Mental Health Care Utilization in Prepaid and Fee-For-Service Plans Among Depressed Patients in the Medical Outcomes Study

by Roland Sturm, Catherine A. Jackson, Lisa S. Meredith, Winnie C. Yip, Willard G. Manning, William H. Rogers, Kenneth B. Wells

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback22 pages Free

The authors analyzed outpatient mental health care utilization in prepaid and fee-for-service plans for a panel of depressed outpatients in the longitudinal part of the Medical Outcomes Study. The average number of mental health visits over the course of the study was 35% lower in the prepaid sector, which is similar to previous findings regarding outpatient mental health care in enrolled populations. This reduced level of service use by depressed prepaid patients is not explained by observed differences in patient characteristics, including health status, between prepaid plans and fee-for-service patients. Most of the utilization differences between fee-for-service and prepaid plans were concentrated among patients of psychiatrists and to a smaller extent among patients of other mental health specialists. There were only minor differences among patients of general medical providers. Analyzing the effect of switches that patients make between payment systems over time, the authors found some evidence of adverse selection into fee-for-service plans based upon baseline utilization, but not based upon utilization at the end of the study. In particular, after adjusting for observed patient characteristics and health status, patients switching out of prepaid had higher baseline use than predicted, whereas patients switching out of fee-for-service had lower use than predicted. Patients of mental health specialists were more likely to switch out of prepaid than out of fee-for-service plans, whereas patients of general medical providers were more likely to switch out of fee-for-service than out of prepaid plans. Switching itself appears to be related to an immediate decline in utilization and was not followed by an increase or "catch-up" effect.

Originally published in: Health Sciences Research, v. 30, no. 2, June 1995, pp. 319-340.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation 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.

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/principles.

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.