ArticleThe American journal of managed care2026
Cost-effectiveness of integrated behavioral health for depression, anxiety, and chronic pain.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03889418 (Opioid Treatment and Recovery Through a Safe Pain Management Program), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Opioid Treatment and Recovery Through a Safe Pain Management Program
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo 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. STUDY
designPiggyback 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionsBHI was cost-effective from the health system perspective, with reductions in prescription drug expenses being the primary driver of savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.