenges resulting from design differences that threaten internal and external validity. This paper describes the four-project Quality Improvement for Depression (QID) collaboration specifically designed for preplanned meta-analysis of intervention effects on outcomes. This paper summarizes the interventions the four projects tested, characterizes commonalities and heterogeneity in the research designs used to evaluate these interventions, and discusses the implications of this heterogeneity for preplanned meta-analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: results of a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. DESIGN: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. INTERVENTIONS: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P =.35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P =.28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15 331 and $36 467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P =.19) and 47 (P =.01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P =.07) and 20.9 (P =.03) more days during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.

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.

Long-term effectiveness of disseminating quality improvement for depression in primary care.

BACKGROUND: This article addresses whether dissemination of short-term quality improvement (QI) interventions for depression to primary care practices improves patients' clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 2 years, relative to usual care (UC). METHODS: The sample included 1299 patients with current depressive symptoms and 12-month, lifetime, or no depressive disorder from 46 primary care practices in 6 managed care organizations. Clinics were randomized to UC or 1 of 2 QI programs that included training local experts and nurse specialists to provide clinician and patient education, assessment, and treatment planning, plus either nurse care managers for medication follow-up (QI-meds) or access to trained psychotherapists (QI-therapy). Outcomes were assessed every 6 months for 2 years. RESULTS: For most outcomes, differences between intervention and UC patients were not sustained for the full 2 years. However, QI-therapy reduced overall poor outcomes compared with UC by about 8 percentage points throughout 2 years, and by 10 percentage points compared with QI-meds at 24 months. Both interventions improved patients' clinical and role outcomes, relative to UC, over 12 months (eg, a 10-11 and 6-7 percentage point difference in probable depression at 6 and 12 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While most outcome improvements were not sustained over the full 2 study years, findings suggest that flexible dissemination of short-term, QI programs in managed primary care can improve patient outcomes well after program termination. Models that support integrated psychotherapy and medication-based treatment strategies in primary care have the potential for relatively long-term patient benefits.

Are better ratings of the patient-provider relationship associated with higher quality care for depression?

BACKGROUND: The interpersonal patient-provider relationship (PPR) is an essential part of health care quality, particularly for patients with depression, yet little is known neither about how to measure this relationship nor about its association with quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate properties of patient rating measures, understand the relation between 2 types of ratings, and determine the association of ratings with quality depression care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1,104 patients with current depressive symptoms and lifetime or 12-month disorder identified through screening 27,332 consecutive primary care visitors in 6 managed care organizations participating in Partners in Care (PIC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 18-month data (collected in 1998) after the start of PIC depression quality improvement (QI) interventions (in which clinics were randomized to 1 of 2 QI interventions or usual care). MEASURES: Patient ratings of the interpersonal relationship with the primary care provider and satisfaction with health care, and quality of depression care indicators. ANALYSIS: Factor analysis and multitrait scaling to evaluate the psychometric properties of multiitem constructs and analysis of covariance to evaluate associations between patient ratings and quality. RESULTS: Patient ratings had high internal consistency and met criteria for discriminant validity tapping unique aspects of care. Patients receiving quality care, especially for medication use, had significantly higher ratings of the interpersonal relationship (by 22% to 27% of a SD) and were more satisfied (by 26% to 34% of a SD) than patients who did not receive quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Ratings of the interpersonal relationship and satisfaction measure distinct aspects of care and are positively associated with quality care for depression.

