Gabriel Edwards1,2,3, Teryl Nuckols1,2,3, Nathalie Herrera1,2,3, Itai Danovitch1,2,3, Waguih William Ishak1,2,3. 1. Drs. Edwards, Herrera, Danovitch, and IsHak are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. 2. Dr. Nuckols is with the Division of General Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. 3. Dr. IsHak is with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
Objective: This paper sought to review the impact of depression in patients with comorbid medical problems, the importance of bridging the gap between inpatient and outpatient care for medical inpatients with depression (especially for organizations that treat patients in both settings), and the elements necessary to implement a pilot for an outpatient Collaborative Care Management program for patients with depression following medical admissions. Taken into account is the presence of new billing mechanisms and potential cost offsets. Methods: The literature referenced in this paper was identified through a search of online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar. The data used to analyze cost were drawn from national, publicly available sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Results: Collaborative care is an evidence-based intervention for depression that can aid with successful transition of care as patients move from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. It can be considered cost-effective when treating a panel of patients that falls below the recommended caseload for a single case manager (i.e., 19-46 billed encounters, depending on the payer mix), particularly when considering the savings from a reduced length of stay associated with well-controlled depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Organizations should consider implementing collaborative care management for patients with depression to improve depression outcomes, reduce costs, and prepare themselves for a health financing environment that rewards value.
Objective: This paper sought to review the impact of depression in patients with comorbid medical problems, the importance of bridging the gap between inpatient and outpatient care for medical inpatients with depression (especially for organizations that treat patients in both settings), and the elements necessary to implement a pilot for an outpatient Collaborative Care Management program for patients with depression following medical admissions. Taken into account is the presence of new billing mechanisms and potential cost offsets. Methods: The literature referenced in this paper was identified through a search of online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar. The data used to analyze cost were drawn from national, publicly available sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Results: Collaborative care is an evidence-based intervention for depression that can aid with successful transition of care as patients move from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. It can be considered cost-effective when treating a panel of patients that falls below the recommended caseload for a single case manager (i.e., 19-46 billed encounters, depending on the payer mix), particularly when considering the savings from a reduced length of stay associated with well-controlled depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Organizations should consider implementing collaborative care management for patients with depression to improve depression outcomes, reduce costs, and prepare themselves for a health financing environment that rewards value.
Keywords:
Depression; care management; care transitions; collaborative care; comorbid physical; consult psychiatry; health care organization and financing; mental illness; telemedicine; value-based purchasing
Authors: Paul E Greenberg; Andree-Anne Fournier; Tammy Sisitsky; Crystal T Pike; Ronald C Kessler Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Dorothy A Brooten; Roberta L Campbell; Greg Maislin; Kathleen M McCauley; J Sanford Schwartz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer S Albrecht; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Jon M Hirshon; Clayton H Brown; Richard Goldberg; Joseph H Rosenberg; Angela C Comer; Jon P Furuno Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Devan Kansagara; Joseph C Chiovaro; David Kagen; Stephen Jencks; Kerry Rhyne; Maya O'Neil; Karli Kondo; Rose Relevo; Makalapua Motu'apuaka; Michele Freeman; Honora Englander Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Jens-Oliver Bock; Melanie Luppa; Christian Brettschneider; Steffi Riedel-Heller; Horst Bickel; Angela Fuchs; Jochen Gensichen; Wolfgang Maier; Karola Mergenthal; Ingmar Schäfer; Gerhard Schön; Siegfried Weyerer; Birgitt Wiese; Hendrik van den Bussche; Martin Scherer; Hans-Helmut König Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240