Search

Objective: Is the simple mean of the costs per diabetes patient a suitable tool with which to compare care groups? Do the total costs of care per diabetes patient really give the best insight into care group performance?, Design: Cross-sectional, multi-level study., Method: The 2009 insurance claims of 104,544 diabetes patients managed by care groups in the Netherlands were analysed. The data were obtained from Vektis care information centre. For each care group we determined the mean costs per patient of all the curative care and diabetes-specific hospital care using the simple mean method, then repeated it using the 'generalized linear mixed model'. We also calculated for which proportion the differences found could be attributed to the care groups themselves., Results: The mean costs of the total curative care per patient were €3,092 - €6,546; there were no significant differences between care groups. The mixed model method resulted in less variation (€2,884 - €3,511), and there were a few significant differences. We found a similar result for diabetes-specific hospital care and the ranking position of the care groups proved to be dependent on the method used. The care group effect was limited, although it was greater in the diabetes-specific hospital costs than in the total costs of curative care (6.7% vs. 0.4%)., Conclusion: The method used to benchmark care groups carries considerable weight. Simply stated, determining the mean costs of care (still often done) leads to an overestimation of the differences between care groups. The generalized linear mixed model is more accurate and yields better comparisons. However, the fact remains that 'total costs of care' is a faulty indicator since care groups have little impact on them. A more informative indicator is 'costs of diabetes-specific hospital care' as these costs are more influenced by care groups.

Objective: To map initiatives in the Netherlands using a population-targeted approach to link prevention, care and welfare., Design: Descriptive investigation, based on conversations and structured interviews., Method: We searched for initiatives in which providers in the areas of prevention, care and welfare together with health insurers and/or local authorities attempted to provide the 'triple aim': improving the health of the population and the quality of care, and managing costs. We found potential initiatives on the basis of interviews with key figures, project databases and congress programmes. We looked for additional information on websites and via contact persons to gather additional information to determine whether the initiative met the inclusion criteria. An initiative should link prevention, care and welfare with a minimum of three players actively pursuing a population-targeted goal through multiple interventions for a non-disease specific and district-transcending population. We described the goal, organisational structure, parties involved, activities and funding on the basis of interviews conducted in the period August-December 2015 with the managers of the initiatives included., Results: We found 19 initiatives which met the criteria where there was experimentation with organisational forms, levels of participation, interventions and funding. It was noticeable that the interventions mostly concerned medical care. There was a lack of insight into the 'triple aim', mostly because data exchange between parties is generally difficult., Conclusion: There is an increasing number of initiatives that follow a population-targeted approach. Although the different parties strive to connect the three domains, they are still searching for an optimal collaboration, organisational form, data exchange and financing.

Objective: To present an overview of the prevalence of multimorbidity and comorbidity of chronic diseases in the Dutch population., Design: Data analysis., Methods: Data from the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH), a large representative network of general practices over a period of 7 years (2002-2008) were analysed. Multimorbidity was defined as a patient having been diagnosed with two or more of 29 chronic diseases in the general practitioner's electronic medical records system. The prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity was calculated for the total population and subsequently by sex and age groups. For the 10 most prevalent diseases in the elderly, clustering and comorbidity of chronic diseases in patients 55 years and older were analysed., Results: Almost 13% of the total Dutch population and 37% of patients 55 years and older had 2 or more chronic diseases. More than 70% of the patients aged 55 years and older who had 1 of the 10 specific chronic diseases also had an additional chronic disease. Most disease pairs occurred more frequently than expected based on independency (clustering), particularly the combinations depression and anxiety disorder, coronary heart disease and heart failure, and COPD and heart failure. The five most common combinations of conditions associated with a certain disease concerned only a limited portion (30%) of all disease comorbidity. This means that 70% of patients with a chronic disease had 1 or more additional diseases not included in the 5 most frequently occurring diseases., Conclusion: Multimorbidity was identified in over two-thirds of the elderly with frequently occurring chronic diseases. Comorbidity encompassed many different combinations of chronic diseases. In light of an ageing population, multimorbidity should increasingly be taken into account when delivering healthcare, in medical research and in defining healthcare policies.

Objective: To estimate the number of people with diagnosed diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands in 2007 using a new method; to describe trends in the past; to predict the situation in 2025., Design: Model calculations., Methods: Based on five general practice records (Nijmegen Continuous Morbidity Registration [CMR], Netherlands Information Network of General Practice [LINH], Limburg Family Practice Registration Network [RNH-Limburg], Registration Network University Family Practices, Leiden and its environs [RNUH-LEO], and the transition project) the prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes in the Netherlands in 2007 was estimated. Trends in the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes were estimated from the five records over the period 2000-2007. The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in 2025 was estimated using the Dutch Chronic Diseases Model, which takes into account demographic developments and a further increase in obesity in the Netherlands in the future., Results: In 2007, 740,000 persons (95% CI: 665,000-824,000) with diabetes were undergoing care. The incidence of new diabetes during 2007 was 71,000 (95% CI: 57,000-90,000). The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes increased by almost 80% in 2000-2007. The model projection resulted in an estimate of 1.3 million people with diagnosed diabetes in 2025, i.e. 8% of the Dutch population. There is a high level of uncertainty about these estimates., Conclusion: The increase in the number of diabetes patients in 2025 has consequences for care and will require measures to be taken in coming years in the areas of prevalence and care organisation.

A consistent estimate of the prevalence, mortality and incidence of diabetes mellitus type II in the Netherlands was obtained by combining data from several sources using statistical and modelling techniques. In the Netherlands, the prevalence of diabetes in the age-group 30-74 years is 2.7-3.2%. The prevalence increases with age: for men by 7% per year of age and for women by almost 8% per year of age. This age-related increase will give rise to a 36% increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the period 1993-2010. Diabetic patients account for 12% of the total mortality in men and 18% in women; in 2.5% and 5% of the cases respectively, diabetes is the cause of mortality. If this excess mortality could be eliminated then the life expectancy for men with diabetes would increase by 4.7 years at the age of 45 and for women the corresponding increase would be 6.3 years. The estimated incidence per year increases from 8 per 10,000 men (7 for women) in the age group 40-44 years to 80 per 10,000 men (86 for women) in the age group 75-79 years.

Diabetes mellitus type II is a major clinical and public health problem and is therefore a candidate for several primary and secondary preventive strategies. Further research on the effects and side effects of both types of prevention is required before it is possible to accurately determine which prevention strategy is most suitable. Research into primary prevention should not only focus on the effect of the strategy on diabetes itself, but also on its complications. With respect to diabetic screening, it is advisable to investigate the cost-effectiveness of several screening strategies. As opportunistic screening is becoming the predominant current practice, a cost-effectiveness study of screening strategies should be started in the short term due to increasing difficulties in selecting a control group.