Search

This paper explores the developments and effects of cost-sharing instruments in German social health insurance. It reviews official legislation on cost-sharing in Germany from 1 883 to 2008, and provides a structured literature review on the efficiency and equity of cost-sharing. First introduced in 1923, cost-sharing has become a widespread instrument in social health insurance regulation since the 1980s. Indeed, to contain rapidly increasing costs, some form of cost-sharing is now used in every sector of the German health system. However, these cost-sharing measures have failed to improve allocative efficiency or equity, instead simply increasing the burden of health expenditure on patients, households and employees. That policy makers are declaring these short-term cost-shifting measures to be a success is a particularly worrying trend as it might make such reforms attractive to policy makers in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Europe important differences exist concerning policies for the prevention of common diseases. In most cases these cannot be explained by the underlying epidemiology. However, successful policies should have a measurable effect on disease epidemiology. There has been little research comparing the effect of national preventive policies on disease-specific mortality. Objectives To describe the mortality trends for three health problems representing the three levels of prevention in Germany and in selected European countries, which are of interest for the disease under question. To relate epidemiological trends to preventive policies at the national level and at the level of the European Union (EU). Methods Comparison of age-standardized mortality rates for road traffic accidents, cervical cancer and diabetes mellitus in the period 1970-2002, using routine data. Analysis of disease-specific prevention policies in countries that deviate from the general trend in the EU, with a special focus on developments in Germany. Results The development of mortality rates during the last 30 years for road traffic accidents, cervical cancer and diabetes mellitus varied substantially across Europe. Although the evidence linking specific public policies to epidemiological trends is sparse and often limited to ecological studies, a number of epidemiological changes can be plausibly linked to specific policies in the countries concerned. Conclusions Successful preventive policies exist for all health problems reviewed. The current status of implementation of these policies can only be interpreted in the historical and political context of the countries concerned. The role of epidemiology to guide health policy decisions is under-utilized, as is the regulatory framework for disease and injury prevention at the level of the EU. Less formal policy measures such as European clinical guidelines are equally scarce. More rigorous comparative health services research is needed to formulate evidence-based policies for disease prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the effectiveness and cost of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in a nationwide German cohort of patients with schizophrenia. The study sample consisted of patients insured with 4 sickness funds (n = 8,610) who were followed up for 12 months after hospital discharge with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 2003. Multivariate regression models were fitted to assess the relationship between outcome variables (rehospitalization, bed-days, prescriptions against adverse effects, cost) and medication type, sex, age, and severity. Severity was assessed by prior bed-days due to schizophrenia during 2000 to 2002. Risk of rehospitalization did not differ between groups but within each group severity (P = 0.0003). Males (P = 0.0016) and patients younger than 35 years (P < 0.0001) had a higher risk of rehospitalization. Number of bed-days was lower for treatment with typicals compared with atypicals (P < 0.0001); furthermore, bed-days depended on severity of disease (P < 0.0001). Prescriptions of drugs against extrapyramidal symptoms, anxiety, and agitation were higher for patients treated with typicals (P < 0.0001 for each). Mean predicted treatment cost per year was € 6442 for atypicals versus € 4443 for typicals (P < 0.0001). This study does not support unconditional superiority of atypicals over typicals, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost.

Background: In two recent randomised clinical trials, a meta-analysis and in an effectiveness study analysing routine data from the U.S. Veterans Administration the superiority of the newer atypical drugs over typical antipsychotic drugs, concerning both their efficacy and their side-effect profile, has been questioned., Aims of the Study: To analyse the effectiveness and cost of atypical versus typical antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia in routine care., Methods: Cohort study using routine care data from a statutory sickness fund with 5.4 million insured in Germany. To be included, patients had to be discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 2003 and fulfil membership criteria. Main outcome measures were rehospitalisation rates, mean hospital bed days, mean length of stay, cost of inpatient and pharmaceutical care to the sickness fund during follow-up and medication used to treat side-effects., Results: 3121 patients were included into the study. There were no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotics on rehospitalisation during follow-up (rehospitalisation rate ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.33). However, there were consistent observations of atypical antipsychotics being more effective for severe cases of schizophrenia (14.6% of study population; >61 prior bed days per year in 2000-2002) in the follow-up period, whereas for the other severity strata typical antipsychotics seemed more effective in reducing various rehospitalisation outcomes. Patients treated with atypical antipsychotics received significantly less prescriptions for anticholinergics or tiaprid (relative risk 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.38)., Discussion: The effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia on rehospitalisation measures appeared similar to that of typical antipsychotics. With the exception of severe cases, the higher costs for atypical antipsychotics were not offset by savings from reduced inpatient care. Major limitations include the lack of statistical power for subgroup analyses, the lack of clinical severity scale data and of life-course medical history data which both increase the risk of residual confounding by disease severity., Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotics measured in terms of hospital readmissions appears to be similar in routine care., Implications for Health Care Provision and Use: From a clinical perspective, this study provides evidence that the effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotics measured in terms of hospital readmissions appears to be similar in routine care., Implications for Health Policies: Routine data studies can yield valuable information for policy decision-makers on the costs and the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals in routine care, complementing efficacy data from randomised clinical trials currently used for licensing and reimbursement decisions., Implications for Further Research: The non-significant differences in the effectiveness of atypical compared to typical antipsychotics according to severity of disease should be investigated in a prospective observational study or in a randomised clinical trial.