Effects of mental health benefits legislation: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Health insurance benefits for mental health services typically have paid less than benefits for physical health services, resulting in potential underutilization or financial burden for people with mental health conditions. Mental health benefits legislation was introduced to improve financial protection (i.e., decrease financial burden) and to increase access to, and use of, mental health services. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of mental health benefits legislation, including executive orders, in improving mental health. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methods developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. The evidence included studies published or reported from 1965 to March 2011 with at least one of the following outcomes: access to care, financial protection, appropriate utilization, quality of care, diagnosis of mental illness, morbidity and mortality, and quality of life. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty eligible studies were identified in 37 papers. Implementation of mental health benefits legislation was associated with financial protection (decreased out-of-pocket costs) and appropriate utilization of services. Among studies examining the impact of legislation strength, most found larger positive effects for comprehensive parity legislation or policies than for less-comprehensive ones. Few studies assessed other mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that mental health benefits legislation, particularly comprehensive parity legislation, is effective in improving financial protection and increasing appropriate utilization of mental health services for people with mental health conditions. Evidence was limited for other mental health outcomes.

Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Using assessment tools to screen for, diagnose, and treat major depressive disorder in clinical practice.

Depression remains underrecognized and undertreated worldwide, although it is a leading cause of disease burden. Many instruments are available to enhance the assessment of major depressive disorder (MDD) at 3 levels: screening, diagnosing, and monitoring treatment. This article reviews a variety of tools that can be used at each level of assessment as part of a measurement-based care approach to MDD. Measurement-based care for MDD is feasible in clinical practice. Patient self-reports can be used instead of clinician-rated scales to save time, whether in paper, computerized, or interactive voice response formats. Assessment tools are available in many languages. Treatment algorithms can rationalize decision making, and collaborative care can speed and enhance treatment results.

Chronic forms of major depression are still undertreated in the 21st century: systematic assessment of 801 patients presenting for treatment.

During a multisite, NIMH-sponsored clinical trial entitled, "Research Evaluating the Value of Augmentation of Medication by Psychotherapy" (REVAMP), we assessed the adequacy of prior antidepressant treatment in patients with chronic forms of major depressive disorder using the Antidepressant Treatment History Form (ATHF). We hypothesized that when compared to earlier studies treatment adequacy would not have increased over the past decade. We found that only 33% of the 801 subjects enrolled had ever had a prior adequate trial of antidepressant medication. Patients significantly more likely to have received prior adequate antidepressant trials were older, married, white, had a longer duration of illness, had more melancholic features or met criteria for the melancholic subtype or met lifetime criteria for panic disorder. The hypothesis that rates of treatment adequacy have not significantly increased over the past decade was supported. These results and the consistency of similar results over time point to the dire need for patient and provider education regarding the signs and symptoms of depression and its treatment.

Consultative intervention to improve outcomes of high utilizers in a public mental health system.

PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of an academic consultation on outcomes among consumers in a public mental health system and to compare outcomes between high-cost/high-utilizer and midcost consumers. METHODS: Participants (N = 36) completed all questionnaires during three semistructured interviews. Using a repeated-measures experimental design, the outcomes of global functioning, quality of life, service use and need, costs, and consumer satisfaction were examined. FINDINGS: The hypothesis that consultation would change medication practices and reduce costs was supported. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation with a senior clinician helped change medication practices and reduced costs. Consultation may lead to recognition of a new diagnosis (medical, neurologic, or psychiatric) or suggestions for modifying a treatment regimen that could improve functioning and QOL. In a busy public mental health system, there is often little time for consultation and little thought to second opinions. For clients who cost the system the greatest amount, the small additional cost of a consultation is a good potential investment.

Trends in the use of antidepressants in a national sample of commercially insured pediatric patients, 1998 to 2002.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of use of prescription antidepressants among children and adolescents by using nationwide data and to examine trends in use from 1998 to 2002. METHODS: Ambulatory prescription claims data for a nationwide random sample of more than 1.9 million life-years of commercially insured children (aged 18 years or younger) for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 were examined retrospectively. The main outcome measure was trend in prevalence of antidepressant use. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of antidepressant use among children increased from 160 per 10000 (1.6 percent) in 1998 to 240 per 10000 (2.4 percent) in 2002, for an adjusted annual increase of 9.2 percent. The growth in the overall prevalence of antidepressant use was greater among girls (a 68 percent increase) than boys (a 34 percent increase). In 2002, antidepressant use was highest among girls aged 15 to 18 years, at 640 per 10000 (6.4 percent). The trend of increasing overall use of antidepressants among children and adolescents appears to have been driven primarily by greater use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in the prevalence of use of antidepressant medications among youths appears to be continuing, and the rate of increase between 1998 and 2002 is similar to the rate of increase seen in the period of the second-generation antidepressants (late 1980s to mid-1990s).