Cost-Effectiveness of On-Site Versus Off-Site Collaborative Care for Depression in Rural FQHCs
Abstract
Objective:
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).
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 19.3% of the U.S. population resides in rural areas, which places them at risk of poor detection and treatment of mental disorders (1). Rural areas differ from urban areas in some significant ways that may explain this disparity, for example, longer travel distances, lack of colocation of mental health specialists in primary care settings, weak linkages to off-site mental health specialists, limited mental health insurance coverage, and higher levels of stigma (2).
Collaborative care for depression has been shown to be highly effective (3–6) and cost-effective (7–10) in urban settings, but it is difficult to implement in federally designated mental health professional shortage areas (85% of rural counties) (11). Collaborative care for depression can be adapted successfully for rural primary care settings by using telemedicine technologies (12), but it is critical to also assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach.
Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are located in medically underserved areas and are a critical component of the health care safety net. In 2012, FQHCs served approximately 21 million patients, and this number could double by 2015 with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (13). Three-quarters of FQHC patients live in poverty, half live in rural areas, one-third is uninsured, and two-thirds are members of racial-ethnic minority groups. Mental health problems are the most commonly reported reasons for visits to FQHCs (14), yet only 6.9% of encounters at FQHCs are with on-site mental health specialists (15).
Two recent developments have focused FQHCs’ attention and resources on depression recognition and management. First, new federal standards require FQHCs to qualify as patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) according to the National Committee for Quality Assurance. PCMH recognition requires team-based care that emphasizes care coordination. Second, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are expected to add depression to the list of clinical condition episodes included in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative. The initiative will make clinics eligible to receive bundled payments for depression care.
A common decision facing clinics striving for PCMH recognition and preparing for bundled payments is whether to outsource care management services. To inform this decision, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of two alternative approaches to providing depression care management in FQHCs. The on-site approach, practice-based collaborative care (PBCC), focused on improving depression outcomes by using local providers. The off-site approach, telemedicine-based collaborative care (TBCC), focused on utilizing off-site specialists to support local primary care (PC) providers.
Methods
Design Overview
This multisite, pragmatic randomized trial employed a comparative-effectiveness design (16). Patients were randomly assigned to either TBCC or PBCC, both of which represented potentially feasible approaches to adapting the evidence-based collaborative depression care model for routine delivery in medically underserved areas. The intervention and evaluation methods are described in detail elsewhere (12) and are summarized here. The base case or main analysis used Arkansas FQHC health care costs, and the secondary analysis used national cost estimates.
Setting and Participants
Six FQHCs were approached and five (83%) agreed to participate. Participating FQHCs employed between 1.3 and 9.7 full-time-equivalent PC physicians, served between 5,362 and 13,050 unique PC patients, and operated one to six clinics across multiple locations. None of the participating clinic locations had an on-site mental health specialist. From 2007 to 2009, a total of 19,285 patients were screened for depression, 2,863 (15%) patients screened positive (Patient Health Questionnaire–9 [PHQ-9] score ≥10), and 364 patients were enrolled. We excluded patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or acute suicide ideation. Patients (stratified by clinic) were randomly assigned to PBCC or TBCC. Blinded follow-up telephone interviews were completed for 318 (87%) of the 364 patients at six months, 287 (79%) at 12 months, and 283 (78%) at 18 months. This study was approved by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Institutional Review Board. After complete description of the study to the patients, written informed consent was obtained.
Interventions
PBCC involved two types of providers: on-site PC providers and on-site nurse depression care managers (DCMs). Each clinic location employed a half-time DCM funded by the study. All DCMs received one day of training in depression care management, a care manager training manual, and access to a Web-based decision support system (www.netdss.net) (17). Encounters with a DCM were conducted either face to face or by telephone, depending on patient preference. The initial encounter with the DCM included PHQ-9 symptom monitoring, education and self-management behavioral activation, barrier assessment and resolution, and establishment of self-management goals, such as planning physical, rewarding, and social activities. Follow-up encounters included the monitoring of symptoms with the PHQ-9, medication adherence, side effects, and engagement in planned self-management activities. PBCC DCMs received no supervision from a mental health specialist. Patients could be referred to specialists at off-site locations, for example, community mental health centers. Progress notes were entered into the patients' paper medical record. Patients received the intervention for up to 12 months.
