Comparison of Swiss basic health insurance costs of complementary and conventional medicine.

BACKGROUND: From 1999 to 2005, 5 methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) applied by physicians were provisionally included into mandatory Swiss basic health insurance. Between 2012 and 2017, this will be the case again. Within this process, an evaluation of cost-effectiveness is required. The goal of this study is to compare practice costs of physicians applying CAM with those of physicians applying solely conventional medicine (COM). METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional investigation of claims data of mandatory health insurance. For the years 2002 and 2003, practice costs of 562 primary care physicians with and without a certificate for CAM were analyzed and compared with patient-reported outcomes. Linear models were used to obtain estimates of practice costs controlling for different patient populations and structural characteristics of practices across CAM and COM. RESULTS: Statistical procedures show similar total practice costs for CAM and COM, with the exception of homeopathy with 15.4% lower costs than COM. Furthermore, there were significant differences between CAM and COM in cost structure especially for the ratio between costs for consultations and costs for medication at the expense of basic health insurance. Patients reported better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects in CAM; higher cost-effectiveness for CAM can be deduced from this perspective. CONCLUSION: This study uses a health system perspective and demonstrates at least equal or better cost-effectiveness of CAM in the setting of Swiss ambulatory care. CAM can therefore be seen as a valid complement to COM within Swiss health care.

Molecular medicine: how, what, and when?

Integrating molecular medicine into clinical practice will create many challenges. But the existing genetic testing paradigm may not be the right model for introducing these new technologies.

Integrating molecular medicine into the US health-care system: opportunities, barriers, and policy challenges.

Scientific support about the concept of using molecular data for risk stratification and tailoring health-care interventions to the individual--a strategy broadly defined as molecular medicine (MM)--is accumulating. Molecular-based health-care technologies are beginning to enter clinical practice, but their use has revealed many scientific, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of targeted health care. We conducted a qualitative interview study to describe the MM landscape, with an emphasis on eliciting policy recommendations for the field from a broad range of stakeholders in MM and health care. Molecular medicine has widespread support but will require changes in how molecular-based technologies are evaluated, how health care is financed and delivered, and how clinicians and consumers are trained and prepared for its use. In particular, researchers and developers need to become active participants in a variety of clinical integration strategies to realize the promise of MM.

Biomedicine or holistic medicine for treating mentally ill patients? A philosophical and economical analysis.

Today we have two scientific medical traditions, two schools or treatment systems: holistic medicine and biomedicine. The two traditions are based on two very different philosophical positions: subjectivistic and objectivistic. The philosopher Buber taught us that you can say I-Thou or I-It, holding the other person as a subject or an object. These two fundamentally different attitudes seem to characterize the difference in world view and patient approach in the two schools, one coming from psychoanalysis and the old, holistic tradition of Hippocratic medicine. Holistic medicine during the last decade has developed its philosophical positions and is today an independent, medical system seemingly capable of curing mentally ill patients at the cost of a few thousand Euros with no side effects and with lasting value for the patient. The problem is that very few studies have tested the effect of holistic medicine on mentally ill patients. Another problem is that the effect of holistic medicine must be documented in a way that respects this school's philosophical integrity, allowing for subjective assessment of patient benefit and using the patient as his/her own control, as placebo control cannot be used in placebo-only treatment. As the existing data are strongly in favor of using holistic medicine, which seems to be safer, more efficient, and cheaper, it is recommended that clinical holistic medicine also be used as treatment for mental illness. More research and funding is needed to develop scientific holistic medicine.

A randomized experiment of the effects of including alternative medicine in the mandatory benefit package of health insurance funds in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: The present investigation focuses on the following questions: 1. Are complementary medical services paid for by a health insurer used in addition to orthodox medical services, or as substitute for them?; 2. If health insurers include complementary medical services in the basic cover, what will be the effect on costs?; 3. If complementary medical services as included in the basic cover, what will be the effect on the policyholders' subjective state of health? STUDY DESIGN: A randomized experiment was set up in which 7500 members of Switzerland's biggest health insurance fund, Helvetia, were offered free supplementary insurance for alternative medicine for 3 years. This simulated a situation in which the experimental group had access to the full range of complementary medical treatments under their health insurance policies. The remaining members in the scheme (670,000) people) formed the control group. To evaluate the effect on costs, we analysed the health insurer's cost and benefits data. In addition, a survey was carried out among random samples of subjects from the experimental group and from the control group using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to examine the effects of including complementary medicine on subjective state of health. RESULTS: The analysis of the cost data shown that subjects used alternative in addition to orthodox medical services. It is also clear that alternative medical treatments are given in combination with orthodox medicine; less than 1% of the experimental group used exclusively alternative medical services. However, as only a very small percentage of experimental subjects (6.6%) took advantage of complementary medicine, no significant impact on overall health costs can be inferred. On the other hand, multiple regressions show that use of complementary medicine has a greater effect on treatment costs than sex, age or language region. Neither at the beginning nor the end of the experiment were any significant differences noted in the scales of the SF-36 between the experimental and the control group. Nor did multiple regressions reveal any effects on subjects' state of health due to the inclusion of complementary medicine in the basic insurance cover.