Quality improvement for depression enhances long-term treatment knowledge for primary care clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of implementing quality improvement (QI) programs for depression, relative to usual care, on primary care clinicians' knowledge about treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: Matched primary care clinics (46) from seven managed care organizations were randomized to usual care (mailed written guidelines only) versus one of two QI interventions. Self-report surveys assessed clinicians' knowledge of depression treatments prior to full implementation (June 1996 to March 1997) and 18 months later. We used an intent-to-treat analysis to examine intervention effects on change in knowledge, controlling for clinician and practice characteristics, and the nested design. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions included institutional commitment to QI, training local experts, clinician education, and training nurses for patient assessment and education. One intervention had resources for nurse follow-up on medication use (QI-meds) and the other had reduced copayment for therapy from trained, local therapists (QI-therapy). RESULTS: Clinicians in the intervention group had greater increases compared with clinicians in the usual care group over 18 months in knowledge of psychotherapy (by 20% for QI-meds, P =.04 and by 33% for QI-therapy, P =.004), but there were no significant increases in medication knowledge. Significant increases in knowledge scores (P =.01) were demonstrated by QI-therapy clinicians but not clinicians in the QI-meds group. Clinicians were exposed to multiple intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of QI programs for depression in managed, primary care practices improved clinicians' treatment knowledge over 18 months, but breadth of learning was somewhat greater for a program that also included active collaboration with local therapists.

Who is at risk of nondetection of mental health problems in primary care?

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient and provider characteristics associated with increased risk of nondetection of mental health problems by primary care physicians. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient and physician surveys conducted as part of the Medical Outcomes Study. PARTICIPANTS: We studied 19,309 patients and 349 internists and family physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We counted "detection" of a mental health problem whenever physicians reported, in a postvisit survey, that they thought the patient had a mental health problem or that they had counseled or referred the patient for mental health. Key independent variables included patient self-reported demographic characteristics, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), depression diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and physician demographics and proclivity to provide counseling for depression. Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for HRQOL, revealed physicians were less likely to detect mental health problems in African Americans (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.86), men (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.75), and patients younger than 35 years (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84), and more likely to detect them in patients with diabetes (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8) or hypertension (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6). In a model that included DSM-III diagnoses, odds of detection remained reduced for African Americans as well as for Hispanics (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.71), and patients with more-severe DSM-III diagnoses were more likely to be detected. Physician proclivity toward providing counseling for depression influenced the likelihood of detection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' race, gender, and coexisting medical conditions affected physician awareness of mental health problems. Strategies to improve detection of mental health problems among African Americans, Hispanics, and men should be explored and evaluated.

Counseling for depression by primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care providers (PCPs) deliver a significant amount of depression care, yet little is known about the content of clinical encounters with depressed patients. We describe the extent to which PCP's encounters with depressed and non-depressed patients involve psychotherapeutic counseling relative to other types of counseling during primary care visits. METHOD: Cross-sectional evaluation of audiotaped office visits between October 1997 and September 1998 with 154 patients of 27 PCPs at three Veterans' Health Administration clinics in California. Using the Roter Interaction Analysis System, we coded conversation into mutually exclusive talk categories and developed specific measures of depression counseling coded for sequences of depression talk. Analysis of variance and covariance was used to evaluate differences in counseling by depression type adjusted for encounter length, previous depression treatment, patient characteristics, and provider clustering. RESULTS: PCPs delivered significantly more depression care (assessed using coded audiotapes of patient visits) to their patients with major depression compared with patients who had no depression or symptoms but no disorder. However, counseling using psychotherapeutic techniques did not differ by depression level and was equivalent for patients with major depression and subthreshold relative to non-depressed. Encounters with patients who had major depression included more talk about depression, devoted more time to discussing depression, and included more depression talk per minute. PCP encounters with depressed patients also included less biomedical talk compared to other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that PCPs do provide depression counseling to their patients who need it the most. Whether counseling is associated with appropriate treatment and subsequent outcomes will require additional research.