TBCC involved five types of providers: on-site PC providers and off-site DCM (a registered nurse), clinical pharmacist (Pharm.D.), psychologist (Ph.D.), and psychiatrist (M.D.). The off-site team was funded by the study and was located at UAMS. All encounters between DCMs and patients were conducted by telephone and followed the protocol described above. The DCM met weekly with the psychiatrist to discuss new patients and patients who were not responding to treatment and prepared progress notes containing stepped-care treatment recommendations. These notes were faxed to the FQHC for implementation by the PC providers. If the patient did not respond to the initial antidepressant, the off-site pharmacist conducted a medication history and provided medication management recommendations as needed. If the patient did not respond to two trials, a psychiatry consultation via interactive video was scheduled. At any time, patients had access to cognitive-behavioral therapy delivered via interactive video.
Depression Outcomes
It has been previously reported that the TBCC group experienced a significantly greater treatment response, significantly higher odds of remission, and significantly greater reductions in severity of depression over time compared with the PBCC group on the basis of the Symptom Checklist–20 (SCL-20) (12).
Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes
Primary effectiveness outcomes for the analysis of cost-effectiveness were depression-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
Depression-free days were calculated by using a formula originally developed by Lave and colleagues (18) and adapted for use with the SCL-20 (19). An SCL-20 score of .5 or less was considered depression free, a score of 1.7 or higher was considered fully symptomatic, and scores in between were assigned a linear proportional value. Sensitivity analyses using variations of these scores to define depression free (for example, .25 and .75) and fully symptomatic depression (for example, 1.5 and 2.0) resulted in minimal differences in number of depression-free days, so depression-free day scores using .5 and 1.7 thresholds are reported below.
QALYs were calculated in three ways. One method used a formula to convert incremental changes in depression-free days to QALYs (20). We divided the difference in depression-free days over 18 months by 365 and then multiplied by the lower (.2) and upper (.4) bounds of the QALY increase associated with going from fully symptomatic to depression free (20). In addition, previously published standard gamble utility weights were used to convert results of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) (21) to QALYs. A third method used the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) (22) to calculate QALYs. Generic QALYs from the SF-12 and QWB are reported because generic QALYs are the recommended unit of effectiveness for the base case cost-effectiveness analysis (23).
QALYs derived from the SF-12 used standard gamble preference weights (21) that transformed SF-12 data into a preference-weighted index score that varied from .0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health). Similarly, the QWB subscales represented preference-weighted scores that were subtracted from 1.0 (perfect health) to determine the QWB index score, which ranged from 0 (death) to 1.0 (perfect health) (24).
Intervention costs and health care costs were collected by using a societal perspective (health care utilization and patient costs) and were adjusted to reflect 2009 dollars. The societal perspective was recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Fixed costs of the interventions included the cost of education materials for the DCM, DCM training, and interactive video equipment (TBCC only). There was one DCM for TBCC and six DCMs for PBCC. Costs of DCM training (eight hours) used 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics median hourly wage for registered nurses plus 25% for fringe benefits (www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes_nat.htm#29-0000). Equipment costs included the purchase and installation of interactive video stations and routers, which depreciated in value over the course of the study. The annual depreciation rate was 18.33% (from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis of depreciation of medical equipment) over four years (total duration of recruitment and intervention).
Variable costs of the interventions included the time spent by personnel delivering the intervention. Time costs for intervention personnel were estimated by using 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics hourly wage data plus 25% for fringe benefits (www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes_nat.htm#29-0000). The DCM’s time was estimated by counting the number of encounters from chart review and estimating that an initial encounter would last 1.5 hours and follow-up encounters would last 1.0 hour (including time to reach the patient by phone, conduct the interview, and chart the encounter). For TBCC, variable intervention costs also included the time of the pharmacist, psychologist, and psychiatrist and monthly charges for the T1 line necessary for telemental health encounters. (A T1 line can carry about 192,000 bytes per second, roughly 60 times more data than a normal residential modem.) Intervention clinician time was estimated by the number of progress notes written by each provider and the time spent in team meetings. For the base case analysis, we assumed that 40% of T1 charges were attributable to TBCC, on the basis of reports in the literature that 40% of patients seen at a university-based telepsychiatry service had a primary depression diagnosis (25). Sensitivity analyses varied T1-cost assumptions from 0% to 100%.
Health care costs were based on the Quality Improvement for Depression collaboration’s service utilization instrument, which measures service utilization on the basis of patients’ self-report. Patients are asked about service utilization for general medical problems and mental health problems (“personal or emotional problems such as feeling down or anxious, or for alcohol or drug problems”).
