Search

Objective: In March 2004 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned physicians and patients regarding increased risk of suicide with 10 newer antidepressant drugs. Available data leave considerable uncertainty regarding actual risk of suicide attempt and death by suicide during antidepressant treatment. The authors used population-based data to evaluate the risk of suicide death and serious suicide attempt in relation to initiation of antidepressant treatment., Method: Computerized health plan records were used to identify 65,103 patients with 82,285 episodes of antidepressant treatment between Jan. 1, 1992, and June 30, 2003. Death by suicide was identified by using state and national death certificate data. Serious suicide attempt (suicide attempt leading to hospitalization) was identified by using hospital discharge data., Results: In the 6 months after the index prescription of antidepressant treatment, 31 suicide deaths (40 per 100,000 treatment episodes) and 76 serious suicide attempts (93 per 100,000) were identified in the study group. The risk of suicide attempt was 314 per 100,000 in children and adolescents, compared to 78 per 100,000 in adults. The risk of death by suicide was not significantly higher in the month after starting medication than in subsequent months. The risk of suicide attempt was highest in the month before starting antidepressant treatment and declined progressively after starting medication. When the 10 newer antidepressants included in the FDA advisory were compared to older drugs, an increase in risk after starting treatment was seen only for the older drugs., Conclusions: The risk of suicide during acute-phase antidepressant treatment is approximately one in 3,000 treatment episodes, and risk of serious suicide attempt is approximately one in 1,000. Available data do not indicate a significant increase in risk of suicide or serious suicide attempt after starting treatment with newer antidepressant drugs.

The role of specialist versus generalist providers regularly surfaces in health-care reform debates about costs and quality of care. By changing incentives to seek and deliver care, different payments systems can affect both the probability of initial specialty care and the duration of this patient-provider relationship. The authors compare provider selection (psychiatrist, nonphysician mental-health specialist, general medical provider) and duration of this relationship among depressed patients in prepaid and fee-for-service plans. Regarding initial care, depressed patients in prepaid plans are significantly less likely to see a psychiatrist and more likely to see a nonphysician mental-health specialist than patients in fee-for-service plans. Although the mix of providers differs, patient demographic and clinical characteristics have similar effects on specialty in both payment systems, ie, there are no differences in who gets specialty care by type of payment, but in how many get specialty care. The average duration of a patient-provider relationship is significantly shorter in prepaid plans. Durations are significantly shorter for patients of both psychiatrists and general medical providers in prepaid plans, but do not differ by payments type for nonphysician therapists. In both payments systems, patients of nonphysician providers end the relationship sooner than patients of psychiatrists or general medical providers. Although the authors find provider switching to be associated significantly with discontinuing antidepressant medication, there is no significant direct effect on patient health outcomes.

This study compares severity of depression for patients of general medical clinicians, psychiatrists, and nonphysician therapists receiving prepaid or fee-for-service care. Cross-sectional severity comparisons were conducted among 715 outpatients with current major depression or dysthymia, by independent assessment. Severity was assessed by counts of current and lifetime depressive symptoms, prognostic and treatment response indicators, and global measures of psychological and physical sickness. Patients of psychiatrists were the most psychologically ill, patients of nonphysician therapists were intermediate, and general medical patients were least ill; but even in the general medical sector, depression severity was at least ill; but even in the general medical sector, depression severity was at least moderate. No differences in global physical sickness by specialty remained after demographic adjustment. General medical patients whose depression had been detected were only slightly sicker than undetected cases. Type of payment was not consistently related to either psychological or physical aspects of sickness, and payment did not interact with specialty. Mental health specialists, especially psychiatrists, encountered more severely depressed patients, but patients in all sectors were sick enough to warrant treatment. Even undetected patients in the general medical sector were relatively sick, raising questions about gatekeeper policies. There was no evidence of a greater severity gradient by specialty in prepaid care. Because payment was unrelated to severity, treatment implications are similar under prepaid and fee-for-service care. Implications for clinical practice, public policy, and outcomes research design are discussed.

We analyzed switches between prepaid and fee-for-service health care plans among depressed outpatients in the longitudinal part of the Medical Outcomes Study. Patients of mental health specialists in fee-for-service plans had the lowest adjusted rate of plan switching (8.1%), compared to fee-for-service general medical patients (13.5%) and prepaid patients of both types of providers (10.1% to 11.7%). Although there were no substantial differences in initial sickness by payment system among enrolled patients, differing switching rates by provider specialty and payment system indicated biased selection over time. In addition, we found that married, nonwhite, and wealthier individuals were significantly more likely to leave fee-for-service than prepaid care plans. We analyzed whether system switching had an effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. None of the results were highly significant, but the power of the data to analyze this issue was limited. Nevertheless, it appears that patients switching from prepaid to fee-for-service may be at risk for poorer functioning outcomes, although there was no similar effect on mental health status.