Cost evaluation of an innovative outreach clinic across social insurance codes in rural Northern Germany - A routine data analysis.

A community outreach clinic was established in 2013 in a rural part of Germany to counsel and better integrate patients with mental health disorders or clients with psychosocial problems into the healthcare and complementary social assistance system. In a pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the costs of the integration assistance system after the outreach clinic was opened, the number of visits and the trend in the costs of the social assistance system of the federal state. Anonymised secondary cost data were used to evaluate the costs associated with the integration assistance receivers before (2010-2012) and after the establishment of the outreach clinic (2013-2015). Total costs were descriptively compared between the intervention group (consultation in the outreach clinic), the non-referral group, and a propensity score-matched control group for the years 2013-2015. To monitor the counselling activity, we used anonymised data on visits to the outreach clinic between 2013 and 2015. Data from 50 clients in the outreach clinic and 678 non-referral clients were analysed. The total costs of the integration assistance for the years 2013-2015 amounted to EUR 21,516 (95% CI 14,513-28,518) and EUR 28,464 (25,789-31,140) respectively. Propensity score matching of the controls resulted in equalised total costs for the years 2013 through 2015 for clients (n = 50, EUR 21,516 (14,513-28,518)) and controls (n = 250, EUR 21,725 (18,214-25,234)). The total number of integration assistance receivers in the district was lower than the average for the federal state. The number of consultations at the outpatient clinic steadily increased from 146 in 2013 to 1,090 in 2015. Counselling in the outreach clinic might help reduce the placement of clients into integration assistance, including supported housing, and slow the expected cost trend. However, counselling failed to lower total costs in the integration assistance service, possibly due to the selection of more severe cases.

A retrospective cost-analysis of additional homeopathic treatment in Germany: Long-term economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide a long-term cost comparison of patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with patients using usual care (control group) over an observation period of 33 months. METHODS: Health claims data from a large statutory health insurance company were analysed from both the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective (secondary outcome). To compare costs between patient groups, homeopathy and control patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Predictor variables for the propensity scores included health care costs and both medical and demographic variables. Health care costs were analysed using an analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline costs, between groups both across diagnoses and for specific diagnoses over a period of 33 months. Specific diagnoses included depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache. RESULTS: Data from 21,939 patients in the homeopathy group (67.4% females) and 21,861 patients in the control group (67.2% females) were analysed. Health care costs over the 33 months were 12,414 EUR [95% CI 12,022-12,805] in the homeopathy group and 10,428 EUR [95% CI 10,036-10,820] in the control group (p<0.0001). The largest cost differences were attributed to productivity losses (homeopathy: EUR 6,289 [6,118-6,460]; control: EUR 5,498 [5,326-5,670], p<0.0001) and outpatient costs (homeopathy: EUR 1,794 [1,770-1,818]; control: EUR 1,438 [1,414-1,462], p<0.0001). Although the costs of the two groups converged over time, cost differences remained over the full 33 months. For all diagnoses, homeopathy patients generated higher costs than control patients. CONCLUSION: The analysis showed that even when following-up over 33 months, there were still cost differences between groups, with higher costs in the homeopathy group.

Frequency and clinical relevance of potential cytochrome P450 drug interactions in a psychiatric patient population - an analysis based on German insurance claims data.

BACKGROUND: Numerous drugs used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders are substrates of cytochrome P450 enzymes and are potential candidates for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). METHODS: Claims data of a German statutory health insurance company from severely mentally ill patients who registered in an integrated care contract from August 2004 to December 2009 were analysed. We measured time periods of concomitant prescription of drugs that have been reported to interact via cytochrome P450, with a focus on drugs acting as strong inhibitors. Such drug-drug exposure (DDE) is an incontrovertible precursor of DDIs. We assessed whether potential DDIs were considered clinically relevant based on the prescribing information of the respective drugs. RESULTS: Among all 1221 patients, 186 patients (15.2 %; Clopper-Pearson 95 % confidence interval (CI): 13.3-17.4 %) had at least one DDE prescription, and 58 patients (4.8 %; 95 % CI 3.6-6.1) had at least one DDE prescription involving a strong cytochrome P450 inhibitor. In 59 patients, (4.8 %; 95 % CI: 3.7-6.2 %) five or more DDEs were identified, and five or more DDEs with a strong inhibitor were identified in 18 patients (1.5 %; 95 % CI: 0.9-2.3). The rates of DDEs were 0.27 (Garwood 95%CI: 0.25-0.28) per person-year and 0.07 (95 % CI: 0.07-0.08) for strong-inhibitor DDEs. Four of the ten most frequent DDEs were identified as clinically relevant, and seven of the eight most frequent DDEs involving a strong inhibitor were clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with DDEs was not alarmingly high in our sample. Nevertheless, prescription information showed that some prescribed drug combinations could result in serious adverse consequences that are known to weaken or strengthen the effect of the drugs and should therefore be avoided.

Can Additional Homeopathic Treatment Save Costs? A Retrospective Cost-Analysis Based on 44500 Insured Persons.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the health care costs for patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with the costs for those receiving usual care (control group). METHODS: Cost data provided by a large German statutory health insurance company were retrospectively analysed from the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective. Patients in both groups were matched using a propensity score matching procedure based on socio-demographic variables as well as costs, number of hospital stays and sick leave days in the previous 12 months. Total cumulative costs over 18 months were compared between the groups with an analysis of covariance (adjusted for baseline costs) across diagnoses and for six specific diagnoses (depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache). RESULTS: Data from 44,550 patients (67.3% females) were available for analysis. From the societal perspective, total costs after 18 months were higher in the homeopathy group (adj. mean: EUR 7,207.72 [95% CI 7,001.14-7,414.29]) than in the control group (EUR 5,857.56 [5,650.98-6,064.13]; p<0.0001) with the largest differences between groups for productivity loss (homeopathy EUR 3,698.00 [3,586.48-3,809.53] vs. control EUR 3,092.84 [2,981.31-3,204.37]) and outpatient care costs (homeopathy EUR 1,088.25 [1,073.90-1,102.59] vs. control EUR 867.87 [853.52-882.21]). Group differences decreased over time. For all diagnoses, costs were higher in the homeopathy group than in the control group, although this difference was not always statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, additional homeopathic treatment was associated with significantly higher costs. These analyses did not confirm previously observed cost savings resulting from the use of homeopathy in the health care system.