Brian McGregor1, Chaohua Li1, Peter Baltrus1, Megan Douglas1, Jammie Hopkins1, Glenda Wrenn1, Kisha Holden1, Ebony Respress1, Anne Gaglioti1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (McGregor, Wrenn, Holden), Satcher Health Leadership Institute (McGregor, Douglas, Respress), National Center for Primary Care (Li, Baltrus, Douglas, Gaglioti), Department of Community Health and Preventive Medicine (Baltrus, Douglas, Hopkins), and Department of Family Medicine (Gaglioti), Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this secondary data analysis was to describe racial-ethnic disparities in receipt of depression treatment and treatment modality among adult Medicaid beneficiaries with depression from a nationally representative sample-28 states and the District of Columbia-of Medicaid beneficiaries (N=599,421). METHODS: Medicaid claims data were extracted from the full 2008-2009 Medicaid Analytic Extract file. The primary outcome was type of depression treatment: medication only, therapy only, medication and therapy, and no treatment. The secondary outcome was treatment for depression (yes-no). Crude and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were generated for univariate and multivariate models, respectively, and 95% confidence intervals of odds ratios and p values were calculated. RESULTS: There were 599,421 individuals in the sample. Rates of depression treatment were lower for African Americans and Hispanics, compared with Caucasians. Percentages receiving no treatment were 19.9% of African Americans, 15.2% of Hispanics, and 11.9% of Caucasians. After full adjustment, African Americans were about half as likely as Caucasians to receive treatment (AOR=0.52), Hispanics were about a third as likely (AOR=0.71), and those from other racial-ethnic groups were about a fifth as likely (AOR=0.84). Caucasians were more likely than any other group to receive medication only. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to evidence about the intersection of social factors and health outcomes and discusses health care engagement, stigma, and policy drivers of racial-ethnic disparities. The study is the first to identify disparities in rates and types of depression treatment among racial-ethnic subgroups of Medicaid beneficiaries in a nationally representative sample.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this secondary data analysis was to describe racial-ethnic disparities in receipt of depression treatment and treatment modality among adult Medicaid beneficiaries with depression from a nationally representative sample-28 states and the District of Columbia-of Medicaid beneficiaries (N=599,421). METHODS: Medicaid claims data were extracted from the full 2008-2009 Medicaid Analytic Extract file. The primary outcome was type of depression treatment: medication only, therapy only, medication and therapy, and no treatment. The secondary outcome was treatment for depression (yes-no). Crude and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were generated for univariate and multivariate models, respectively, and 95% confidence intervals of odds ratios and p values were calculated. RESULTS: There were 599,421 individuals in the sample. Rates of depression treatment were lower for African Americans and Hispanics, compared with Caucasians. Percentages receiving no treatment were 19.9% of African Americans, 15.2% of Hispanics, and 11.9% of Caucasians. After full adjustment, African Americans were about half as likely as Caucasians to receive treatment (AOR=0.52), Hispanics were about a third as likely (AOR=0.71), and those from other racial-ethnic groups were about a fifth as likely (AOR=0.84). Caucasians were more likely than any other group to receive medication only. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to evidence about the intersection of social factors and health outcomes and discusses health care engagement, stigma, and policy drivers of racial-ethnic disparities. The study is the first to identify disparities in rates and types of depression treatment among racial-ethnic subgroups of Medicaid beneficiaries in a nationally representative sample.
Authors: Matthew P Martin; Mark B White; Jennifer L Hodgson; Angela L Lamson; Thomas G Irons Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Sarah Croake; Jonathan D Brown; Dean Miller; Nathan Darter; Milesh M Patel; Junqing Liu; Sarah Hudson Scholle Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Kyaien O Conner; Valire Carr Copeland; Nancy K Grote; Gary Koeske; Daniel Rosen; Charles F Reynolds; Charlotte Brown Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Stephen Petterson; Benjamin F Miller; Jessica C Payne-Murphy; Robert L Phillips Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Stephen J Bartels; Eugenie H Coakley; Cynthia Zubritsky; James H Ware; Keith M Miles; Patricia A Areán; Hongtu Chen; David W Oslin; Maria D Llorente; Giuseppe Costantino; Louise Quijano; Jack S McIntyre; Karen W Linkins; Thomas E Oxman; James Maxwell; Sue E Levkoff Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Margarita Alegría; Irene Falgas-Bague; Marie Fukuda; Jenny Zhen-Duan; Cole Weaver; Isabel O'Malley; Timothy Layton; Jacob Wallace; Lulu Zhang; Sheri Markle; Charles Neighbors; Pat Lincourt; Shazia Hussain; Marc Manseau; Bradley D Stein; Nancy Rigotti; Sarah Wakeman; Martha Kane; A Eden Evins; Thomas McGuire Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Sanchita Agarwal; Carmen Germosen; Nayoung Kil; Mariana Bucovsky; Ivelisse Colon; John Williams; Elizabeth Shane; Marcella D Walker Journal: Bone Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Ikponmwosa Osaghae; Linh K Nguyen; Tong Han Chung; Olivia Moffitt; Yen-Chi L Le; Mark B Suh; Pooja N Prasad; Eric J Thomas; Christine D Gordon; Kevin O Hwang Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec