PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12558006

Policy intervention.

Richard Scheffler·Mary Durham·Tom McGuire·Kenneth B Wells·NIMH Affective Disorders Workgroup
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper addresses market failure due to externalities, as well as information asymmetries and public policy problems that need to be solved to ensure high quality care for affective disorders. We delineate the problems in parity legislation, managed care, as well as Medicare and Medicaid that need to be addressed to reduce the burden of illness affective disorders. A research agenda is developed for formulating and implementing public policy.

Explore related subjects

Cost of IllnessHealth Benefit Plans, EmployeeHealth PolicyHumansMedicaidMedically UninsuredMedicareMental Health ServicesMood DisordersQuality of Health CareResearchUnited StatesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard Scheffler, Mary Durham, Tom McGuire, Kenneth B Wells, NIMH Affective Disorders Workgroup. 2002. Policy intervention.. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1020964515707

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Measuring and monitoring success in compressing morbidity.

The Compression of Morbidity paradigm, introduced in 1980, maintains that if the average age at first infirmity, disability, or other morbidity is postponed and if this postponement is greater than increases in life expectancy, then cumulative lifetime morbidity will decrease-compressed between a later onset and the time of death. The National Long-Term Care Survey, the National Health Interview Survey, and other data now document declining disability trends beginning in 1982 and accelerating more recently. The decline is about 2% per year, contrasted with a decline in mortality rates of about 1% per year, thereby documenting compression of morbidity in the United States at the population level. Longitudinal studies now link good health risk status with long-term reductions in cumulative lifetime disability; persons with few behavioral health risks have only one-fourth the disability of those who have more risk factors, and the onset of disability is postponed from 7 to 12 years, far more than any increases in longevity in the groups. Randomized, controlled trials of health enhancement programs in elderly populations show reduction in health risks, improved health status, and decreased medical care utilization. Health policy initiatives now being undertaken have promise of increasing and consolidating health gains for the elderly.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2003

Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that, compared with conventional outpatient consultations, joint teleconsultation (virtual outreach) would incur no increased costs to the NHS, reduce costs to patients, and reduce absences from work by patients and their carers. DESIGN: Cost consequences study alongside randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two hospitals in London and Shrewsbury and 29 general practices in inner London and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 3170 patients identified; 2094 eligible for inclusion and willing to participate. 1051 randomised to virtual outreach and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NHS costs, patient costs, health status (SF-12), time spent attending index consultation, patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall six months costs were greater for the virtual outreach consultations ( pound 724 per patient) than for conventional outpatient appointments ( pound 625): difference in means pound 99 ($162; 138) (95% confidence interval pound 10 to pound 187, P=0.03). If the analysis is restricted to resource items deemed "attributable" to the index consultation, six month costs were still greater for virtual outreach: difference in means pound 108 ( pound 73 to pound 142, P < 0.0001). In both analyses the index consultation accounted for the excess cost. Savings to patients in terms of costs and time occurred in both centres: difference in mean total patient cost pound 8 ( pound 5 to pound 10, P < 0.0001). Loss of productive time was less in the virtual outreach group: difference in mean cost pound 11 ( pound 10 to pound 12, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The main hypothesis that virtual outreach would be cost neutral is rejected, but the hypotheses that costs to patients and losses in productivity would be lower are supported.

Cost of Illness↗