Comparative cost analysis of inpatient integrative medicine—Results of a pilot study

Ostermann, T; Lauche, R; Cramer, H; Dobos, G

Comparative cost analysis of inpatient integrative medicine—Results of a pilot study

Ostermann, T Lauche, R

Cramer, H Dobos, G

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2017, 32 pp. 129 - 133
Issue Date:: 2017-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Comparative cost analysis of inpatient integrative medicine—Results of a pilot study.pdf	Published Version	387.19 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ostermann, T	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lauche, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4171-7935	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cramer, H	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dobos, G	en_US
dc.date.available	2016-11-27	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2017, 32 pp. 129 - 133	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0965-2299	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/114710
dc.description.abstract	© 2016 Elsevier Ltd Background Costs of integrative treatment alone and in comparison with other treatment approaches have scarcely been reported in the past. This study presents results of a comparative cost analysis of an inpatient integrative medicine treatment costs. Methods Data from 2006 for inpatients referred to a Department of Integrative Medicine in Germany were used. Case-related treatment costs were calculated, and transformed into Casemix-Indices and revenues per DRG. Costs were compared between departments at the same hospital and between different hospitals using univariate statistics and Chi-Square tests. Results In total 1253 inpatients (81.4% female, 61.1 ± 14.4 years) were included in the current analysis. Most patients were treated for diseases of the musculoskeletal system (57.2%), followed by diseases of the digestive system (11.4%), and diseases of the nervous system (10.4%). The department received an additional payment for most of the patients (88.0%), which led to an effective appreciation of 10.8% per case compared to the standardized Casemix-Index. In-house comparisons with other departments found the department in close vicinity to the departments of Internal medicine with regards to CMI and mean revenue, however the Patient Clinical Complexity Level was significantly lower in the Integrative medicine department. The interhospital comparison revealed comparable Casemix-Index and DRG-revenue, however the additional payment increased the mean revenue significantly. Conclusion Modern integrative in-patient treatment is mostly cost-equivalent to conventional treatment. Cost effectiveness studies should be considered to further investigate the potential of integrative in patient treatment.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Complementary Therapies in Medicine	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ctim.2016.11.009	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Complementary & Alternative Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Cohort Studies	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pilot Projects	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Inpatients	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Cost-Benefit Analysis	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Germany	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Integrative Medicine	en_US
dc.title	Comparative cost analysis of inpatient integrative medicine—Results of a pilot study	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	32	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	32	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd Background Costs of integrative treatment alone and in comparison with other treatment approaches have scarcely been reported in the past. This study presents results of a comparative cost analysis of an inpatient integrative medicine treatment costs. Methods Data from 2006 for inpatients referred to a Department of Integrative Medicine in Germany were used. Case-related treatment costs were calculated, and transformed into Casemix-Indices and revenues per DRG. Costs were compared between departments at the same hospital and between different hospitals using univariate statistics and Chi-Square tests. Results In total 1253 inpatients (81.4% female, 61.1 ± 14.4 years) were included in the current analysis. Most patients were treated for diseases of the musculoskeletal system (57.2%), followed by diseases of the digestive system (11.4%), and diseases of the nervous system (10.4%). The department received an additional payment for most of the patients (88.0%), which led to an effective appreciation of 10.8% per case compared to the standardized Casemix-Index. In-house comparisons with other departments found the department in close vicinity to the departments of Internal medicine with regards to CMI and mean revenue, however the Patient Clinical Complexity Level was significantly lower in the Integrative medicine department. The interhospital comparison revealed comparable Casemix-Index and DRG-revenue, however the additional payment increased the mean revenue significantly. Conclusion Modern integrative in-patient treatment is mostly cost-equivalent to conventional treatment. Cost effectiveness studies should be considered to further investigate the potential of integrative in patient treatment.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/114710