Treating depression in staff-model versus network-model managed care organizations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care providers' depression-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to understand how these reports vary for providers in staff or group-model managed care organizations (MCOs) compared with network-model MCOs including independent practice associations and preferred provider organizations. DESIGN: Survey of primary care providers' depression-related practices in 1996. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 410 providers, from 80 outpatient clinics, in 11 MCOs participating in four studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured knowledge based on depression guidelines, attitudes (beliefs about burden, skill, and barriers) related to depression, and reported behavior. Providers in both types of MCO are equally knowledgeable about treating depression (better knowledge of pharmacologic than psychotherapeutic treatments) and perceive equivalent skills in treating depression. However, compared with network-model providers, staff/group-model providers have stronger beliefs that treating depression is burdensome to their practice. While more staff/group-model providers reported time limitations as a barrier to optimal depression treatment, more network-model providers reported limited access to mental health specialty referral as a barrier. Accordingly, these staff/group-model providers are more likely to treat patients with major depression through referral (51% vs 38%) or to assess but not treat (17% vs 7%), and network-model providers are more likely to prescribe antidepressants (57% vs 6%) as first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the providers from staff/group-model MCOs had greater access to and relied more on referral, the providers from network-model organizations were more likely to treat depression themselves. Given varying attitudes and behaviors, improving primary care for the treatment of depression will require unique strategies beyond enhancing technical knowledge for the two types of MCOs.

A comparison of self-reported utilization of ophthalmic care for diabetes in managed care versus fee-for-service.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between structural factors in the health care delivery system and self-reported utilization of ophthalmic services by patients with diabetes in the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS). METHODS: Self-reported utilization of ophthalmic services within the 6 months preceding enrollment into the MOS among 522 of 567 individuals with diabetes in the MOS longitudinal panel was measured. Use of eye care services was regressed (logistic model) on patient demographics, geographic location, physician specialty, type of practice, and finance plan (prepaid or fee-for-service). RESULTS: None of the variables was significantly associated with a higher or lower likelihood of having used ophthalmic services in the preceding 6 months. Thus, no difference between prepaid or fee-for-service plans or among solo practice, large multispecialty groups, or HMOs were identified. Having seen an internist, family practitioner, or diabetes specialist for diabetes care was not related to use of ophthalmic services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a presumed greater interest in preventive health, prepaid health plans were no more or less likely than the fee-for-service sector to have patients with diabetes reporting an eye examination within the prior 6 months. Thus, steps to improve the rate of eye examinations of diabetics may need to focus beyond the structural elements of the health care delivery system.

Treatment typically provided for comorbid anxiety disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether the extent and type of treatment for comorbid anxiety disorders varies for patients with depression, hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease treated by general medical clinicians. METHODS: Data are from 2189 general medical patients with and without comorbid anxiety disorders in the Medical Outcomes Study. Treatment data were based on clinician reports of counseling provided during a visit and patient reports of recent medication use. RESULTS: Patients with comorbid anxiety disorders were more likely to receive treatments for anxiety disorders than those without anxiety disorders. Among those with anxiety disorders, the use of psychosocial counseling and psychotropic medication was greater for patients with depression than for patients without depression who had chronic medical conditions. Minor tranquilizers were used more commonly than antidepressants, regardless of the type of comorbid condition. Among patients with anxiety disorders, those visiting medical subspecialists were more likely to use minor tranquilizers than those visiting family practitioners or internists. Patients of family physicians with chronic medical conditions (but not with depression) were less likely than similar patients of internists to use minor tranquilizers whether or not anxiety disorders were present. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety disorders co-occurring with another disease (medical illness or depression) increases the likelihood of counseling and the use of psychotropic medication in the general medical sector. Patients with a chronic medical illness with or without comorbid anxiety disorders visiting family physicians are less likely to use minor tranquilizers than those visiting subspecialists or internists.

Comorbid anxiety disorder and the functioning and well-being of chronically ill patients of general medical providers.