The base case analysis used FQHC costs and the secondary analysis used national costs. Outpatient FQHC visit costs were estimated by using the FQHC prospective payment system rates for Arkansas. Costs for outpatient visits to other facilities were estimated by using Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield data. Emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs were estimated by using data from the academic medical center and affiliated hospitals, including safety net providers, in the University HealthSystem Consortium Southern Region. Medication costs approximated the discounts provided to FQHCs by the 340B Drug Pricing Program by applying the average discount for the top ten medications prescribed in this study for general medical and mental (76% and 86%, respectively) conditions to the lowest average wholesale price listed in the Red Book. Patients’ time and mileage associated with health care utilization were collected from patients’ self-report. Patients’ time costs were estimated by using 2009 U.S. Census Bureau wage estimates related to age, gender, and education (for employed patients) or minimum wage ($7.25) (for unemployed patients). Patients’ mileage costs were estimated by using the 2009 General Services Administration reimbursement rate of 59 cents per mile.
For the secondary analysis, health care costs were estimated from LifeLink Health Plan Claims Data, which comprise data from 70 million enrollees from 80 managed care organizations and are nationally representative of the commercially insured U.S. population. Per diem costs for inpatient treatment of general medical conditions were estimated from the median allowed per diem cost of the top ten most frequent ICD-9 diagnoses other than mental health diagnoses. Per diem costs for inpatient treatment of mental health conditions and ER costs for general medical and mental health visits were estimated from their respective Clinical Classifications Software codes. Outpatient costs were estimated on the basis of their respective CPT codes. Medication costs were estimated by using the Red Book lowest average wholesale price.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are the ratio of the difference in total costs between TBCC and PBCC divided by the difference in effectiveness (depression-free days or QALYs), as shown in the following formula: [cost (TBCC) – cost (PBCC)]/[QALY (TBCC) – QALY (PBCC)]. The base case analysis included the SF-12–derived QALYs and outpatient, ER, pharmacy, patient (travel and time), intervention, and 40% of monthly T1 costs. Sensitivity analyses included 0% or 100% of the T1 costs, QALYs derived from conversion of depression-free days (using the lower [.2] and upper [.4] bounds of the QALY increase) and the QWB, and mental health inpatient costs. Secondary analyses included cost estimates from the nationally representative LifeLink claims data.
Case Mix Variables
At baseline, information about sociodemographic and clinical case mix factors were collected by using the Depression Outcomes Module (26), the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (27), the Duke Social Support and Stress Scale (28), the Quality Improvement for Depression Treatment Acceptability Scale (5), and the Depression Beliefs Inventory (29). Zip codes were used to categorize patients’ residence as rural or urban according to Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes.
Statistical Analysis
Patients were the unit of the intent-to-treat analysis. Only patients with at least one research follow-up visit were included in the analyses. All models specified clinic as a random effect to control for intraclass correlation. Data were missing for four cost variables and two demographic variables (.3% each) and for the SF-12 at 18 months (15.7%). Variables with missing data were imputed by using multiple imputation methods. Because of the large number of available covariates, only those with significant differences between TBCC and PBCC (p<.20) were included in multivariate analyses. After model specification was finalized, prebaseline health care utilization costs were added to cost models as a covariate.
The depression-free day and cost outcomes were nonnormally distributed, so generalized linear models (GLMs) were used. The GLMs with a gamma distribution and identity link were the best fit for the cost data. The depression-free day and QALY data were normally distributed, so the normal distribution with identity link was used. To determine the incremental effect of treatment on QALYs, we used the regression coefficient for the intervention variable.
We used a nonparametric bootstrap-with-replacement method and 1,000 replications to generate an empirical joint distribution of incremental costs and QALYs (30) and acceptability curves representing the probability of falling below cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds ranging from $0 to $100,000 per QALY (31).
Results
In general, study patients were middle-aged, low-income, Caucasian women with moderate depression who were unemployed and uninsured (Table 1). The only statistically significant differences between the intervention groups was a higher level of perceived barriers to depression treatment in the TBCC group (4.0) compared with the PBCC group (3.4) (p=.01).
