The Costs and Cost-effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Adolescents With Depression in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Depression is one of the most common adolescent chronic health conditions and can lead to increased health care use. Collaborative care models have been shown to be effective in improving adolescent depressive symptoms, but there are few data on the effect of such a model on costs. Objective: To evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care model for treatment of adolescent major depressive disorder in primary care settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted between April 1, 2010, and April 30, 2013, at 9 primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State. Participants were adolescents (age range, 13-17 years) with depression who participated in the Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress (ROAD) collaborative care intervention trial. Interventions: A 12-month collaborative care intervention included an initial in-person engagement session, delivery of evidence-based treatments, and regular follow-up by master's level clinicians. Youth in the usual care control condition received depression screening results and could access mental health services and obtain medications through Group Health. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost outcomes included intervention costs and per capita health plan costs, calculated from the payer perspective using administrative records. The primary effectiveness outcome was the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between groups from baseline to 12 months. The QALYs were calculated using Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores measured during the clinical trial. Cost and QALYs were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Of those screened, 105 youths met criteria for entry into the study, and 101 were randomized to the intervention (n = 50) and usual care (n = 51) groups. Overall health plan costs were not significantly different between the intervention ($5161; 95% CI, $3564-$7070) and usual care ($5752; 95% CI, $3814-$7952) groups. Intervention delivery cost an additional $1475 (95% CI, $1230-$1695) per person. The intervention group had a mean daily utility value of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) vs 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.76) for the usual care group. The net mean difference in effectiveness was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02-0.09) QALY at $883 above usual care. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 239 (95% CI, dominant to $24 408) per QALY gained, with dominant indicating that the intervention resulted in both a net cost savings and a net increase in QALYs. Conclusions and Relevance: Collaborative care for adolescent depression appears to be cost-effective, with 95% CIs far below the strictest willingness-to-pay thresholds. These findings support the use of collaborative care interventions to treat depression among adolescent youth. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.

Association of Adolescent Depressive Symptoms With Health Care Utilization and Payer-Incurred Expenditures.

OBJECTIVE: Screening adolescents for depression is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. We sought to evaluate the impact of positive depression screens in an adolescent population on health care utilization and costs from a payer perspective. METHODS: We conducted depression screening among 13- to 17-year-old adolescents enrolled in a large integrated care system using the 2- and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ). Health care utilization and cost data were obtained from administrative records. Chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, and t tests were used to test for statistical differences in outcomes between adolescents on the basis of screening status. RESULTS: Of the 4010 adolescents who completed depression screening, 3707 (92.4%) screened negative (PHQ-2 <2 or PHQ-9 <10), 186 (3.9%) screened positive for mild depression (PHQ-9 10-14), and 95 (2.4%) screened positive for moderate to severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥15). In the 12 months after screening, screen-positive adolescents were more likely than screen-negative adolescents to receive any emergency department visit or inpatient hospitalization, and they had significantly higher utilization of outpatient medical (mean ± SD, 8.3 ± 1.5 vs 3.5 ± 5.1) and mental health (3.8 ± 9.3 vs 0.7 ± 3.5) visits. Total health care system costs for screen-positive adolescents ($5083 ± $10,489) were more than twice as high as those of screen-negative adolescents ($2357 ± $7621). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent depressive symptoms, even when mild, are associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Only a minority of the increased costs is attributable to mental health care. Implementing depression screening and evidence-based mental health services may help to better control health care costs among screen-positive adolescents.

Predictors of outcome at 1 year in adolescents with DSM-5 restrictive eating disorders: report of the national eating disorders quality improvement collaborative.

PURPOSE: The National Eating Disorders Quality Improvement Collaborative evaluated data of patients with restrictive eating disorders to analyze demographics of diagnostic categories and predictors of weight restoration at 1 year. METHODS: Fourteen Adolescent Medicine eating disorder programs participated in a retrospective review of 700 adolescents aged 9-21 years with three visits, with DSM-5 categories of restrictive eating disorders including anorexia nervosa (AN), atypical AN, and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). Data including demographics, weight and height at intake and follow-up, treatment before intake, and treatment during the year of follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: At intake, 53.6% met criteria for AN, 33.9% for atypical AN, and 12.4% for ARFID. Adolescents with ARFID were more likely to be male, younger, and had a longer duration of illness before presentation. All sites had a positive change in mean percentage median body mass index (%MBMI) for their population at 1-year follow-up. Controlling for age, gender, duration of illness, diagnosis, and prior higher level of care, only %MBMI at intake was a significant predictor of weight recovery. In the model, there was a 12.7% change in %MBMI (interquartile range, 6.5-19.3). Type of treatment was not predictive, and there were no significant differences between programs in terms of weight restoration. CONCLUSIONS: The National Eating Disorders Quality Improvement Collaborative provides a description of the patient population presenting to a national cross-section of 14 Adolescent Medicine eating disorder programs and categorized by DSM-5. Treatment modalities need to be further evaluated to assess for more global aspects of recovery.

Chlamydia screening in at-risk adolescent females: an evaluation of screening practices and modifiable screening correlates.

PURPOSE: To identify modifiable correlates of chlamydia screening that could offer intervention targets to enhance screening. METHODS: We surveyed a representative sample of primary care providers (n = 186) at an integrated healthcare delivery system to document their self-reported adherence to annual screening of sexually-active adolescents and to identify specific, modifiable constructs that were correlated with annual chlamydia screening. To cross-validate providers' self-report, we also used automated data to examine adolescent screening in an anonymous sample of primary care providers (n = 143). RESULTS: Forty-two percent of providers reported annual chlamydia screening of sexually-active adolescents. Univariate correlates of annual screening were: provider type (non-physician) (p = .01), female gender (p = .001), fewer years of clinical experience (p = .001), greater perceived knowledge about chlamydia (p = .001), greater confidence across a range of screening-related activities (p < or = .01), greater comfort recommending screening for sexually transmitted diseases (p = .001), and greater perceived patient comfort discussing sexual issues (p < .01). In multivariate analyses, providers' perceived knowledge, confidence, comfort, and perceived patient comfort continued to be significantly associated with annual chlamydia screening after controlling for other relevant provider characteristics. Self-reported screening practices were consistent with observed screening rates in the anonymous provider sample. CONCLUSIONS: Routine chlamydia screening among asymptomatic, at-risk adolescent females could be enhanced through additional intervention targeting specific provider attitudes and beliefs about chlamydia screening.