BACKGROUND: The comorbidity of psychiatric disorders with chronic health conditions has emerged as a topic of considerable clinical and policy interest, in part owing to the evidence that anxiety disorders themselves are associated with morbidity. However, the implications for health-related quality of life that result from anxiety disorders, which are comorbid to chronic medical or psychiatric illness, are not well understood, especially in primary care samples. METHODS: A 2-year observational study of 875 adult patients with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and current depressive disorder or subthreshold depression receiving care from general medical providers was conducted. The unique effect of any comorbid anxiety disorder on functioning and well-being (determined with the use of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]) was estimated, as well as the differential impact at baseline, 2-year follow-up, and change over time, of any comorbid anxiety disorder for patients with chronic medical conditions or depression. RESULTS: Patients with comorbid anxiety who received general medical care had lower levels of functioning and well-being than those without comorbid anxiety. These differences were most pronounced in mental health-related quality-of-life measures and when anxiety was comorbid with chronic medical conditions rather than with depression. Hypertensive and diabetic patients with comorbid anxiety were as debilitated as patients with depression or heart disease, and this low health-related quality of life persisted over time. Comorbid anxiety had less of an effect on patients with heart disease who already had a low health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The finding of substantial differences in the quality of life between hypertensive and diabetic patients with and without comorbid anxiety disorder highlights the clinical and societal importance of identifying comorbid anxiety in these patients.

Counseling typically provided for depression. Role of clinician specialty and payment system.

BACKGROUND: To assess how current policy trends may affect the use of counseling for depression, we examined the variation in the use of counseling and usual clinician counseling style for depression across specialty sectors (psychiatry, psychology, and general medicine) and reimbursement type (fee-for-service or prepaid). METHODS: Three types of observational data from the RAND Medical Outcomes Study: (1) patient-reported demographics, depressive symptoms, clinical status, and perceptions about participation style; (2) clinician reports of counseling during specific patient encounters; and (3) clinician reports of the usual counseling and interpersonal style across patients who were seen in a practice. RESULTS: While almost all depressed patients who were being treated by mental health specialists received brief counseling for at least 3 minutes, less than half of the depressed patients in the general medical sector received such counseling--even for those patients with a current depressive disorder. Counseling rates were lower under prepaid than fee-for-service care in general medical practices. Psychiatrists relied more on psychodynamic approaches, and psychologists relied more on behavioral therapies relative to each other, but both specialty groups provided longer sessions and used more formal psychotherapeutic techniques (e.g., interpretation) than did general medical clinicians. Clinicians who were treating more patients who had prepaid plans reported a lower proclivity for face-to-face counseling, and they spent less time when they were counseling patients compared with clinician who were treating more patients who had fee-for-service plans; however, these differences were not large. CONCLUSION: The use of counseling in the usual care for depression varied by both specialty and payment system, while the usual clinician counseling style differed markedly by specialty, but only slightly by payment system.

Provider choice and continuity for the treatment of depression.

The role of specialist versus generalist providers regularly surfaces in health-care reform debates about costs and quality of care. By changing incentives to seek and deliver care, different payments systems can affect both the probability of initial specialty care and the duration of this patient-provider relationship. The authors compare provider selection (psychiatrist, nonphysician mental-health specialist, general medical provider) and duration of this relationship among depressed patients in prepaid and fee-for-service plans. Regarding initial care, depressed patients in prepaid plans are significantly less likely to see a psychiatrist and more likely to see a nonphysician mental-health specialist than patients in fee-for-service plans. Although the mix of providers differs, patient demographic and clinical characteristics have similar effects on specialty in both payment systems, ie, there are no differences in who gets specialty care by type of payment, but in how many get specialty care. The average duration of a patient-provider relationship is significantly shorter in prepaid plans. Durations are significantly shorter for patients of both psychiatrists and general medical providers in prepaid plans, but do not differ by payments type for nonphysician therapists. In both payments systems, patients of nonphysician providers end the relationship sooner than patients of psychiatrists or general medical providers. Although the authors find provider switching to be associated significantly with discontinuing antidepressant medication, there is no significant direct effect on patient health outcomes.