| Total (N=332) | TBCC (N=163) | PBCC (N=169) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % | p |
| Age (M±SD) | 47.9±12.4 | 48.3±12.2 | 47.6±12.6 | .60 | |||
| Male | 62 | 19 | 30 | 18 | 32 | 19 | .90 |
| Race-ethnicity | .88 | ||||||
| Caucasian | 237 | 71 | 118 | 72 | 119 | 70 | |
| African American | 69 | 21 | 33 | 20 | 36 | 21 | |
| Native American | 17 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 6 | |
| Other | 9 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | |
| Income | .67 | ||||||
| <$10,000 | 95 | 30 | 52 | 33 | 43 | 27 | |
| $10,000–$14,999 | 76 | 24 | 38 | 24 | 38 | 24 | |
| $15,000–$19,999 | 51 | 16 | 28 | 18 | 23 | 14 | |
| $20,000–$29,999 | 56 | 18 | 24 | 15 | 32 | 20 | |
| $30,000–$39,999 | 23 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 14 | 9 | |
| $40,000–$49,999 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | |
| ≥$50,000 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
| Married | 151 | 46 | 74 | 45 | 77 | 46 | .98 |
| High school graduate | 245 | 74 | 117 | 72 | 128 | 76 | .47 |
| Employed | 122 | 37 | 52 | 32 | 70 | 42 | .07 |
| Insurance | .29 | ||||||
| Public | 100 | 30 | 57 | 35 | 43 | 25 | |
| Private | 50 | 15 | 24 | 15 | 26 | 15 | |
| Public and private | 12 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 4 | |
| Uninsured | 170 | 51 | 77 | 47 | 93 | 55 | |
| Rural residence | 229 | 70 | 110 | 68 | 119 | 70 | .56 |
| Social support (M±SD score)b | .4±.2 | .4±.2 | .4±.2 | .77 | |||
| Perceived barriers (M±SD score)c | 3.7±2.0 | 4.0±2.1 | 3.4±2.0 | .01 | |||
| Perceived need (M±SD score)d | 3.0±1.5 | 3.1±1.4 | 2.9±1.5 | .15 | |||
| Perceived treatment effectiveness (M±SD score)e | 1.3±.7 | 1.4±.7 | 1.3±.7 | .42 | |||
| SCL-20 (M±SD score)f | 1.9±.8 | 1.9±.8 | 1.9±.7 | .79 | |||
| SF-12 PCS (M±SD score)g | 36.7±13.4 | 35.8±13.2 | 37.7±13.5 | .20 | |||
| SF-12 MCS (M±SD score)h | 31.3±11.3 | 32.4±11.4 | 30.2±11.2 | .08 | |||
| QWB (M±SD score)i | .4±.1 | .4±.1 | .4±.1 | .43 | |||
| N of chronic general medical illnesses | 4.6±2.6 | 4.8±2.5 | 4.4±2.7 | .21 | |||
| Family history of depression | 191 | 58 | 102 | 64 | 89 | 53 | .06 |
| Age <18 at depression onset | 129 | 40 | 61 | 39 | 68 | 42 | .70 |
| Number of prior depression episodes (M±SD) | 4.2±1.6 | 4.2±1.6 | 4.2±1.6 | .87 | |||
| Prior depression treatment | 251 | 76 | 120 | 74 | 131 | 78 | .41 |
| Current depression treatment | 160 | 48 | 76 | 47 | 84 | 50 | .57 |
| Antidepressants acceptable | 276 | 85 | 136 | 85 | 140 | 85 | .93 |
| Counseling acceptable | 248 | 77 | 125 | 78 | 123 | 75 | .51 |
| Current disorder | |||||||
| Major depressive disorder | 276 | 83 | 130 | 80 | 146 | 86 | .11 |
| Dysthymia | 10 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 | .54 |
| Panic disorder | 28 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 15 | 9 | .77 |
| Generalized anxiety disorder | 211 | 64 | 107 | 66 | 104 | 62 | .44 |
| PTSD | 54 | 16 | 29 | 18 | 25 | 15 | .46 |
| Current at-risk drinking | 14 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | .54 |
a
Numbers for some items do not add up to total number of patients because of missing data, and some percentages do not add up to 100 because of rounding.
b
Scores are from the Duke Social Support Scale. Possible scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating greater social support.
c
Scores are from the Depression Beliefs Inventory Perceived Barriers Subscale. Possible scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater perceived barriers to receiving depression treatment.
d
Scores are from the Depression Beliefs Inventory Perceived Need Subscale. Possible scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater perceived need for depression treatment.
e
Scores are from the Depression Beliefs Inventory Perceived Treatment Effectiveness Subscale. Possible scores range from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating greater perceived depression treatment effectiveness.
f
SCL-20, Symptom Checklist–20. Possible scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe depression.
g
SF-12 PCS, 12-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) Physical Component score. Possible scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better physical health functioning.
h
SF-12 MCS, SF-12 Mental Component score. Possible scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better mental health functioning.
i
QWB, Quality of Well-Being Scale. Possible scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health-related quality of life.
