Children's mental health services are increasingly being managed by managed behavioral health organizations (MBHOs) through carve-outs. Little information is available, however, about services and interventions being received by children whose mental health benefits are carved out. Using claims data, this study explores the treatment of children with a common child psychiatric disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Children being treated for ADHD see a variety of provider combinations. Children diagnosed with comorbid mood or anxiety disorders are more likely to see a psychiatrist than a primary care physician or therapist, and they are more likely to be in treatment with both a psychiatrist and a therapist than with just one mental health professional. After controlling for severity indicators, costs were significantly lower for patients being treated by just a psychiatrist than for patients seeing both a psychiatrist and therapist. This finding raises the possibility that attempts to save money by "splitting treatment" may not be cost-effective.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"In total, 22 relevant items were located including published original studies, unpublished conference presentations, and reports available on the Internet. Articles that discussed resource use patterns for ADHD but did not attach costs to these patterns  are not included in this review. All costs were updated to year 2004 US dollars based on the medical component of the Consumer Price Index . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common disorder that is associated with broad functional impairment among both children and adults. The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize available literature on the economic costs of ADHD, as well as potential economic benefits of treating this condition. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE to identify all published articles on the economic implications of ADHD, and authors were contacted to locate conference abstracts and articles in press that were not yet indexed. In total, 22 relevant items were located including published original studies, economic review articles, conference presentations, and reports available on the Internet. All costs were updated and presented in terms of year 2004 US dollars. A growing body of literature, primarily published in the United States, has demonstrated that ADHD places a substantial economic burden on patients, families, and third-party payers. Results of the medical cost studies consistently indicated that children with ADHD had higher annual medical costs than either matched controls (difference ranged from 503 dollars to 1,343 dollars) or non-matched controls (difference ranged from 207 dollars to 1,560 dollars) without ADHD. Two studies of adult samples found similar results, with significantly higher annual medical costs among adults with ADHD (ranging from 4,929 dollars to 5,651 dollars) than among matched controls (ranging from 1,473 dollars to 2,771 dollars). A limited number of studies have examined other economic implications of ADHD including costs to families; costs of criminality among individuals with ADHD; costs related to common psychiatric and medical comorbidities of ADHD; indirect costs associated with work loss among adults with ADHD; and costs of accidents among individuals with ADHD. Treatment cost-effectiveness studies have primarily focused on methylphenidate, which is a cost-effective treatment option with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from 15,509 dollars to 27,766 dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. As new treatments are introduced it will be important to evaluate their cost-effectiveness to provide an indication of their potential value to clinicians, patients, families, and third-party payers.