Prevalence of comorbid anxiety disorders in primary care outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which anxiety disorders (eg, panic disorder, phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder [GAD]) co-occur in patients with major medical and psychiatric conditions. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Offices of primary care providers in three US cities, with mental health specialty providers included for comparative purposes. PATIENTS: Adult patients (N = 2494) with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease (congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction), current depressive disorder, or subthreshold depression. MEASURES: Current (past 12 months) and lifetime panic disorder, phobia, GAD, perceived need for help for emotional or family problems, and unmet need (ie, failure to get help that was needed). METHODS: Comparisons of the prevalence of anxiety comorbidity in medically ill nondepressed patients of primary care providers and in depressed patients of both primary care and mental health specialty providers. RESULTS: Among primary care patients, those with chronic medical illnesses or subthreshold depression had low rates of lifetime (1.5% to 3.5%) and current (1.0% to 1.7%) panic disorder, but those with current depressive disorder had much higher rates (10.9% lifetime and 9.4% current panic disorder). Concurrent phobia and GAD were more common (10.4% to 12.4% current GAD), especially among depressed patients (25% to 54% current GAD). Depending on the type of medical illness or depression, 14% to 66% of primary care patients had at least one concurrent anxiety disorder. Patient-perceived unmet need for care for personal or emotional problems was high among all primary care patients (54.6% to 72.9%). CONCLUSION: Primary care clinicians should be aware of the possible coexistence of anxiety disorders (especially GAD) among their patients with chronic medical conditions, but especially among those with current depressive disorder.

Variation and quality of self-report health data. Asians and Pacific Islanders compared with other ethnic groups.

Variation in the sociodemographic, system, and disease characteristics of Asians and Pacific Islanders compared with other ethnic groups and the quality of standard self-report measures of health and functioning by ethnic groups were examined. Secondary analysis of self-report data from the Medical Outcomes Study, an observational study of adult outpatients who received care in either prepaid or fee-for-service plans, was used to compare 527 Asians and Pacific Islanders to patients in other ethnic groups (16,989 whites, 2,533 African Americans, 1,009 Latinos, and 446 others). These patients all completed a screening questionnaire after visits with a Medical Outcomes Study clinician. Asians and Pacific Islanders were similar to African Americans and Latinos on most sociodemographic and system characteristics, disease status, and risk factors. Ethnicity was a significant predictor of differences in self-reported health. As a group, Asians and Pacific Islanders had better health or health of equal status compared with whites, but were less satisfied and perceived less sharing in the doctor-patient relationship compared with other ethnic groups. However, results suggest that data from standard functioning measures for Asians should be interpreted with caution and that more work is needed to understand better the social and cultural influences on the health of Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Mental health care utilization in prepaid and fee-for-service plans among depressed patients in the Medical Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: We compare mental health utilization in prepaid and fee-for-service plans and analyze selection biases. DATA SOURCE: Primary data were collected every six months over a two-year interval for a panel of depressed patients participating in the Medical Outcomes Study, an observational study of adults in competing systems of care in three urban areas (Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles). STUDY DESIGN: Patients visiting a participating clinician at baseline were screened for depression, followed by a telephone interview, which included the depression section of the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Patients with current or past lifetime depressive disorder and those with depressed mood and three other lifetime symptoms were eligible for this analysis. We analyze mental health utilization based on periodic patient self-report. ANALYTIC METHODS: We use two-part models because of the presence of both nonuse and skewness of use. Standard errors are corrected nonparametrically for correlations across observations due to clustered sampling within participating physicians and repeated observations on the same individual. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average number of mental health visits was 35-40 percent lower in the prepaid system, adjusted and unadjusted for observed differences in patient characteristics, including health status. Utilization differences were concentrated among patients of psychiatrists, with only minor differences among patients of general medical providers. Analyzing the effect of switches that patients make between payment systems over time, we found some evidence of adverse selection into fee-for-service plans based on baseline utilization, but not based on utilization at the end of the study. In particular, after adjusting for observed patient characteristics and health status, patients switching out of prepaid plans had higher baseline use than predicted, whereas patients switching out of fee-for-service had lower use than predicted. Switching itself appears to be related to an immediate decline in utilization and was not followed by an increase or "catch-up" effect. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of the commonly found "catch-up" effect following switching and the significant decrease in utilization during the switching period suggests an interruption in care that does not occur for patients staying within a payment system. This finding emphasizes the need for integrating new patients quickly into a system, an issue that should not be neglected in the current policy discussion.