Although there were no statistically significant group differences in terms of health care costs, the total cost per patient was significantly greater for TBCC than for PBCC because of the higher fixed and variable costs of TBCC (Table 2). The unadjusted average incremental intervention cost (fixed plus variable intervention cost difference between TBCC and PBCC) was $1,132 ($376+$756). For the base case analysis, the adjusted total cost was significantly greater for TBCC compared with PBCC (β=1,146, 95% confidence interval [CI]=396–1,897, p=.003). The adjusted incremental cost ranged from $794 (CI=56–1,533, p=.03) for 0% monthly charges for a T1 line to $1,663 (CI=884–2,442, p<.001) for 100% monthly charges for a T1 line.
| Cost | PBCC (N=169) | TBCC (N=163) | Difference | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | ||||
| Fixed | ||||
| Total | 13.19 | 389.51 | 376.32 | <.001 |
| Education | 2.31 | .40 | –1.91 | |
| Training | 10.88 | 4.75 | –6.13 | |
| Equipment | .00 | 384.36 | 384.36 | |
| Variable | ||||
| Total | 78.44 | 834.46 | 756.02 | <.001 |
| Depression care manager | 78.44 | 338.70 | 260.26 | |
| Psychologist | .00 | 119.63 | 119.63 | |
| Pharmacist | .00 | 56.76 | 56.76 | |
| T1-line charge (40%) | .00 | 222.33 | 222.33 | |
| Psychiatrist | .00 | 97.04 | 97.04 | |
| Outpatient | ||||
| Total | 6,559.42 | 7,178.72 | 619.3 | .29 |
| General medical emergency | 2,701.73 | 2,805.35 | 103.62 | |
| Mental health emergency | 233.44 | 491.60 | 258.16 | |
| General medical primary care | 958.31 | 1,066.91 | 108.60 | |
| Mental health primary care | 779.97 | 709.22 | –70.75 | |
| Psychiatrist | 320.14 | 526.63 | 206.49 | |
| Other medical specialist | 718.79 | 683.27 | –35.52 | |
| General medical medication | 712.61 | 749.29 | 36.68 | |
| Mental health medication | 16.02 | 14.95 | –1.07 | |
| Antidepressant medication | 1,18.41 | 131.50 | 13.09 | |
| Mental health inpatient | 45.36 | 188.13 | 142.77 | .19 |
| Patient | 354.90 | 340.40 | –14.50 | .69 |
| General medical | ||||
| Gas | 125.71 | 117.29 | –8.42 | |
| Travel and waiting | 127.69 | 127.93 | .24 | |
| Mental health | ||||
| Gas | 46.07 | 42.03 | –4.04 | |
| Travel and waiting | 55.43 | 53.15 | –2.28 | |
| Total excluding mental health inpatient costs | ||||
| T1-line charge | ||||
| 0% | 7,005.94 | 8,136.39 | 1,130.44 | .054 |
| 40%b | 7,005.94 | 8,512.46 | 1,506.52 | .01 |
| 100% | 7,005.94 | 9,076.57 | 2,070.63 | <.001 |
| Total with 40% T-1 line charge plus mental health inpatient costs | 7,051.30 | 8,700.59 | 1,649.29 | <.007 |
a
Data were collected between baseline and 18 months.
b
The base case cost analysis assumed that 40% of T-1 line charges were attributable to TBCC.
The adjusted incremental effectiveness on depression-free days was significant (β=109.6, CI=79.7–139.5, p<.001), as was the incremental effectiveness on depression-free day QALYs at both the lower (.2) and upper (.4) bounds of QALY increases associated with improving from fully symptomatic to depression free (β=.04, CI=.03–.05, and β=.078, CI=.06–.10, respectively; both p values <.001). The adjusted incremental effectiveness for generic QALYs was also significant (SF-12 QALY, β=.04, CI=.02–.07, p=.003; QWB QALY, β=.04, CI=.01–.07, p=.01).
