Effects of Cost-Containment Strategies Within Managed Care on Continuity of The Relationship Between Patients with Depression and Their Primary Care Providers

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

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback11 pages Free

Background. Continuity of the relationship between patients and primary care providers (PCPs) is an important component of care from the consumer perspective that may be affected by variation in cost containment strategies within managed care. Objective. To evaluate the effects of cost containment strategies on the continuity of the relationship between their patients with depression and their PCPs. Design. Observational analysis of a 2-year panel of depressed patients who participated in a quality improvement intervention trial in 46 managed care practices. Participants. One thousand two hundred four patients with current depression who enrolled in a longitudinal study, completed the baseline survey, and were followed for 2 years. Main Measures. The dependent variable is probability of continuing the relationship between patients and their PCPs; explanatory variables include individual patient mental health benefits and cost-sharing, individual provider financial incentives, supply-side managed care policies, and patient ratings of the care received. Results. The average duration of the patient-PCP relationship was significantly longer among depressed patients who initially had less generous benefits for specialty care (higher copays, P = 0.02 and fewer visits covered, P = 0.002) and for patients whose PCPs received a performance-based salary bonus from a risk pool (P = 0.07). Conclusions. For depressed patients, cost containment strategies, such as limits on specialty benefits and presence of clinician bonus payments typically used within managed care may increase, rather than decrease, PCP continuity. Whether increased PCP continuity is a desirable outcome depends on whether health care systems can provide high quality primary care and this merits further study.

Originally published in: Medical Care, v. 39, n. 10, 2001, pp. 1075-1085.

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.