Improving Care for Late-Life Depression Through Partnerships With Community-Based Organizations: Results From the Care Partners Project.

OBJECTIVES: Collaborative care (CC) has demonstrated effectiveness for improving late-life depression in primary care, but clinics offering this service can find it challenging to address unmet social needs that may be contributing to their patients' depression. Clinics may benefit from better coordination and communication with community-based organizations (CBO) to strengthen depression treatment and to address unmet social needs. We evaluated the feasibility of adding a CBO to enhance standard collaborative care and the impact of such partnered care on older adults. DESIGN: Multisite, prepost evaluation. SETTING: Eight (n = 8) partnerships between primary care clinics and community-based organizations in California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 707 depressed older adults (60 years or older) as evidenced by having a score of 10 or more on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) received care under the Care Partners project. INTERVENTION: A CBO partner was added to augment CC for late-life depression in primary care. MEASUREMENTS: The PHQ-9 was used to identify depressed older adults and to monitor depression symptom severity during a course of care. RESULTS: At baseline, the average PHQ-9 depression score across the partnerships was 15, indicating moderate depression severity. Participating patients saw an average 7-point reduction in their PHQ-9 score, baseline to last score assessed, with nearly half of all participants (48.4%) experiencing a 50% or greater improvement from their baseline score. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that partnering with a community-based organization is a feasible and effective way for primary care clinics to address late-life depression in their patients.

How to Exercise Integrity in Medical Billing: Don't Distort Prices, Don't Free-Ride on Other Physicians.

This paper proposes that billing gamesmanship occurs when physicians free-ride on the billing practices of other physicians. Gamesmanship is non-universalizable and does not exercise a competitive advantage; consequently, it distorts prices and allocates resources inefficiently. This explains why gamesmanship is wrong. This explanation differs from the recent proposal of Heath (2020. Ethical issues in physician billing under fee-for-service plans. J. Med. Philos. 45(1):86-104) that gamesmanship is wrong because of specific features of health care and of health insurance. These features are aggravating factors but do not explain gamesmanship's primary wrong-making feature, which is to cause diffuse harm not traceable to any particular patient or insurer. This conclusion has important consequences for how medical schools and professional organizations encourage integrity in billing. To avoid free-riding, physicians should ask themselves, "could all physicians bill this way?" and if not, "does the patient benefit from the distinctive service I am providing under this code?" If both answers are "no," physicians should refrain from the billing practice in question.

The Hartford Geriatric Nursing Initiative: developing a focused strategy and strong partnerships to improve nursing care for older adults.

This article traces the funding priorities of the John A. Hartford Foundation--the largest private philanthropy in the United States dedicated to aging and health--to increase the competence of the health care workforce (physicians, nurses, and social workers) to care for our aging society. A review of the Foundation's 15-year and over $70 million investment in geriatric nursing is presented with emphasis on 2 critical factors--a focused strategy and strong partnerships--to build the nation's nursing capacity to meet the health care needs of older Americans. The evolution of Hartford's strategic goal to ensure that all nurses are skilled to care for older adults is shared to illustrate why the Foundation now funds nursing efforts in the primary areas of faculty development and curricular change. This article also underscores the importance of establishing a network of diverse partnerships and collaborations to maximize impact and create synergies.

Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibody-mediated disease: The difficulty of predicting relapses.

BACKGROUND: While many patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-mediated disease (MOG-AD) will have a monophasic course, 30-80% of patients will relapse after the initial attack. It is not known which factors predict relapse. Here we describe our clinical experience with MOG-AD and evaluate for factors that correlate with relapsing disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-institutional study of 54 patients with MOG-AD, including 17 children and 37 adults. Mann-Whitney U and Fischer's Exact tests were used for comparisons and logistic regression for correlations. RESULTS: Incident attack phenotype included acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (15%), unilateral optic neuritis (ON; 39%), bilateral ON (24%), transverse myelitis (TM; 11%) and ON with TM (11%). Pediatric patients were more likely than adults to present with ADEM (p = .009) and less likely to present with unilateral ON (p = .04). 31 patients (57%) had a relapsing disease course, with time to first relapse of 8.2 months and median annualized relapse rate of 0.97 months. In 40% of patients (n = 22) the first relapse occurred following the withdrawal of treatment for the incident attack. 5 patients converted to seronegative at follow up, 2 of whom later relapsed. Logistic regression revealed no significant relationship between age, gender, race, presentation phenotype, antibody titer, or cerebrospinal fluid results with risk of relapse. For patients who started disease modifying therapy (DMT) prior to the first relapse (n = 11), 64% remained monophasic. 50% (n = 15) of patients on DMT continued to have disease activity, requiring treatment adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to predict which patients with MOG-AD will relapse. Research is needed to determine the optimal timing and choice of treatment.

