Association between depression and healthcare expenditures among elderly cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Both depression and cancer are economically burdensome. However, how depression affects the healthcare expenditures of elderly cancer patients from payers' and patients' perspectives is largely unknown. This study investigated whether depression resulted in higher healthcare expenditures among these patients from both payers' and patients' perspectives and identified health service use categories associated with increased expenditures. METHODS: From the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS)-Medicare database, we identified breast, lung and prostate cancer patients aged 65 years and over who were newly diagnosed between 2007 and 2012. Presence of depression was based on self-reports from the surveys. We used generalized linear models (GLM) and two-part models to examine the impact of depression on healthcare expenditures during the first two years of cancer diagnosis controlling for a vast array of covariates. We stratified the analyses of total healthcare expenditures by healthcare services and payers. RESULTS: Out of the 710 elderly breast, lung and prostate cancer patients in our study cohort, 128 (17.7%) reported depression. Individuals with depression had $11,454 higher total healthcare expenditures, $8213 higher medical provider expenditures and $405 higher other services expenditures compared to their counterparts without depression. Also, they were significantly more likely to have inpatient services. For payers, they incurred $8280 and $1270 higher expenditures from Medicare's and patients' perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly cancer patients with depression have significantly higher healthcare expenditures from both payers' and patients' perspectives and over different expenditure types. More research is needed in depression screening, diagnosis and treatment for this population.

Retail clinic visits and receipt of primary care.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients are visiting retail clinics for simple acute conditions. Physicians worry that visits to retail clinics will interfere with primary care relationships. No prior study has evaluated the impact of retail clinics on receipt of primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between retail clinic use and receipt of key primary care functions. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using commercial insurance claims from 2007 to 2009. PATIENTS: We identified patients who had a visit for a simple acute condition in 2008, the "index visit". We divided these 127,358 patients into two cohorts according to the location of that index visit: primary care provider (PCP) versus retail clinic. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated three functions of primary care: (1) where patients first sought care for subsequent simple acute conditions; (2) continuity of care using the Bice-Boxerman index; and (3) preventive care and diabetes management. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared care received in the 365 days following the index visit to care received in the 365 days prior, using propensity score weights to account for selection bias. KEY RESULTS: Visiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP for the index visit was associated with a 27.7 visits per 100 patients differential reduction (p < 0 .001) in subsequent PCP visits for new simple acute conditions. Visiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP was also associated with decreased subsequent continuity of care (10.9 percentage-point differential reduction in Bice-Boxerman index, p < 0 .001). There was no differential change between the cohorts in receipt of preventive care or diabetes management. CONCLUSIONS: Retail clinics may disrupt two aspects of primary care: whether patients go to a PCP first for new conditions and continuity of care. However, they do not negatively impact preventive care or diabetes management.