Comparison of work and time estimates by chiropractic physicians with those of medical and osteopathic providers.

BACKGROUND: Resource-based relative value scales (RBRVS) have become a standard method for identifying costs and determining reimbursement for physician services. Development of RBRVS systems and methods are reviewed, and the RBRVS concept of physician "work" is defined. OBJECTIVE: Results of work and time inputs from chiropractic physicians are compared with those reported by osteopathic and medical specialties. Last, implications for reimbursement of chiropractic fee services are discussed. METHODS: Total work, intraservice work, and time inputs for clinical vignettes reported by chiropractic, osteopathic, and medical physicians are compared. Data for chiropractic work and time reports were drawn from a national random sample of chiropractors conducted as part of a 1997 workers' compensation chiropractic fee schedule development project. Medical and osteopathic inputs were drawn from RBRVS research conducted at Harvard University under a federal contract reported in 1990. Both data sets used the same or similar clinical vignettes and similar methods. Comparisons of work and time inputs are made for clinical vignettes to assess whether work reported by chiropractors is of similar magnitude and variability as work reported by other specialties. RESULTS: Chiropractic inputs for vignettes related to evaluation and management services are similar to those reported by medical specialists and osteopathic physicians. The range of variation between chiropractic work input and other specialties is of similar magnitude to that within other specialties. Chiropractors report greater work input for radiologic interpretation and lower work input for manipulation services. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractors seem to perform similar total "work" for evaluation and management services as other specialties. No basis exists for excluding chiropractors from using evaluation and management codes for reimbursement purposes on grounds of dissimilar physician time or work estimates. Greater work input by chiropractors in radiology interpretation may be related to a greater importance placed on findings in care planning. Consistently higher reports for osteopathic work input on manipulation are likely attributable to differences in reference vignettes used in the respective populations. Research with a common reference vignette used for manipulation providers is recommended, as is development of a single generic approach to coding for manipulation services.

Costs and recurrences of chiropractic and medical episodes of low-back care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health insurance payments and patient outcomes for recurrent episodes of care for nine common lumbar and low-back conditions initiated with chiropractic treatment vs. episodes initiated with medical treatment. DATA AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of episodes constructed using 208 ICD-9-CM codes from 2 yr of insurance claims data for a large population of beneficiaries in the private fee-for-service sector. A total of 7077 patients were represented within 9314 episodes of care, of which 8018 episodes were initiated by clearly identified chiropractic or medical physicians. There were 1215 patients with initial physician or chiropractic-initiated episodes who had recurrent episodes. Outcome measures included total insurance payments, total outpatient payments, lengths of initial and recurrent episodes, consistent use of initiating providers for recurrent episodes and time lapsed between episodes. RESULTS: Total insurance payments within and across episodes were substantially greater for medically initiated episodes. Analysis of recurrent episodes as measures of patient outcomes indicated that chiropractic providers retain more patients for subsequent episodes, but that there is no significant difference in lapse time between episodes for chiropractic vs. medical providers. Chiropractic and medical patients were comparable on measures of severity; however, the chiropractic cohort included a greater proportion of chronic cases. CONCLUSION: Patients who "cross over" between providers for multiple episodes are more likely to return to chiropractic providers, which suggests that chronic, recurrent low-back cases may gravitate to chiropractic care over time. The findings from this and related studies point out the importance of appropriately operationalizing cost and outcome variables in analyses of care for conditions such as chronic and/or recurrent low-back pain.

Medical leadership in an era of managed care and continual improvement.

Because clinicians control more than 70% of the total costs of medical care, the success of managed care systems in containing expenditures depends to a large degree on their leadership. Clinicians must make cultural changes and develop core competencies and technical skills to promote the continuous improvement needed for the success of managed care.

Disabling low back Oregon workers' compensation claims. Part III: Diagnostic and treatment procedures and associated costs.

Claimants in Oregon with disabling low back injuries attending chiropractors were found to have more treatments over a longer duration and at greater cost than claimants attending medical physicians with similar clinical presentations. These findings are attributed to: a) a higher proportion of chiropractic claimants than medical physician claimants with low back risk factors which may have adversely affected the course of recovery (chronic or recurrent low back conditions, obesity, extremity symptomatology, frequency of exacerbations); b) differences in age and gender of DC and MD claimants; c) the greater physician-patient contact hours characteristic of chiropractic practice; d) differences in therapeutic modalities employed; and e) the physician reimbursement permitted under Oregon workers' compensation law. The findings of this study emphasize the need for prospective studies of treatment outcome.