Cost-Effectiveness of a Technology-Facilitated Depression Care Management Adoption Model in Safety-Net Primary Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Technology-Facilitated Depression Care Management Adoption Model in Safety-Net Primary Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Value Health. 2018 May;21(5):561-568

Authors: Hay JW, Lee PJ, Jin H, Guterman JJ, Gross-Schulman S, Ell K, Wu S

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Diabetes-Depression Care-Management Adoption Trial is a translational study of safety-net primary care predominantly Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an information and communication technology (ICT)-facilitated depression care management program.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of the ICT-facilitated care (TC) delivery model was evaluated relative to a usual care (UC) and a supported care (SC) model. TC added automated low-intensity periodic depression assessment calls to patients. Patient-reported outcomes included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey converted into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire-calculated depression-free days (DFDs). Costs and outcomes data were collected over a 24-month period (-6 to 0 months baseline, 0 to 18 months study intervention).
RESULTS: A sample of 1406 patients (484 in UC, 480 in SC, and 442 in TC) was enrolled in the nonrandomized trial. TC had a significant improvement in DFDs (17.3; P = 0.011) and significantly greater 12-Item Short Form Health Survey utility improvement (2.1%; P = 0.031) compared with UC. Medical costs were statistically significantly lower for TC (-$2328; P = 0.001) relative to UC but not significantly lower than for SC. TC had more than a 50% probability of being cost-effective relative to SC at willingness-to-pay thresholds of more than $50,000/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: An ICT-facilitated depression care (TC) delivery model improved QALYs, DFDs, and medical costs. It was cost-effective compared with SC and dominant compared with UC.

PMID: 29753353 [PubMed - in process]