Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health Care Costs of Primary Care Patients With Recognized Depression

Simon, Gregory E.·1995·Archives of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950220060012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While an extensive literature documents the influence of depression on general medical services utilization, estimates of the economic burden of depression have focused on the direct costs of depression treatment. Higher use of general medical services may contribute significantly to the true cost of depressive illness. METHODS: Computerized record systems of a large staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO) were used to identify consecutive primary care patients with visit diagnoses of depression (n = 6257) and a comparison sample of primary care patients with no depression diagnosis (n = 6257). The HMO accounting records were used to compare components of health care costs. RESULTS: Patients diagnosed as depressed had higher annual health care costs ($4246 vs $2371, P < .001) and higher costs for every category of care (eg, primary care, medical specialty, medical inpatient, pharmacy, laboratory). Similar cost differences were observed for each of the subgroups examined (patients treated with antidepressants, those not treated with antidepressants, and those diagnosed at routine physical examination visits). Pharmacy records indicated greater chronic medical illness in the diagnosed depression group, but large cost differences remained after adjustment ($3971 vs $2644). Twofold cost differences persisted for at least 12 months after initiation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of depression is associated with a generalized increase in use of health services that is only partially explained by comorbid medical conditions. In the primary care sector, this greater medical utilization exceeds direct treatment costs for depression. The persistence of utilization differences suggests that recognition and initiation of treatment alone are not adequate to reduce utilization differences.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950220060012

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Simon, G. E.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1995-10-01
Volume
52
Issue
10
Pages
850
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950220060012
OpenAlex
W2013394767
Cited by
522
References
9
FWCI
27.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.