Symptoms, affects, and self-rated health: evidence for a subjective trajectory of health.

OBJECTIVE: Self-rated health (SRH) is known to predict mortality and other health outcomes better than objective ratings, suggesting that patients have important knowledge that physicians do not. The study assessed whether SRH reflects changes in internal states, specifically symptoms and affects. METHOD: In an event-sampling study, 54 elders completed a SRH measure, positive and negative affect scale, a symptom checklist, and a pain scale every evening for 8 weeks. Using lagged (time series) hierarchical regression, the authors modeled associations of SRH with previous symptoms, moods, and changes in symptoms and mood. RESULTS: The SRH was highest when symptoms had decreased from the previous day and lowest when symptoms had increased, suggesting that SRH reflects a sense of change. Symptoms and affects contributed independently to SRH. Self-rated health was more sensitive to positive than negative affect and also sensitive to changes of positive but not negative affect. DISCUSSION: Patients may possess a subjective trajectory of health-an awareness of changes in symptoms and affect. This trajectory may constitute an important component of SRH and help to explain its ability to predict health outcomes.

Reducing suicidal ideation in depressed older primary care patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a primary care-based collaborative care program for depression on suicidal ideation in older adults. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen diverse primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred one adults aged 60 and older with major depression or dysthymia. INTERVENTION: Participants randomized to collaborative care had access to a depression care manager who supported antidepressant medication management prescribed by their primary care physician and offered a course of Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care for 12 months. Participants in the control arm received care as usual. MEASUREMENTS: Participants had independent assessments of depression and suicidal ideation at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Depression was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (SCID). Suicidal ideation was determined using the SCID and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist. RESULTS: At baseline, 139 (15.3%) intervention subjects and 119 (13.3%) controls reported thoughts of suicide. Intervention subjects had significantly lower rates of suicidal ideation than controls at 6 months (7.5% vs 12.1%) and 12 months (9.8% vs 15.5%) and even after intervention resources were no longer available at 18 months (8.0% vs 13.3%) and 24 months (10.1% vs 13.9%). There were no completed suicides in either group. Information on suicide attempts or hospitalization for suicidal ideation was not available. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based collaborative care programs for depression represent one strategy to reduce suicidal ideation and potentially the risk of suicide in older primary care patients.

Cost-effectiveness of improving primary care treatment of late-life depression.

CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of functional impairment in elderly individuals and is associated with high medical costs, but there are large gaps in quality of treatment in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the Improving Mood Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1801 patients 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual primary care (n = 895). Intervention patients were provided access to a depression care manager supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care physician. Depression care managers offered education, support of antidepressant medications prescribed in primary care, and problem-solving treatment in primary care (a brief psychotherapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total outpatient costs, depression-free days, and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, intervention patients experienced 107 (95% confidence interval [CI], 86 to 128) more depression-free days over 24 months. Total outpatient costs were USD $295 (95% CI, -$525 to $1115) higher during this period. The incremental outpatient cost per depression-free day was USD $2.76 (95% CI, -$4.95 to $10.47) and incremental outpatient costs per quality-adjusted life-year ranged from USD $2519 (95% CI, -$4517 to $9554) to USD $5037 (95% CI, -$9034 to $19 108). Results of a bootstrap analysis suggested a 25% probability that the IMPACT intervention was "dominant" (ie, lower costs and greater effectiveness). CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT intervention is a high-value investment for older adults; it is associated with high clinical benefits at a low increment in health care costs.

