Provider choice and continuity for the treatment of depression

by Roland Sturm, Lisa S. Meredith, Kenneth B. Wells

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback12 pages Free

The role of specialist versus generalist providers regularly surfaces in health care reform debates about costs and quality of care. By changing incentives to seek and deliver care, different payment systems can affect both the probability of initial specialty care and the duration of this patient-provider relationship. This paper compares provider selection (psychiatrist, non-MD mental health specialist, general medical provider) and the duration of this relationship among depressed patients in prepaid and fee-for-service plans. Regarding initial care, depressed patients in prepaid plans are significantly less likely to see a psychiatrist and more likely to see a non-MD mental health specialist than patients in fee-for-service plans. Although the mix of providers differs, patient demographic and clinical characteristics have similar effects on specialty in both payment systems, i.e., there are no differences by type of payment in who get specialty care, but there are differences in how many get it. The average duration of a patient-provider relationship is significantly shorter in prepaid plans. Durations are significantly shorter for patients of both psychiatrists and general medical providers in prepaid plans, but do not differ by payment type for non-MD therapists. In both payment systems, patients of non-MD providers end the relationship sooner than patients of psychiatrists or general medical providers. Although we find provider switching to be significantly associated with discontinuing antidepressant medication, there is no significant direct effect on patient health outcomes.

Originally published in: Medical Care, v. 34, no. 7, pp. 723-734.

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.