Cost-effectiveness of integrated behavioral health for depression, anxiety, and chronic pain

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing behavioral health integration (BHI) in primary care vs clinical decision support (usual care) for adult patients with depression and/or anxiety taking chronic opioid therapy for noncancer pain.

Piggyback economic analysis of data collected for 632 adult patients during a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial conducted in a health system in Louisiana between April 2019 and June 2022.

The study used decision tree analysis. The base case modeled study patients and assessed costs associated with interventions, acute care, ambulatory utilization, and prescriptions. Efficacy measures were modeled using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). Sensitivity analyses included 1-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A US-based willingness to pay threshold range of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY was used.

In the base case, the BHI group incurred a cost of $10,489.19 per patient for 1 year compared with $5673.96 for usual care. BHI was associated with 0.0439 QALYs gained, which yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $108,784 per QALY. The BHI group had a MEDD reduction of 7.3 mg/d compared with an increase of 2.0 mg/d among usual care. This translates into an ICER of $513.51 per 1-mg/d reduction. One-way sensitivity analysis and PSA indicated that the cost of prescriptions for both study groups as well as the cost of primary care providers and licensed clinical social workers for the BHI group were the biggest drivers of cost-effectiveness.

BHI was cost-effective from the health system perspective, with reductions in prescription drug expenses being the primary driver of savings.