Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen im Rahmen von psychenet

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen des Hamburger Netzes psychische Gesundheit (psychenet) wird die Kosteneffektivität von neuen Versorgungsmodellen evaluiert, die sich an dem Konzept der Collaborative Care orientieren. Neben einem Überblick über die in der internationalen Literatur verfügbare Evidenz zur Kosteneffektivität von Collaborative Care beschreibt der vorliegende Beitrag die Zielsetzung und Methodik der im Rahmen von psychenet durchgeführten Kosteneffektivitätsanalysen. Der Nachweis der Kosteneffektivität soll die Übernahme entsprechender Versorgungsmodelle in die Regelversorgung befördern.

Abstract

Within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health, cost-effectiveness analyses of collaborative care models are conducted. After providing an overview of the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for mental disorders, this article describes the rationale, aims and methods of the cost-effectiveness analyses conducted within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health. Proof of cost-effectiveness is expected to promote the transfer of collaborative care models into routine care.

Schlüsselwörter

Collaborative Care - gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation - Kosteneffektivität - psychische Krankheiten - psychenet

Keywords

collaborative care - cost-effectiveness - economic evaluation - mental disorders - psychenet

• Literatur

• 1 Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Total Cost of Illness in millions of Euro. Classification: years, gender, ICD10, provider (21.01.2015). Im Internet: https://www.gbe-bund.de/ (Stand: 21.01.2015)
• 2 Konnopka A, Leichsenring F, Leibing E et al. Cost-of-illness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses in anxiety disorders: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2009; 114: 14-31
• 3 Luppa M, Heinrich S, Angermeyer MC et al. Cost-of-illness studies of depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2007; 98: 29-43
• 4 Konnopka A, Schaefert R, Heinrich S et al. Economics of Medically Unexplained Symptoms: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Psychother Psychosom 2012; 81: 265-275
• 5 Konnopka A, Klingberg S, Wittorf A et al. The cost of schizophrenia in Germany: a systematic review of the literature. Psychiat Prax 2009; 36: 211-218
• 6 Konnopka A, Stuhldreher N, Klingberg S et al. Determinanten direkter Kosten bei persistierender Positivsymptomatik psychotischer Erkrankungen. Psychiat Prax 2014; 41: 215-220
• 7 Barrett B, Byford S, Knapp M. Evidence of cost-effective treatments for depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2005; 84: 1-13
• 8 Basu A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacological treatments in schizophrenia: critical review of results and methodological issues. Schizophr Res 2004; 71: 445-462
• 9 Brettschneider C, Djadran H, Härter M et al. Cost-utility analyses of cognitive-behavioural therapy of depression: A Systematic Review. Psychother Psychosom 2014; 24; 84: 6-21
• 10 Van Steenbergen-Weijenburg KM, Van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Horn EK et al. Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 19
• 11 König HH, Heider D, Rechlin T et al. Wie wirkt das Regionale Psychiatrie-budget (RPB) in einer Region mit initial niedriger Bettenmessziffer? Evaluation des RPB in Rendsburg-Eckernförde. Psychiat Prax 2013; 40: 430-438
• 12 Lambert M, Bock T, Daubmann A et al. Integrierte Versorgung von Patienten mit psychotischen Erkrankungen nach dem Hamburger Modell: Teil 1. Psychiat Prax 2014; 41: 257-265
• 13 Härter M, Kentgens M, Brandes A et al. Rationale and content of psychenet: the Hamburg Network for Mental Health. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2012; 262 (Suppl. 02) S57-63
• 14 Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E et al. Collaborative Management to Achieve Treatment Guidelines. Impact on Depression in Primary Care. JAMA 1995; 273: 1026-1031
• 15 Barkil-Oteo A. Collaborative Care for Depression in Primary Care: How Psychiatry Could “Troubleshoot” Current Treatments and Practices. Yale J Biol Med 2013; 86: 139-146
• 16 Bodenheimer T. Helping patients improve their health-related behaviors: what system changes do we need?. Dis Manag 2005; 8: 319-330
• 17 Jacob V, Chattopadhyay SK, Sipe TA et al. Economics of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2012; 42: 539-549
• 18 Archer J, Bower P, Gilbody S et al. Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10 CD006525
• 19 Katon WJ, Russo J, Sherbourne C et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for panic disorder. Psychol Med 2006; 36: 353-363
• 20 Katon WJ, Roy-Byrne P, Russo J et al. Cost-effectiveness and Cost Offset of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Primary Care Patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 1098-1104
• 21 Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W, Jost F et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health 2008; 11: 539-544
• 22 Simoens S. How to assess the value of medicines?. Front Pharmacol 2010; 1: 115
• 23 Katon WJ, Schoenbaum M, Fan M et al. Cost-effectiveness of Improving Primary Care Treatment of Late-Life Depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005; 62: 1313-1320
• 24 Simon GE, Katon WJ, von Korff M et al. Cost-Effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Program for Primary Care Patients With Persistent Depression. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 1638-1644
• 25 Aragones E, Lopez-Cortacans G, Sanchez-Iriso E et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of a collaborative care programme for depression in primary care. J Affect Disord 2014; 159: 85-93
• 26 Zimmermann T, Puschmann E, Ebersbach M et al. Effectiveness of a primary care based complex intervention to promote self-management in patients presenting psychiatric symptoms: study protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14: 2
• 27 Härter M, Heddaeus D, Steinmann M et al. Collaborative und Stepped Care bei depressiven Erkrankungen: Entwicklung eines Modellprojektes im Hamburger Netz psychische Gesundheit (psychenet.de). Bundesgesundheitsbl [Epub 2015 Feb 20]
• 28 Fabisch A-B, Wiborg JF, Lautenbach A et al. Wenn die Seele krank macht das „Netzwerk für somatoforme Störungen“ – Sofu-Net – arbeitet fachübergreifend und hilft Patienten damit noch schneller. Arzt und Krankenhaus 2012; 85: 338-340
• 29 Roick C, Kilian R, Matschinger H et al. Die deutsche Version des Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory. Ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychiatrischer Versorgungskosten. Psychiat Prax 2001; 28 (Suppl. 02) S84-90
• 30 The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208
• 31 Brettschneider C, König HH, Herzog W et al. Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with somatoform disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 3
• 32 König HH, Born A, Günther O et al. Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 47
• 33 Günther O, Roick C, Angermeyer MC et al. The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression: a comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning. J Affect Disorders 2008; 105: 81-91
• 34 Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68-80