[How does the Regional Psychiatry Budget (RPB) work in an area with initially low capacity of psychiatric hospital beds?]. / Wie wirkt das Regionale Psychiatriebudget (RPB) in einer Region mit initial niedriger Bettenmessziffer?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of a capitated multi-sector-financing model for psychiatric care (RPB) in the model region Rendsburg-Eckernförde on costs and effectiveness of care. METHODS: In a prospective controlled cohort study 244 patients with a diagnosis according to ICD-10: F10, F2 or F3 were interviewed in the model region (MR) and compared to 244 patients from a control region (CR) financed according to the fee-for-service principle. At baseline, 1.5 years and 3.5 years follow-up patients were interviewed using measures of psychopathology (CGI-S, HONOS, SCL-90 R/GSI, PANSS, BRMAS/BRMES), functioning (GAF, SOFAS), quality of life (EQ-5 D) and service use/costs (CSSRI). RESULTS: Subjective symptom severity (GSI) and functioning (GAF) developed more favourably in the MR than in the CR, the HONOS score developed slightly worse in the MR. The latter effect occurred mainly in ICD-10: F10 patients, while patients with F2/3 rather did benefit under RPB conditions. The development of total costs of care was not different between MR and CR. The potential to reduce costs of in-patient care was low due to the initially low capacity of inpatient beds. CONCLUSIONS: The RPB did not reduce the total costs of mental health care, but certain diagnosis groups may benefit from improved trans-sectoral treatment flexibility.

Accuracy of self-reports of mental health care utilization and calculated costs compared to hospital records.

Assessments of service utilization is often based on self-reports. Concerns regarding the accuracy of self-reports are raised especially in mental health care. The purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy of self-reports and calculated costs of mental health services. In a prospective cohort study in Germany, self-reports regarding psychiatric inpatient and day-care use collected by telephone interviews based on the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI) as well as calculated costs were compared to computerized hospital records. The sample consisted of patients with mental and behavioral disorders resulting from alcohol (ICD-10 F10, n=84), schizophrenia, schizophrenic and delusional disturbances (F2, n=122) and affective disorders (F3, n=124). Agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), mean difference (95% confidence intervals (CI)) and the 95% limits of agreement. Predictors for disagreement were derived. Overall agreement of mean total costs was excellent (CCC=0.8432). Costs calculated based on self-reports were higher than costs calculated based on hospital records (15 EUR (95% CI -434 to 405)). Overall agreement of total costs for F2 patients was CCC=0.8651, for F3 CCC=0.7850 and for F10 CCC=0.6180. Depending on type of service, measure of service utilization and costs agreement ranged from excellent to poor and varied substantially between individuals. The number of admissions documented in hospital records was significantly associated with disagreement. Telephone interviews can be an accurate data collection method for calculating mean total costs in mental health care. In the future more standardization is needed.

[The regional psychiatry budget (RPB): a model for a new payment system of hospital based mental health care services]. / Das Regionale Psychiatriebudget (RPB): Ein Modell für das neue pauschalierende Entgeltsystem psychiatrischer Krankenhausleistungen?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of a capitated multi-sector-financing model for psychiatric care (RPB) on costs and effectiveness of care. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis according to ICD-10 F10, F2 or F3 were interviewed in the model region (MR, n = 258) and a control region (CR, n = 244) financed according to the fee-for-service principle. At baseline, 1.5 years and 3.5 years follow-up patients were interviewed using measures of psychopathology (CGI-S, HoNOS, SCL-90R, PANSS, BRMAS / BRMES), functioning (GAF, SOFAS) and quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF, EQ-5D). Use of care was determined semi-annually. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the development of psychopathology and quality of life between MR and CR. In the MR, functioning of patients with schizophrenia and affective disorders improved significantly more strongly. The development of total mental health care costs was not different between MR and CR. However, the costs of office based mental health care increased slightly more strongly in the MR, indicating a small cost-shift from the RPB to extrabudgetary financed services. CONCLUSIONS: The RPB showed slight advantages regarding the effectiveness of care and did not significantly change the total mental health care costs.