Exploratory Evidence on the Market for Effective Depression Care in Pittsburgh

Published in: Psychiatric Services, v. 55, no. 4, Apr. 2004, p. 393-395

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2004

by Michael Schoenbaum, Kelly Kelleher, Judith Lave, Stephanie Green, Donna J. Keyser, Harold Alan Pincus

Read More

Access further information on this document at ps.psychiatryonline.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the existence of effective and relatively cost-effective depression treatments, many depressed patients do not receive appropriate care. The authors assessed opportunities for increasing the rate of effective depression treatment by investigating the market for such treatment in the Pittsburgh area. METHODS: A conceptual framework was developed to evaluate the market for effective depression care. On the basis of the conceptual framework, interviews were conducted with representatives from seven large employers, two medical health insurance carriers, two behavioral health insurance carriers, four primary care providers, and four behavioral health care providers. Respondents were asked to assess the barriers to and opportunities for increasing the rates of depression treatment from their perspectives. RESULTS: The findings suggest that there is currently little demand among purchasers for improving depression care and little interest among insurers and providers for improving care in the absence of purchaser demand. Even stakeholders who identified depression as an important problem could not come to a consensus about who should be responsible for addressing the problem. Employers reported that they look primarily to their vendors to initiate quality improvement efforts, whereas insurers reported that such improvement efforts were more likely to occur if they were initiated by employers who purchase their health plans; providers, in turn, reported feeling powerless to initiate change. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a clear locus of responsibility for improving depression care lends considerable inertia to the status quo. Because the currently low treatment rates are likely to be socially inefficient, researchers and policy makers should consider strategies to help overcome this inertia.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.