Are physician and non-physician providers of outpatient mental healthcare substitutes or complements? A conceptual clarification

Department of Economics and Center for Community Health, Office 450BB (The FCBE), The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.
Health Care Management Science (Impact Factor: 1.05). 12/2008; 11(4):393-398. DOI: 10.1007/s10729-007-9044-5
Source: RePEc


Economists have long suggested that to be reliable, a preferred medical care price index should employ time-varying weights to measure outcomes-adjusted changes in the price of treating an episode of illness. In this article, we report on several years of research developing alternative indexes for the treatment of the acute phase of major depression, for the period 1991–1996. The introduction of new treatment technologies in the past two decades suggests well-known measurement issues may be prominent in constructing such a price index. We report on the results of four successively re

Download full-text


Available from: Albert Okunade, Feb 09, 2014
12 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a survey on studies that analyze the macroeconomic effects of intellectual property rights (IPR). The first part of this paper introduces different patent policy instruments and reviews their effects on R&D and economic growth. This part also discusses the distortionary effects and distributional consequences of IPR protection as well as empirical evidence on the effects of patent rights. Then, the second part considers the international aspects of IPR protection. In summary, this paper draws the following conclusions from the literature. Firstly, different patent policy instruments have different effects on R&D and growth. Secondly, there is empirical evidence supporting a positive relationship between IPR protection and innovation, but the evidence is stronger for developed countries than for developing countries. Thirdly, the optimal level of IPR protection should tradeoff the social benefits of enhanced innovation against the social costs of multiple distortions and income inequality. Finally, in an open economy, achieving the globally optimal level of protection requires an international coordination (rather than the harmonization) of IPR protection.
    American Economic Review 01/1975; 65(3):367-83. · 2.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in patients with depression in primary care with the effectiveness of "usual care" by the primary care physician. A randomized controlled trial among primary care patients with major depression or minor depression. Over a 12-month period a total of 217 primary care patients who were recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and were willing to take antidepressant medication were randomized, with 91 patients meeting criteria for major depression and 126 for minor depression. Intervention patients received increased intensity and frequency of visits over the first 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (visits 1 and 3 with a primary care physician, visits 2 and 4 with a psychiatrist) and continued surveillance of adherence to medication regimens during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment. Patient education in these visits was supplemented by videotaped and written materials. Primary outcome measures included short-term (30-day) and long-term (90-day) use of antidepressant medication at guideline dosage levels, satisfaction with overall care for depression and antidepressant medication, and reduction in depressive symptoms. In patients with major depression, the intervention group had greater adherence than the usual care controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (75.5% vs 50.0%; P < .01), were more likely to rate the quality of the care they received for depression as good to excellent (93.0% vs 75.0%; P < .03), and were more likely to rate antidepressant medications as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (88.1% vs 63.3%; P < .01). Seventy-four percent of intervention patients with major depression showed 50% or more improvement on the Symptom Checklist-90 Depressive Symptom Scale compared with 43.8% of controls (P < .01), and the intervention patients also demonstrated a significantly greater decrease in depression severity over time compared with controls (P < .004). In patients with minor depression, the intervention group had significantly greater adherence than controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (79.7% vs 40.3%; P < .001) and more often rated antidepressant medication as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (81.8% vs 61.4%; P < .02). However, no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups in the percentage of patients who were satisfied with the care they received for depression (94.4% vs 89.3%), in the percentage who experienced a 50% or more decrease in depressive symptoms, or in the decrease of depressive symptoms over time. A multifaceted intervention consisting of collaborative management by the primary care physician and a consulting psychiatrist, intensive patient education, and surveillance of continued refills of antidepressant medication improved adherence to antidepressant regimens in patients with major and with minor depression. It improved satisfaction with care and resulted in more favorable depressive outcomes in patients with major, but not minor, depression.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/1995; 273(13):1026-31. DOI:10.1001/jama.273.13.1026 · 35.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Observational studies of demand for mental health services showed much greater use by those with more generous insurance, but this difference may have been due to adverse selection, rather than in response to price. This paper avoids the adverse selection problem by using data from a randomized trial, the RAND Health Insurance Experiment (HIE). Participating families were randomly assigned to insurance plans that either provided free care or were a mixture of first dollar coinsurance and free care after a cap on out-of-pocket spending was reached. We estimate that separate effects of coinsurance and the cap on the demand for episodes of outpatient mental health services. We find that outpatient mental health use is more responsive to price than is outpatient medical use, but not as responsive as most observational studies have indicated. Those with no insurance coverage would spend about one-quarter as much on mental health care as they would with free care. Coinsurance reduces the number of episodes of treatment, but has only a small effect on the duration and intensity of use within episodes. Users appear to anticipate exceeding the cap, and spend at more than the free rate after they do so.
    Journal of Health Economics 01/1989; 7(4):369-92. DOI:10.1016/0167-6296(88)90021-5 · 2.58 Impact Factor
Show more