Hospital at home: feasibility and outcomes of a program to provide hospital-level care at home for acutely ill older patients.

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill older persons often experience adverse events when cared for in the acute care hospital. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical feasibility and efficacy of providing acute hospital-level care in a patient's home in a hospital at home. DESIGN: Prospective quasi-experiment. SETTING: 3 Medicare-managed care (Medicare + Choice) health systems at 2 sites and a Veterans Administration medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 455 community-dwelling elderly patients who required admission to an acute care hospital for community-acquired pneumonia, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cellulitis. INTERVENTION: Treatment in a hospital-at-home model of care that substitutes for treatment in an acute care hospital. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical process measures, standards of care, clinical complications, satisfaction with care, functional status, and costs of care. RESULTS: Hospital-at-home care was feasible and efficacious in delivering hospital-level care to patients at home. In 2 of 3 sites studied, 69% of patients who were offered hospital-at-home care chose it over acute hospital care; in the third site, 29% of patients chose hospital-at-home care. Although less procedurally oriented than acute hospital care, hospital-at-home care met quality standards at rates similar to those of acute hospital care. On an intention-to-treat basis, patients treated in hospital-at-home had a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days) (P = 0.004), and there was some evidence that they also had fewer complications. The mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home care than for acute hospital care (5081 dollars vs. 7480 dollars) (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Possible selection bias because of the quasi-experimental design and missing data, modest sample size, and study site differences. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital-at-home care model is feasible, safe, and efficacious for certain older patients with selected acute medical illnesses who require acute hospital-level care.

Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes physicians' satisfaction with care for patients with depression before and after the implementation of a primary care-based collaborative care program. METHOD: Project Improving Mood, Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment for late-life depression (IMPACT) is a multisite, randomized controlled trial comparing a primary care-based collaborative disease management program for late-life depression with care as usual. A total of 450 primary care physicians at 18 participating clinics participated in a satisfaction survey before and 12 months after IMPACT initiation. The preintervention survey focused on physicians' satisfaction with current mental health resources and ability to provide depression care. The postintervention survey repeated these and added questions about physician's experience with the IMPACT collaborative care model. RESULTS: Before intervention, about half (54%) of the participating physicians were satisfied with resources to treat patients with depression. After intervention, more than 90% reported the intervention as helpful in treating patients with depression and 82% felt that the intervention improved patients' clinical outcomes. Participating physicians identified proactive patient follow-up and patient education as the most helpful components of the IMPACT model. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceived a substantial need for improving depression treatment in primary care. They were very satisfied with the IMPACT collaborative care model for treating depressed older adults and felt that similar care management models would also be helpful for treating other chronic medical illnesses.

Decades of focus: grant making at the John A. Hartford Foundation.

Foundation grant making can play an important role in advancing the U.S. health agenda. However, given the scale of the health care system and the intractability of many of its problems, philanthropy must be guided by strategic thinking in pursuit of realistically achievable goals. This essay describes the grant-making process at one nationally oriented foundation as an example of how these challenges might be approached. We believe that greater clarity about this process can improve collaboration among foundations, help the public appreciate foundations' work, facilitate partnerships with grantees, and, most importantly, yield sustainable improvement in the problem being addressed.

Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Few depressed older adults receive effective treatment in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001. SETTING: Eighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1801 patients aged 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual care (n = 895). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert and who offered education, care management, and support of antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician or a brief psychotherapy for depression, Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for depression, depression treatments, satisfaction with care, functional impairment, and quality of life. RESULTS: At 12 months, 45% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline compared with 19% of usual care participants (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-4.38; P<.001). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.34-3.79; P<.001), more satisfaction with depression care (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.66-4.30; P<.001), lower depression severity (range, 0-4; between-group difference, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.33; P<.001), less functional impairment (range, 0-10; between-group difference, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.64; P<.001), and greater quality of life (range, 0-10; between-group difference, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P<.001) than participants assigned to the usual care group. CONCLUSION: The IMPACT collaborative care model appears to be feasible and significantly more effective than usual care for depression in a wide range of primary care practices.