Suchergebnisse

Background: Employers can purchase high quality depression products that provide the type, intensity and duration of depression care management shown to improve work outcomes sufficiently for many employers to achieve a return on investment. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to test an intervention to encourage employers to purchase a high quality depression product for their workforce. Methods: Twenty nine organizations recruited senior health benefit professional members representing public or private employers who had not yet purchased a depression product for all 100+ workers in their company. The research team used randomization blocked by company size to assign eligible employers to: (1) a presentation encouraging employers to purchase a high quality depression product accompanied by a scientifically-derived return on investment estimate, or (2) a presentation encouraging employers to work with their most subscribed health plan to improve depression treatment quality indicators. Two hundred ninety three employers (82.3% of 356) completed baseline data immediately before learning that 140 employers had been randomized to the evidence-based (EB) depression product presentation and 153 had been randomized to the usual care (UC) depression treatment quality indicator presentation. Analysis of 250 (85.3% of 293) employers who completed web-based interviews at 12 and/or 24 months was conducted to determine presentation impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior. Results: The intervention had no impact on depression product appraisal in 232 subjects (F = 2.36, p = .07) or depression product purchasing (chisquare = 1.82, p = .44) in 250 subjects. Depression product appraisal increased in companies with greater health benefit generosity whose benefit professionals were male. Depression product purchasing behavior increased in small companies compared to large companies, companies who knew a vendor that sold depression products at baseline, companies with greater health benefit risk taking, and companies with less politicalization of health care benefit decision making. Conclusion: Policy makers need to build innovative bridges to the employer community to convince them to purchase evidence-based benefits, even when benefits offer potential financial savings.

Background: Employers can purchase high quality depression products that provide the type, intensity and duration of depression care management shown to improve work outcomes sufficiently for many employers to achieve a return on investment. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to test an intervention to encourage employers to purchase a high quality depression product for their workforce. Methods: Twenty nine organizations recruited senior health benefit professional members representing public or private employers who had not yet purchased a depression product for all 100+ workers in their company. The research team used randomization blocked by company size to assign eligible employers to: (1) a presentation encouraging employers to purchase a high quality depression product accompanied by a scientifically-derived return on investment estimate, or (2) a presentation encouraging employers to work with their most subscribed health plan to improve depression treatment quality indicators. Two hundred ninety three employers (82.3% of 356) completed baseline data immediately before learning that 140 employers had been randomized to the evidence-based (EB) depression product presentation and 153 had been randomized to the usual care (UC) depression treatment quality indicator presentation. Analysis of 250 (85.3% of 293) employers who completed web-based interviews at 12 and/or 24 months was conducted to determine presentation impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior. Results: The intervention had no impact on depression product appraisal in 232 subjects (F = 2.36, p = .07) or depression product purchasing (chisquare = 1.82, p = .44) in 250 subjects. Depression product appraisal increased in companies with greater health benefit generosity whose benefit professionals were male. Depression product purchasing behavior increased in small companies compared to large companies, companies who knew a vendor that sold depression products at baseline, companies with greater health benefit risk taking, and companies with less politicalization of health care benefit decision making. Conclusion: Policy makers need to build innovative bridges to the employer community to convince them to purchase evidence-based benefits, even when benefits offer potential financial savings.

This review synthesizes empirical research in rural mental health services to identify current research priorities to improve the mental health of rural Americans. Using a conceptual framework of the multiple determinants of use, quality, and outcomes, the authors address (1) how key constructs are operationalized, (2) their theoretical influence on the care process, (3) reported differences for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan individuals or within nonmetropolitan individuals, (4) salient issues rural advocates have raised, and (5) key research questions. While the authors recognize that rurality is a useful political umbrella to organize advocacy efforts, they propose that investigators no longer employ any of the multiple definitions of the term in the literature as even intrarural comparisons have not provided compelling evidence about the underlying causes of observed outcomes differences. Until these underlying causes have been identified, it is difficult to determine which components of the nonmetropolitan service system need to be improved.

An econometric model estimated the disutility of traveling long distances for depression treatment, and simulations calculated the utility loss associated with selective contracting in rural and urban areas. A representative sample of depression patients (n = 106) and all practicing providers (n = 3,710) in Arkansas were identified and the distances between them were calculated. Using discrete choice analysis, patient preferences for provider type and travel distance were estimated. Simulations calculated the utility loss associated with alternative scenarios of selective contracting. Provider type and distance were significant predictors of provider choice. To equate the utility loss associated with selective contracting in rural and urban areas, a slightly higher proportion of rural physicians and a substantially higher proportion of rural mental health specialists must be contracted. To avoid further reductions in geographic access, managed care organizations should contract with a higher proportion of rural providers than urban providers.

To investigate how practice guidelines or recommendations can be applied in the assessment of quality of care, 72 subjects beginning specialty treatment for panic disorder were enrolled. The Panic Outcomes Module assessed symptoms, health status, and treatment at baseline and after 8 weeks. Ustng published guidelines, the authors developed specific criteria to rate whethersubjects' reports reflected appropriate treatment, including antipanic medication or three or more subse quent visits that involved antipanic behavioral therapy elements. Scxty-nine subjects (96%) completed the Panic Outcomes Module at both baseline andfollow-up. Improvement in symptoms and health status was not different between subjects receiving appropriate and inappropriate care.