Clinician specialty and treatment style for depressed outpatients with and without medical comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: The advent of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression increases the importance of understanding variation across clinician specialty groups in treatment styles for depression and the role of medical comorbidities. METHODS: Data are reported by clinicians (N = 470) and patients (N = 2545). Multiple regression was used to compare the treatment styles (counseling and prescribing antidepressants) of family physicians with those of psychiatrists, medical subspecialists, internists, psychologists, and other therapists for depressed patients with different medical comorbidities. RESULTS: Relative to other primary care specialists, family physicians had the strongest preferences for both counseling and prescribing antidepressants for depressed patients. Family physicians reported preferences for treating with antidepressants that were similar to those of psychiatrists. However, in actual practice, medication use was higher among the patients of psychiatrists than those of family physicians. Mental health care specialists reported the strongest counseling preferences and provided the most counseling in actual practice, compared with general medicine physicians. Internists and subspecialists had similar preferences for prescribing antidepressants, but, compared with internists, subspecialists had lower preferences for counseling. Clinician preferences for counseling were similar for depressed patients with or without medical comorbidities, but preferences for prescribing antidepressants were lowest for patients with depression and myocardial infarction, compared with other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of clinician treatment style for depression are good proxies for counseling but not for prescribing practices. Among general medical physicians, family physicians have the strongest reported preferences in treating depression but, especially in terms of medication therapy, do not always follow those preferences. Preferred treatments of patients with and without medical comorbidities were similar. Findings have implications for improving the quality of treatment of depressed patients.

Switches between prepaid and fee-for-service health systems among depressed outpatients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

We analyzed switches between prepaid and fee-for-service health care plans among depressed outpatients in the longitudinal part of the Medical Outcomes Study. Patients of mental health specialists in fee-for-service plans had the lowest adjusted rate of plan switching (8.1%), compared to fee-for-service general medical patients (13.5%) and prepaid patients of both types of providers (10.1% to 11.7%). Although there were no substantial differences in initial sickness by payment system among enrolled patients, differing switching rates by provider specialty and payment system indicated biased selection over time. In addition, we found that married, nonwhite, and wealthier individuals were significantly more likely to leave fee-for-service than prepaid care plans. We analyzed whether system switching had an effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. None of the results were highly significant, but the power of the data to analyze this issue was limited. Nevertheless, it appears that patients switching from prepaid to fee-for-service may be at risk for poorer functioning outcomes, although there was no similar effect on mental health status.

Outcomes for adult outpatients with depression under prepaid or fee-for-service financing.

OBJECTIVE: To compare change over time in symptoms of depression and limitations in role and physical functioning of patients receiving prepaid or fee-for-service care within and across clinician specialties. METHOD: Observational study of change in outcomes over 2 years for 617 depressed patients of psychiatrists, psychologists, other therapists, and general medical clinicians in three urban sites in the United States. RESULTS: Psychiatrists treated psychologically sicker patients than other clinicians in all payment types. Among psychiatrists' patients, those initially receiving prepaid care acquired new limitations in role/physical functioning over time, while those receiving fee-for-service care did not. This finding was most striking in independent practice associations but varied by site and organization. Patients of psychiatrists were more likely to use antidepressant medication than were patients of other clinicians, but among psychiatrists' patients, there was a sharp decline over time in the use of such medication in prepaid compared with fee-for-service care. Outcomes did not differ by payment type for depressed patients of other specialty groups, or overall. CONCLUSION: Depressed patients of psychiatrists merit policy interest owing to their high levels of psychological sickness. For these patients, functioning outcomes were poorer in some prepaid organizations. The nonexperimental evidence favors (but cannot prove) an explanation based on care received, such as a reduction in medications, rather than on preexisting sickness differences.