When mental health inpatient costs were excluded, the bootstrapped mean ICER calculated by using FQHC costs and depression-free days was $10.75 per depression-free day; in the sensitivity analyses, it ranged from $7.49 (0% of T1 charges) to $15.49 (100% of T1 charges). The mean ICER calculated by using FQHC costs and SF-12 QALYs was $33,217 per QALY (Table 3). The sensitivity analyses for the QALY estimates ranged from $14,714 (depression-free days and upper [.4] bound of the QALY increase) to $35,762 (QWB) per QALY. The T1-charge sensitivity analyses that used FQHC costs and SF-12 QALYs ranged from $22,548 per QALY (0% of T1 charges) to $48,789 per QALY (100% of T1 charges). Adding inpatient mental health costs to the SF-12 QALY base case analysis resulted in an ICER of $36,033 per QALY. Figure 1 depicts a scatter plot analysis of incremental costs associated with increased QALYs derived from the SF-12. Figure 2 depicts an acceptability curve illustrating the probability of falling below cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds for QALYs associated with a range of costs.
| Data source and QALY measure | ICER | Interquartile range |
|---|---|---|
| FQHCb | ||
| SF-12c | 33,217 | 18,744–39,298 |
| QWBd | 35,762 | 20,336–44,299 |
| Depression-free day (QALY .2)e | 29,428 | 21,588–36,740 |
| Depression-free day (QALY .4)f | 14,714 | 10,794–18,370 |
| Nationalg | ||
| SF-12c | 25,728 | 14,684–30,045 |
| QWBd | 28,017 | 16,044–34,418 |
| Depression-free day (QALY .2)e | 23,158 | 16,418–29,326 |
| Depression-free day (QALY .4)f | 11,579 | 8,209–14,663 |
a
TBCC, telemedicine-based collaborative care; PBCC, practice-based collaborative care. ICERs were calculated based on a nonparametric bootstrap-with-replacement method. The final model for depression-free days included intervention dummy variable and the following covariates: barriers to treatment, perceived need for treatment, the 12-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) Physical Health Component score, the SF-12 Mental Health Component score, employment, family history of depression, and Symptom Checklist–20 (SCL-20). The QALY and cost models included the same covariates, except the SCL-20 was replaced by the baseline QALY measure or the baseline cost measure, respectively.
b
Cost estimates were based on prospective payment system rates at Arkansas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) for community health center (CHC) visits as well as Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield data for non-CHC outpatient visits, University HealthSystem Consortium Southern Region per diem rates for emergency room (ER) and inpatient visits, estimated 340B Drug Pricing Program costs for medication, and 40% of monthly T1-line charges.
c
Base case analysis
d
Quality of Well-Being Scale
e
Change in depression-free days was converted to QALYs by assuming that a change from fully symptomatic to depression free would result in an expected increase in QALYs of .2.
f
Change in depression-free days was converted to QALYs by assuming that a change from fully symptomatic to depression free would result in an expected increase in QALYs of .4.
g
Cost estimates were based on Lifelink Health Plans Claims Data for outpatient, ER, and inpatient visits, lowest average wholesale price for medication from Red Book, and 40% of monthly T1-line charges.
FIGURE 1. Joint distribution (scatter plot) of incremental costs of telemedicine-based collaborative care (TBCC) versus practice-based collaborative care (PBCC) for depression and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)a
a The scatter plot analysis used 1,000 bootstrapped samples with replacement. Incremental cost was the cost difference between TBCC and PBCC (using federally qualified health center cost data), and incremental QALY was the QALY difference between TBCC and PBCC derived from the 12-Item Short-Form Survey (base case). The proportion of bootstrapped samples below (to the right of) the $50,000 per QALY threshold line (through the origin) was 85.6%.
FIGURE 2. Acceptability curves representing the probability that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing TBCC and PBCC will fall below $0 to $100,000 per QALY, by QALY measurea
a TBCC, telemedicine-based collaborative care; PBCC, practice-based collaborative care; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; depression-free day (QALY .2), conversion from depression-free days by using .2 as the improvement in QALYs associated with improving from fully symptomatic depression to depression free; depression-free day (QALY .4), conversion from depression-free days by using .4 as the improvement in QALYs associated with improving from fully symptomatic depression to depression free; QWB, derived from Quality of Well-Being Scale; SF-12, derived from the 12-Item Short-Form Survey by using standard gamble preference weights
When mental health inpatient costs were excluded, the bootstrapped mean ICER calculated by using national costs and depression-free days was $8.46 per depression-free day. The mean ICER calculated by using national costs and QALYs derived from the SF-12 was $25,728 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses for the QALY estimates ranged from $11,579 (depression-free day and upper [.4] bound of the QALY increase) to $28,017 (QWB) per QALY. Adding inpatient mental health costs to the analysis of national costs and SF-12–derived QALYs resulted in costs per QALY of $28,126.
