Better care for less money: cost-effectiveness of integrated care in multi-episode patients with severe psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-effectiveness of integrated care with therapeutic assertive community treatment (IC-TACT) versus standard care (SC) in multiple-episode psychosis. METHOD: Twelve-month IC-TACT in patients with schizophrenia-spectrum and bipolar I disorders were compared with a historical control group. Primary outcomes were entropy-balanced cost-effectiveness based on mental healthcare costs from a payers' perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a measure of health effects during 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in IC-TACT (n = 214) had significantly higher illness severity and lower functioning than SC (n = 56). Over 12 months, IC-TACT had significantly lower days in inpatient (10.3 ± 20.5 vs. 28.2 ± 44.9; P = 0.005) and day-clinic care (2.6 ± 16.7 vs. 16.4 ± 33.7; P = 0.004) and correspondingly lower costs (€-55 084). Within outpatient care, IC-TACT displayed a higher number of treatment contacts (116.3 ± 45.3 vs. 15.6 ± 6.3) and higher related costs (€+1417). Both resulted in lower total costs in IC-TACT (mean difference = €-13 248 ± 2975, P < 0.001). Adjusted incremental QALYs were significantly higher for IC-TACT versus SC (+0.10 ± 0.37, P = 0.05). The probability of cost-effectiveness of IC-TACT was constantly higher than 99%. CONCLUSION: IC-TACT was cost-effective compared with SC. The use of prima facies 'costly' TACT teams is highly recommended to improve outcomes and save total cost for patients with severe psychotic disorders.

Early detection and integrated care for adolescents and young adults with psychotic disorders: the ACCESS III study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate whether a combined intervention composed of early detection plus integrated care (EDIC) enhances outcomes in patients with early psychosis compared to standard care (SC). METHODS: ACCESS III is a prospective non-randomized historical control design 1-year study examining the efficacy of EDIC (n = 120) vs. SC (n = 105) in patients aged 12-29 years. Primary outcome was the rate of ≥6 months combined symptomatic and functional remission. Additional outcomes comprised the reduction of DUP and course of psychopathology, functioning, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: In observed cases, 48.9% in the EDIC and 15.2% in the SC group reached the primary endpoint. Remission was predicted by EDIC (OR = 6.8, CI: 3.15-14.53, P < 0.001); younger age predicted non-remission (OR = 1.1, CI: 1.01-1.19, P = 0.038). Linear regressions indicated a reduction of DUP in EDIC (P < 0.001), but not in SC (P = 0.41). MMRMs showed significantly larger improvements in PANSS positive (P < 0.001) and GAF (P < 0.01) scores in EDIC vs. SC, and in EDIC over time in CGI-Severity (P < 0.001) and numerically in Q-LES-Q-18 (P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: EDIC lead to significantly higher proportions of patients achieving combined remission. Moderating variables included a reduction of DUP and EDIC, offering psychotherapeutic interventions.

[Integrated care for patients with first and multiple episodes of severe psychotic illnesses: 3-year results of the Hamburg model]. / Integrierte Versorgung für erst- und mehrfacherkrankte Patienten mit schweren psychotischen Erkrankungen : 3-Jahres-Ergebnisse des Hamburger Modells.

BACKGROUND: The so-called "Hamburg model" is a designated integrated care model according to § 140 of the Social Code Book (SGB) V for psychosis patients fulfilling the definition of severe mental illness (SMI). OBJECTIVES: Description of the model and evaluation of efficacy of all patients being treated for ≥ 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Service entry illness status, course of illness, and interventions were assessed within a continuous quality assurance study. One hundred and fifty-eight patients who fulfilled the criterion of being treated for ≥ 3 years were analyzed. RESULTS: At service entry, SMI were among others mirrored by a high level of psychopathology (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS]: 80.3) and severity of illness (Clinical Global Impression Severity [CGI-S]/Clinical Global Impression Bipolar scales [CGI-BP]: 5.8), low functioning level (Global Assessment of Functioning scale [GAF]: 35.9), and high rates of comorbid psychiatric (94.3 %) and somatic (81.6 %) disorders. Only 8 patients (5.1 %) disengaged from the service within the 3-year treatment period. The course of the illness over 3 years showed significant and stable improvements in psychopathology (BPRS: p < 0.001), the severity of illness (CGI-S/CGI-BP: p < 0.001), functioning (GAF: p < 0.001), quality of life (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire [Q-LES-Q-18]: p < 0.001), and satisfaction with care (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [CSQ-8]: 2.0 to 3.3; p = 0.164; nonsignificant because of early improvements). Further, compulsory admissions were reduced and medication adherence in addition to working ability improved (all p < 0.001). Data on interventions showed a continuously high frequency of outpatient interventions over time (on average 112.0 per year), a high percentage of patients in psychotherapy (67 %), and a nearly 90 % reduction in inpatient treatment days from year 1 to year 3. CONCLUSION: Integrated care in severely ill patients with psychotic disorders leads to multidimensional illness improvement and stabilization by offering intensive outpatient care.