Cover: Severity of depression in prepaid and fee-for-service general medical and mental health specialty practices

Severity of depression in prepaid and fee-for-service general medical and mental health specialty practices

Published 1995

by Kenneth B. Wells, M. Audrey Burnam, Patricia Camp

Purchase Print Copy

Add to Cart Paperback15 pages Free

This study compares severity of depression for patients of general medical clinicians, psychiatrists, and nonphysician therapists receiving prepaid or fee-for-service care. Cross-sectional severity comparisons were conducted among 715 outpatients with current major depression or dysthymia, by independent assessment. Severity was assessed by counts of current and lifetime depressive symptoms, prognostic and treatment response indicators, and global measures of psychological and physical sickness. Patients of psychiatrists were the most psychologically ill, patients of nonphysician therapists were intermediate, and general medical patients were least ill; but even in the general medical sector, depression severity was at least moderate. No differences in global physical sickness by specialty remained after demographic adjustment. General medical patients whose depression had been detected were only slightly sicker than undetected cases. Type of payment was not consistently related to either psychological or physical aspects of sickness, and payment did not interact with specialty. Mental health specialists, especially psychiatrists, encountered more severely depressed patients, but patients in all sectors were sick enough to warrant treatment. Even undetected patients in the general medical sector were relatively sick, raising questions about gatekeeper policies. There was no evidence of a greater severity gradient by specialty in prepaid care. Because payment was unrelated to severity, treatment implications are similar under prepaid and fee-for-service care. Implications for clinical practice, public policy, and outcomes research design are discussed.

Originally published in: Medical Care, v. 33, no 4, pp. 350-364.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND 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.