Discussion
For primary care clinics lacking on-site mental health resources, there are increasing calls for collaborative care models in which off-site specialists support primary care providers by using telemedicine technologies (32). To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the value of outsourced TBCC with PBCC. The adjusted incremental cost (base case) of TBCC was $1,146, which is consistent with the incremental cost reported for other collaborative care interventions for depression ($389 to $1,772 per capita adjusted to 2009 dollars) (7,10,19,20,33). Televideo equipment and T1-line charges accounted for 50% of the per capita direct costs of TBCC. However, results clearly demonstrated that TBCC was both more effective and more cost-effective compared with PBCC. The incremental cost-effectiveness of TBCC was $10.78 per depression-free day, which is less than what depressed patients report being willing to pay for an additional depression-free day ($14.40, adjusted to 2009 dollars) (34). Other studies that have estimated the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care versus usual care for depression have reported ICERs ranging from $3.64 to $85.54 per depression-free day (2009 dollars) (20,35).
The mean ICERs for all methods of calculating QALYs were below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per QALY for intervention adoption. The cost-effectiveness ratios calculated by using depression-free days and the upper (.4) bound of the QALY increase (which is the most commonly reported QALY measure for collaborative care interventions for depression) were less than $20,000 per QALY, which is considered the threshold for recommending immediate adoption (23). In other studies, estimates of mean ICERs for collaborative care versus usual care for depression ranged from $3,325 to $99,335 per depression-free-day QALY, adjusted to 2009 dollars (20,35).
The TBCC intervention is a cost-effective model for delivering accessible and high-quality depression care to settings lacking on-site mental health resources. Thus, TBCC presents a viable option for organizations weighing whether to “make or buy” depression care management in order to achieve PCMH recognition. Telemedicine capability in primary care clinics is increasing within (http://aims.uw.edu) and outside (www.accesspsych.com) university research programs. Estimates from previous collaborative-care interventions indicate that approximately one DCM is needed for every 10,000 primary care patients and that TBCC could feasibly cover more than one site (36). Adaptations of TBCC to enhance value and sustainability could be tested within specific settings and will be required within the changing health care environment (37).
This study had the following limitations. Electronic health record systems were not in place at the FQHCs during this study, which limits the generalizability of the findings. However, electronic health records would likely improve communication between the TBCC intervention team and FQHC providers. The demographic characteristics of FQHC patients (typically poor, rural, and uninsured members of racial-ethnic minority groups) differ from private sector patients, which limited the generalizability of the findings to the private sector.
Conclusions
This pragmatic comparative cost-effectiveness study provides evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of TBCC in medically underserved areas. These results can help FQHCs and other health care delivery systems decide whether to provide on-site versus off-site depression care management as they work toward achieving PCMH recognition, utilize value-based purchasing, and prepare for bundled depression care payments.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the patients and staff at the Boston Mountain Rural Health Center, Inc., Community Clinic Northwest Arkansas, Corning Area Healthcare, Inc., East Arkansas Family Health Center, Inc., and Jefferson Comprehensive Care Systems, Inc., as well as staff at the Community Health Centers for Arkansas, Inc. They also acknowledge the important contributions of project staff, including Amanda Davis, M.A., Loretta Ducker, R.N., Debbie Hodges, Choi Lai, M.S., Michael McCarther, B.S., Camille Mack, B.S., Jennifer Stephens, and Vera Tate, M.D., and acknowledge Brad Martin, Pharm.D., Ph.D., and Anand Shewale, B.Pharm., M.S., for providing access to LifeLink data.
Footnote
The funding agencies played no role in the design of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
References
1.
Wang PS, Berglund P, Olfson M, et al: Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:603–613, 2005
2.
Fortney J, Rost K, Zhang M, et al: The impact of geographic accessibility on the intensity and quality of depression treatment. Medical Care 37:884–893, 1999
3.
Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korff M, et al: A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Archives of General Psychiatry 53:924–932, 1996
4.
Simon GE, Von Korff M, Rutter C, et al: Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care. British Medical Journal 320:550–554, 2000
5.
Wells KB, Sherbourne C, Schoenbaum M, et al: Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 283:212–220, 2000
6.
Unützer J, Katon W, Callahan CM, et al: Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:2836–2845, 2002
7.
Schoenbaum M, Unützer J, Sherbourne C, et al: Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: results of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 286:1325–1330, 2001
8.
Simon GE, Ludman EJ, Rutter CM: Incremental benefit and cost of telephone care management and telephone psychotherapy for depression in primary care. Archives of General Psychiatry 66:1081–1089, 2009
9.
Gensichen J, Petersen JJ, Von Korff M, et al: Cost-effectiveness of depression case management in small practices. British Journal of Psychiatry 202:441–446, 2013
10.
Pyne JM, Rost KM, Zhang M, et al: Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18:432–441, 2003
11.
