Cost-Utility Analysis of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Major Depressive Disorder in an Occupational Healthcare Setting

Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were a,not sign3,874 (95 % CI a,not sign2,778-a,not sign5,718) compared to a,not sign4,583 (95 % CI a,not sign3,108-a,not sign6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY's) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.