California Department of Industrial Relations and California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation.

BackgroundComorbid depression is a significant challenge for safety-net primary care systems. Team-based collaborative depression care is effective, but complex system factors in safety-net organizations impede adoption and result in persistent disparities in outcomes. Diabetes-Depression Care-management Adoption Trial (DCAT) evaluated whether depression care could be significantly improved by harnessing information and communication technologies to automate routine screening and monitoring of patient symptoms and treatment adherence and allow timely communication with providers.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare 6-month outcomes of a technology-facilitated care model with a usual care model and a supported care model that involved team-based collaborative depression care for safety-net primary care adult patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsDCAT is a translational study in collaboration with Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the second largest safety-net care system in the United States. A comparative effectiveness study with quasi-experimental design was conducted in three groups of adult patients with type 2 diabetes to compare three delivery models: usual care, supported care, and technology-facilitated care. Six-month outcomes included depression and diabetes care measures and patient-reported outcomes. Comparative treatment effects were estimated by linear or logistic regression models that used generalized propensity scores to adjust for sampling bias inherent in the nonrandomized design.ResultsDCAT enrolled 1406 patients (484 in usual care, 480 in supported care, and 442 in technology-facilitated care), most of whom were Hispanic or Latino and female. Compared with usual care, both the supported care and technology-facilitated care groups were associated with significant reduction in depressive symptoms measured by scores on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (least squares estimate, LSE: usual care=6.35, supported care=5.05, technology-facilitated care=5.16; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.02); decreased prevalence of major depression (odds ratio, OR: supported care vs usual care=0.45, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=0.33; P value: supported care vs usual care=.02, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.007); and reduced functional disability as measured by Sheehan Disability Scale scores (LSE: usual care=3.21, supported care=2.61, technology-facilitated care=2.59; P value: supported care vs usual care=.04, technology-facilitated care vs usual care=.03). Technology-facilitated care was significantly associated with depression remission (technology-facilitated care vs usual care: OR=2.98, P=.04); increased satisfaction with care for emotional problems among depressed patients (LSE: usual care=3.20, technology-facilitated care=3.70; P=.05); reduced total cholesterol level (LSE: usual care=176.40, technology-facilitated care=160.46; P=.01); improved satisfaction with diabetes care (LSE: usual care=4.01, techn...

Background— Consumer-reported patient–provider communication (PPC) assessed by Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey in ambulatory settings is incorporated as a complementary value metric for patient-centered care of chronic conditions in pay-for-performance programs. In this study, we examine the relationship of PPC with select indicators of patient-centered care in a nationally representative US adult population with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results— The study population consisted of a nationally representative sample of 6810 individuals (aged ≥18 years), representing 18.3 million adults with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (self-reported or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition diagnosis) reporting a usual source of care in the 2010 to 2013 pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey cohort. Participants responded to questions from Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey that assessed PPC, and we developed a weighted PPC composite score using their responses, categorized as 1 (poor), 2 (average), and 3 (optimal). Outcomes of interest were (1) patient-reported outcomes: 12-item Short Form physical/mental health status, (2) quality of care measures: statin and ASA use, (3) healthcare resource utilization: emergency room visits and hospital stays, and (4) total annual and out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients reporting poor versus optimal were over 2-fold more likely to report poor outcomes; 52% and 26% more likely to report that they are not on statin and aspirin, respectively, had a significantly greater utilization of health resources (odds ratio≥2 emergency room visit, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.81]; odds ratio≥2 hospitalization, 1.36 [95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.79]), as well as an estimated $1243 ($127–$2359) higher annual healthcare expenditure. Conclusions— This study reveals a strong relationship between PPC and patient-reported outcomes, utilization of evidence-based therapies, healthcare resource utilization, and expenditures among those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.