Cited by 122Mental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major DepressionHealthcare Policy and Management

Trends in treatment and spending for patients receiving outpatient treatment of depression in the United States, 1998-2015

Open access
Hockenberry, Jason M., Joski, Peter, Yarbrough, Courtney, Druss, Benjamin G.·2019·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Context: After marked increases from 1987 to 1997, trends in depression treatment in the United States increased modestly from 1998 to 2007. However, multiple policy changes that expanded insurance coverage for mental health conditions may have shifted these trends again since 2007. Objective: To examine national trends in outpatient treatment of depression from 1998 to 2015, with particular focus on 2007 to 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analysis of the use of health services and spending for treatment of depression in the United States assessed data from the 1998 (n = 22 953), 2007 (n = 29 370), and 2015 (n = 33 893) Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPSs). Participants included respondent households to the nationally representative survey. Data were analyzed from June 15 through December 18, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of outpatient and pharmaceutical treatment of depression; counts of outpatient visits, psychotherapy visits, and prescriptions; and expenditures. Results: The analysis included 86 216 individuals from the 1998, 2007, and 2015 MEPSs. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 37.2 (22.7) years; 45 086 (52.3%) were female, 24 312 (28.2%) were Hispanic, 15 463 (17.9%) were black, and 62 926 (72.9%) were white. Rates of outpatient treatment of depression increased from 2.36 (95% CI, 2.12-2.61) per 100 population in 1998 to 3.47 (95% CI, 3.16-3.79) per 100 population in 2015. The proportion of respondents who were treated for depression using psychotherapy decreased from 53.7% (95% CI, 48.3%-59.1%) in 1998 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.0%-47.4%) in 2007 and then increased to 50.4% (95% CI, 46.0%-54.9%) in 2015, whereas the proportion receiving pharmacotherapy remained steady at 81.9% (95% CI, 77.9%-85.9%) in 1998, 82.4% (95% CI, 79.3%-85.4%) in 2007, and 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9%-83.7%) in 2015. After adjusting for inflation using 2015 US dollars, prescription expenditures for these individuals decreased from $848 (95% CI, $713-$984) per year in 1998 to $603 (95% CI, $484-$722) per year in 2015, whereas the mean number of prescriptions decreased from 7.64 (95% CI, 6.61-8.67) in 1998 to 7.03 (95% CI, 6.51-7.56) in 2015. National expenditures for outpatient treatment of depression increased from $12 430 000 000 in 1997 to $15 554 000 000 in 2007 and then to $17 404 000 000 in 2015, consistent with a slowing growth in national outpatient expenditures for depression. The percentage of this spending that came from self-pay (uninsured) individuals decreased from 32% in 1998 to 29% in 2007 and then to 20% in 2015. This decrease was largely associated with increasing Medicaid coverage, because the percentage of this spending covered was 19% in 1998, 15% in 2007, and 36% in 2015. Conclusions and Relevance: Recent policy changes that increased insurance coverage for depression may be associated with reduced uninsured burden and with modest increases in the prevalence of and overall spending for outpatient treatment of depression. The lower-than-expected rate of treatment suggests that substantial barriers remain to individuals receiving treatment for their depression.

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/jamapsychiatry.2019.0633

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Hockenberry, J. M., Joski, P., Yarbrough, C., & Druss, B. G.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Hockenberry, Jason M.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
76
Issue
8
Pages
810
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2942004784
Cited by
122
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5
FWCI
13.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
depression, outpatient care, mental health service utilization, mental health care costs, psychotherapy, antidepressant prescribing, mental health coverage, Medicare, health care costs, treatment trends, United States, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
MeSH terms
Facilities and Services Utilization, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Health Expenditures, Female, Health Services, Humans, Male, Medicaid, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Drug Prescriptions, Psychotherapy, Psychotropic Drugs, United States, Prevalence, Health Care Surveys, Young Adult

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