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, Md, Department of Health and Human Services, President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
12.
Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Mouden SB, et al: Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial. American Journal of Psychiatry 170:414–425, 2013
13.
Lardiere MR, Jones E, Perez M: NACHC 2010 Assessment of Behavioral Health Services Provided in Federally Qualified Health Centers. Bethesda, Md, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2011. Available at www.nachc.com/client/NACHC%202010%20Assessment%20of%20Behavioral%20Health%20Services%20in%20FQHCs_1_14_11_FINAL.pdf
14.
Druss BG, Bornemann T, Fry-Johnson YW, et al: Trends in mental health and substance abuse services at the nation’s community health centers: 1998–2003. American Journal of Public Health 96:1779–1784, 2006
15.
Staffing and Utilization. Bethesda, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 2012. Available at bphc.hrsa.gov/uds/datacenter.aspx?q=t5&year=2012&state=
16.
Dobscha SK, Corson K, Hickam DH, et al: Depression decision support in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 145:477–487, 2006
17.
Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Steven CA, et al: A Web-based clinical decision support system for depression care management. American Journal of Managed Care 16:849–854, 2010
18.
Lave JR, Frank RG, Schulberg HC, et al: Cost-effectiveness of treatments for major depression in primary care practice. Archives of General Psychiatry 55:645–651, 1998
19.
Simon GE, Katon WJ, Von Korff M, et al: Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression. American Journal of Psychiatry 158:1638–1644, 2001
20.
Katon WJ, Schoenbaum M, Fan MY, et al: Cost-effectiveness of improving primary care treatment of late-life depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:1313–1320, 2005
21.
Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care 42:851–859, 2004
22.
Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC: Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Services Research 11:478–507, 1976
23.
Gold M: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: Report of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, Oxford University Press, 1996
24.
Pyne JM, Patterson TL, Kaplan RM, et al: Assessment of the quality of life of patients with major depression. Psychiatric Services 48:224–230, 1997
25.
Hilty DM, Yellowlees PM, Nesbitt TS: Evolution of telepsychiatry to rural sites: changes over time in types of referral and in primary care providers’ knowledge, skills and satisfaction. General Hospital Psychiatry 28:367–373, 2006
26.
Smith GR Jr, Burnam A, Burns BJ, et al: Depression Outcomes Module (DOM); in Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Edited by the American Psychiatric Association Task Force for the Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000
27.
Lecrubier Y, Sheehan DV, Weiller E, et al: The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): a short diagnostic structured interview. Reliability and validity according to the CIDI. European Psychiatry 12:224–231, 1997
28.
Parkerson GR Jr, Michener JL, Wu LR, et al: Associations among family support, family stress, and personal functional health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42:217–229, 1989
29.
Edlund MJ, Fortney JC, Reaves CM, et al: Beliefs about depression and depression treatment among depressed veterans. Medical Care 46:581–589, 2008
30.
Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ: Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Economics 6:327–340, 1997
31.
Hunink MGM, Bult JR, de Vries J, et al: Uncertainty in decision models analyzing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness evaluated with a nonparametric bootstrap method. Medical Decision Making 18:337–346, 1998
32.
Simon GE, Ludman EJ: Should mental health interventions be locally grown or factory-farmed? American Journal of Psychiatry 170:362–365, 2013
33.
Pyne JM, Fortney JC, Tripathi SP, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 67:812–821, 2010
34.
Unützer J, Katon WJ, Russo J, et al: Willingness to pay for depression treatment in primary care. Psychiatric Services 54:340–345, 2003
35.
Simon GE, Manning WG, Katzelnick DJ, et al: Cost-effectiveness of systematic depression treatment for high utilizers of general medical care. Archives of General Psychiatry 58:181–187, 2001
36.
Liu CF, Fortney J, Vivell S, et al: Time allocation and caseload capacity in telephone depression care management. American Journal of Managed Care 13:652–660, 2007
37.
Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC: The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science 8:117, 2013
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: By the Pond, by Mary Cassatt, circa 1898. Color print with dry point and aquatint, fourth and final state (classmark: MEZAP+). Print collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, New York Public Library. Photo credit: The New York Public Library/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 1 May 2014
Revision received: 17 September 2014
Accepted: 27 October 2014
Published online: 17 February 2015
Published in print: May 01, 2015
Authors
Funding Information
National Institute of Mental Health10.13039/100000025: 076908-04S1, MH0769087
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH076908 and MH076908-04S1), National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000039 and KL2TR000063), and National Institute of General Medical Science (P30 GM110702). This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00439452).The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).