[Does the Innovation Fund Improve Healthcare Provision? A Critical Assessment of the Status of Implementing Successful Innovation Fund Projects into Healthcare Practice]. / Verbessert der Innovationsfonds die Versorgung? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme zum Stand der Implementierung erfolgreicher Innovationsfondsprojekte in die Versorgungspraxis.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)'s Innovation Fund has been supporting projects in health services research and new health service models ("Neue Versorgungsformen", NVF). By the end of 2022, 211 projects in the NVF category had been funded. A key objective is the transfer of successful projects into standard care. This article analyzes previous projects regarding their incorporation into routine care based on transfer recommendations of the Innovation Fund Committee ("Innovationsausschuss" IA). METHOD: Descriptive analysis of all projects completed by August 1, 2023 with transfer recommendations in the "NVF" funding stream. Presentation by topic, project duration, time until IA transfer decision, categorization, and number of institutions and organizations (recipients) addressed per project, their feedback published on the G-BA website, response rates per recipient group, and a content classification and interpretation of exemplary feedback. Recommendations based on the results and their discussion in an expert workshop. RESULTS: Out of 57 NVF projects, 17 had a transfer recommendation. A total of 57 feedback responses were received from a total of 431 recipients addressed by the IA across these projects. Response rates varied significantly. One-third of inquiries to the G-BA and its member organizations received a response (31%), while only every fifth inquiry to federal states (18%) and professional societies (18%) got a response. Less than one in ten inquiries to the Federal Ministry of Health (8%), administrative bodies (6%), and the German Medical Association (0%) received a response. Project-specific feedback within a recipient group was often contradictory or limited to regional scope. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The transfer process reveals significant structural and procedural obstacles regarding the incorporation of projects evaluated as successful into routine health care. To ensure that funding from the innovation fund is most effectively used, there needs to be a realistic chance of successful transfer of positive project outcomes into routine care. The DNVF recommends stronger involvement of rule-competent institutions, mandatory publication of responses, structured moderation of the transfer process, expanding types of selective contracts, financing of implementation phases and of studies drawing on results across successful NVF projects.

[Chronic pain in children and adolescents: an economic perspective]. / Chronischer Schmerz bei Kindern und Jugendlichen: eine ökonomische Betrachtung.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a frequent and disabling health problem in children and adolescents and is associated with high health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the direct and indirect costs of chronic pain in children and adolescents in monetary terms before and after multimodal pain therapy from a societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health care costs 12 months before and after multimodal pain therapy include direct costs from statutory health insurances and parents as well as indirect costs due to working days lost. RESULTS: Direct median costs before multimodal treatment were 5619 € (min-max: 377-35,509 €) per year. In the year after pain therapy, costs decreased to a median of 3262 € (min-max: 142-42,910 €) (p = 0.001). In all, 55% of patients showed a significant cost reduction, while 18% had a cost increase. CONCLUSIONS: An effective multimodal pain therapy may reduce health care costs in children and adolescents. Further economic studies are needed to evaluate long-term effects of pain therapy for children and adolescents with chronic pain in a controlled design.