Women and Depression - Stoicism or Neglect?

Are women with depression more stoic than men, or are men just getting preferential treatment?

According to the National Institute on Mental Health, women are 70 percent more likely than men to experience depression during their lifetime.  Depression hits women harder than men in nearly every age group.

But if some fascinating data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are any indication, we also spend a lot less on treating them than we do men.   

Are women more stoic, or are we just neglecting their mental health needs?

The data that shed some disturbing light on this subject come from the CMS Chronic Conditions Public Use Files.  These files include data for every 2010 Medicare beneficiary – approximately 48 million people.

In 2010, according to the CMS data, 9296 men between the ages of 65 and 69 who were newly-enrolled in Medicare Part B had depression and no other chronic condition.  And so did many more newly-enrolled women in the same age group - 23953 to be exact.

Medicare spent an average of $4650 (Part A, Part B, and Part D combined) on newly-eligible and enrolled 65-69 year old men with depression.  But it spent an average of only $4010 on women with depression in the same age group. 

In other words, Medicare spent 16 percent more on the men than it did on the women.

It is possible that those first-year data were an anomaly.  After all, they represented an average of just seven months of coverage.  It is possible that the men just got earlier, more aggressive treatment for depression when they first enrolled in Medicare, and that the women caught up later on in the year.

But this wasn’t the case.  When I looked at men and women in the same age group who had a full year of Medicare coverage in 2010, the disparity persisted. 

The numbers were just bigger.  There were around 35,000 men and over 85,000 women enrolled in both Parts A and B, and around half those numbers in Part D.  And we did spend more on women with depression - $5761 on average.  But we spent $6386 – or 11 percent more than that – on men.

The difference could be explained in part because men got more hospital-based care.  Medicare spent almost 50 percent more on Part A services, on average, for men.  But it still spent more on their Part B (physician/community) and Part D (prescription drug) care, too.

And here’s the interesting thing – the disparity seemed to persist as men and women aged.

I looked fifteen years down the road, at the 80-84 year old population.  Because women live longer, there were around three times as many women with depression in this age group as there were men.  But we were still spending more on the men.

Among 80-84 year olds with depression and no other chronic condition, Medicare spent 14 percent more overall on men than it did on women – an average of $7141 versus $6247.

And the disparity in spending also persisted when men and women had depression plus certain other chronic conditions – Alzheimer’s Disease and related disorders, and diabetes.

For example, Medicare paid out 23 percent more in first-year care for a 65-69 year old male with depression plus Alzheimer’s Disease or other dementia than it did for a 65-69 year old woman with the same two diseases.  And the difference over a full year was still 10 percent.

And Medicare paid out 34 percent more in the first-year care for a 65-69 year old male with depression plus diabetes than it did for a 65-69 year old woman with same two diseases.  And while that vast difference narrowed over a full year, it was still 7 percent.

These differences also persisted as people aged.  In the 80-84 age group, Medicare paid 22 percent more for men with depression plus diabetes than it did for women, and 7 percent more for depression plus dementia than it did for women.

This disparity cannot be explained away by suggesting that the men might also have other chronic conditions complicating their cases.  These are equivalent groups – neither the men nor the women had any other diagnoses at the time.

So as we enter another Mental Health Month and strive to strip away the stigma and misconceptions related to mental illnesses, perhaps one question we should be asking ourselves is this. 

Is stoicism or stigma the reason we spend less on mental health care for women with depression?

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

Denying the Inevitable

If 243 members of Congress knew that they were going to develop Alzheimer’s Disease or related dementia, would it change the way they make Medicaid and long term care policy?

Or would they continue to deny the inevitable?

When Congress convened in 2011, the average age of a House member was 57, and the average age of a senator was 62.   They were approaching the prime years for dementia.

If you don’t already have Alzheimer’s Disease or related dementia by the time you turn 65, then your chances of developing it between the ages of 65 and 74 are greater than one in 20.  Your chances of developing it between the ages of 75 and 84 are almost one in 7.  And after that your chances of developing it are one in 4.

At today’s prevalence rates, 28 members of Congress will develop dementia between the ages of 65 and 74, 91 between the ages of 75 and 84, and 124 later on.

The only thing that will change this trajectory is if they die sooner of something else.

If I were a younger elected official today, this might get might attention, and it also might get my attention that the number of people with dementia will increase from 5.2 million today to at least 11 million during my lifetime.

Representative Aaron Schock of Illinois and Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida all fit this bill.  They were the youngest members of their respective chambers (at 39, Senator Lee was a week younger than Senator Rubio), and they had remaining life expectancies of at least 40 years. 

So while we might forgive 87-year old Representative Ralph Hall of Texas and Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey if they feel they don’t always have the luxury of taking the long view in policy-making, we should wonder a little more about Senators Lee and Rubio and Representative Schock.

They are all likely to be around when the fruits of their recent healthcare work ripen over the coming decades. 

And they may find some of them especially bitter.  

According to the Alzheimer’s Association publication 2012 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, the cost of caring for people with Alzheimer’s Disease and other dementias – in today’s dollars – will increase from $200 billion to $1.1 trillion per year by 2050.

These $1.1 trillion are not inflated by forty years of GDP growth or the increased costs of medicine.  They represent what dementia will cost us down the road even with no inflation simply because there are more of us and we’re living longer lives.

Dementia is an adversary worthy of battle at the highest levels of government.  But neither Senator Lee nor Senator Rubio nor Representative Schock mentions it on his website. 

Instead, Senator Lee champions what he calls “saving the American dream,” which rolls back Medicaid funding to 2007 levels and caps it there.  Senator Rubio has endorsed the same approach.  Medicaid currently pays $36 billion a year of the $200 billion cost of care for people with dementia.  Under Senator Lee’s plan, it will pay even less than that toward the $1.1 trillion cost of care in 2050.

And Representative Schock goes one step further.  He touts a bipartisan effort last year to repeal the CLASS Act, which ironically would have offered private insurance for dementia-related care to take some of the burden off Medicare and Medicaid.

Dementia hits close to home for all of us.  A member of our family has it, and it has been progressing relentlessly for several years.  This is a pretty scary thing to witness.  It’s like watching a blackboard filled with facts and figures being erased, one giant sweep at a time, until all the information fades.

Senator Lee wants to save the American dream, but does he really want to do it by substituting a national nightmare of disease with no relief?  And whose dreams is he really saving?  Not the ones of our family members with dementia, nor the ones of their caregivers who already shoulder so much of the burden, nor even the ones of the 243 members of Congress who may someday join the ranks of those with dementia. 

Senator Lee, Senator Rubio, and Representative Schock are, of course, entitled to pursue the policies they choose.  But I hope they will never say that no one could have foreseen what they chose to ignore.

If you have questions about this column or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.