Comparing the quality of antidepressant pharmacotherapy in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector

Department of Health Policy, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034, USA.
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 1.99). 01/2005; 55(12):1386-91. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Comparing quality of care between large health care systems is important for health systems management. This study compared measures of the quality of pharmacotherapy for patients with major depression across a sample of patients from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the private sector.
In this observational study, all patients who were given a new prescription for an antidepressant and a diagnosis of major depression in the VA during fiscal year 2000 were identified by using administrative data (N=27,713). In the private sector, a similar sample of patients were identified by using Medstat's MarketScan database (N=4,852). For both groups, measures of the quality of antidepressant pharmacotherapy were constructed. These measures were compared across the two groups by using logistic regression models. Controls for age, gender, comorbid disorders, and initial antidepressant drug prescribed were included in some models.
Although the populations had different demographic and clinical characteristics, differences in the quality measures between the two systems were few, with the VA slightly outperforming the private sector in the prescription of antidepressants during the acute phase of treatment, the first 84 days (84.7 compared with 81 percent) and during the maintenance phase of treatment, the first 181 days (53.9 compared with 50.9 percent). Patient characteristics that were associated with quality measures included being older, being female, and having a comorbid diagnosis of substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, or anxiety or adjustment disorder.
Both systems had relatively high rates of adherence to pharmacotherapy guidelines. Even though the populations in the two systems were different, adjusting the analyses for clinical characteristics did little to change the measured differences between the two systems.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rate of guideline concordance with antidepressant treatment for persons with depression is low. The problem may be even more pronounced for patients with depression and other multiple chronic conditions (MCC). To study, for persons with new depressive episodes, the association between MCC and the likelihood of receiving guideline-concordant depression treatment. Retrospective cohort study using Veterans Affairs administrative data. A total of 43,189 Veterans Affairs patients who had a new depressive episode during 2007 were included. We assessed whether patients had an adequate supply of antidepressants during acute and continuation phases of depression treatment, which indicates guideline-concordant care. We determined the association between comorbid conditions and receipt of adequate antidepressant supplies after adjusting for potential confounders. Compared with patients with depression alone, those with comorbid cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, peptic ulcer/gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or arthritis were 8%-13% more likely to receive adequate antidepressant supplies during the acute phase. Patients with depression and substance/alcohol abuse were 15% less likely to receive adequate supplies in the acute treatment phase. Those with cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease or peptic ulcer/GERD were 9%-10% more likely to receive continuation phase guideline-concordant depression treatment. Patients with comorbid substance/alcohol abuse were 19% less likely to receive continuation phase guideline-concordant depression treatment. Relatively few of the most prevalent MCC clusters were significantly associated with receipt of guideline-concordant depression treatment. There was no consistent association between specific clusters of chronic conditions and adequate antidepressant supplies. There continues to be need for practice-level and system-level interventions to increase quality of depression treatment, particularly among persons with certain comorbid conditions such as cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, peptic ulcer/GERD, and arthritis.
    Medical care 03/2014; 52 Suppl 3:S126-31. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000036 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mood disorders represent the most expensive mental disorders for employer-based commercial health plans. Collaborative care models are effective in treating chronic physical and mental illnesses at little to no net healthcare cost, but to date have primarily been implemented by larger healthcare organizations in facility-based models. The majority of practices providing commercially insured care are far too small to implement such models. Health plan-level collaborative care treatment can address this unmet need. The goal of this study is to implement at the national commercial health plan level a collaborative care model to improve outcomes for persons with mood disorders. A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care model versus usual care will be conducted among beneficiaries of a large national health plan from across the country seen by primary care or behavioral health practices. At discharge 344 patients identified by health plan claims as hospitalized for unipolar depression or bipolar disorder will be randomized to receive collaborative care (patient phone-based self-management support, care management, and guideline dissemination to practices delivered by a plan-level care manager) or usual care from their provider. Primary outcomes are changes in mood symptoms and mental health-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include rehospitalization, receipt of guideline-concordant care, and work productivity. This study will determine whether a collaborative care model for mood disorders delivered at the national health plan level improves outcomes compared to usual care, and will inform a business case for collaborative care models for these settings that can reach patients wherever they receive treatment. Identifier: NCT02041962; registered January 3, 2014.
    11/2014; 2(1):48. DOI:10.1186/s40359-014-0048-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE This study characterized racial-ethnic differences in treatment of veterans with chronic depression by examining antidepressant and psychotherapy use among non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian-Alaska Native (AI/AN) veterans. METHODS Logistic regression models were estimated with data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records for a sample of 62,095 chronically depressed patients. Data (2009-2010) were from the VA External Peer Review Program. Three primary outcome measures were used: receipt of adequate antidepressant therapy (≥80% medications on hand), receipt of adequate psychotherapy (at least six sessions in six months), and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment (either of these treatments). RESULTS Compared with whites, nearly all minority groups had lower odds of adequate antidepressant use and guideline-concordant care in unadjusted and adjusted models (antidepressant adjusted odds ratio [AOR] range=.53-.82, p<.05; guideline-concordant AOR range=.59-.83, p<.05). Although receipt of adequate psychotherapy was more common among veterans from minority groups in unadjusted analyses, differences between Hispanic, AI/AN, and white veterans were no longer significant after covariate adjustment. After adjustment for distance to the VA facility, the difference between black and white veterans was no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS A better understanding of how patient preferences and provider and system factors interact to generate differences in depression care is needed to improve care for patients from racial-ethnic minority groups. It will become increasingly important to differentiate between health service use patterns that stem from genuine differences in patient preferences and those that signify inequitable quality of depression care.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 11/2013; 65(2). DOI:10.1176/ · 1.99 Impact Factor


1 Download