Out-of-hours primary care. Implications of organisation on costs.

BACKGROUND: To perform out-of-hours primary care, Dutch general practitioners (GPs) have organised themselves in large-scale GP cooperatives. Roughly, two models of out-of-hours care can be distinguished; GP cooperatives working separate from the hospital emergency department (ED) and GP cooperatives integrated with the hospital ED. Research has shown differences in care utilisation between these two models; a significant shift in the integrated model from utilisation of ED care to primary care. These differences may have implications on costs, however, until now this has not been investigated. This study was performed to provide insight in costs of these two different models of out-of-hours care. METHODS: Annual reports of two GP cooperatives (one separate from and one integrated with a hospital emergency department) in 2003 were analysed on costs and use of out-of-hours care. Costs were calculated per capita. Comparisons were made between the two cooperatives. In addition, a comparison was made between the costs of the hospital ED of the integrated model before and after the set up of the GP cooperative were analysed. RESULTS: Costs per capita of the GP cooperative in the integrated model were slightly higher than in the separate model (epsilon 11.47 and epsilon 10.54 respectively). Differences were mainly caused by personnel and other costs, including transportation, interest, cleaning, computers and overhead. Despite a significant reduction in patients utilising ED care as a result of the introduction of the GP cooperative integrated within the ED, the costs of the ED remained the same. CONCLUSION: The study results show that the costs of primary care appear to be more dependent on the size of the population the cooperative covers than on the way the GP cooperative is organised, i.e. separated versus integrated. In addition, despite the substantial reduction of patients, locating the GP cooperative at the same site as the ED was found to have little effect on costs of the ED. Sharing more facilities and personnel between the ED and the GP cooperative may improve cost-efficiency.

One-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of morbid obesity: vertical banded gastroplasty versus Lap-Band.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed as an economic evaluation alongside a randomized clinical trial. The object of this study was to evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of morbid obesity comparing two operations. METHODS: 100 patients were assigned randomly to vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or Lap-Band surgery. Both medical and non-medical costs were identified and measured. Costs data were combined with percentage Excess Weight Loss (%EWL) and with Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) to obtain cost per %EWL and cost per QALY ratios. RESULTS: At 1 year, the total costs were not significantly different between both groups (95% confidence interval E5,999-E1,765). Also, the QALY gain after surgery was not significantly different between the two groups. However, %EWL was significantly higher in the VBG group compared to the Lap-Band group, P-value .0001. The estimated incremental cost per %EWL was E105.83 (E1,885.91/-17.82). For the costs per QALY, the estimated ratio was dominant. The overall mortality in this study was 2%. 2 patients in the VBG group died within 30 days after surgery; 1 of these deaths was possibly related to the VBG procedure. CONCLUSION: At 1 year after surgery, the costs and QoL of the two treatment modalities were found to be equal. Therefore, the selection of the procedure can be based on the clinical aspects, effectivity and safety at 1 year. In addition, the results of a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (e.g. with a follow-up of 36 months) planned in the future can also be helpful in the selection of the preferred treatment.

Short-stay intensive care after coronary artery bypass surgery: randomized clinical trial on safety and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of short-stay intensive care (SSIC) treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. DESIGN: Randomized clinical equivalence trial. SETTING: University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Low-risk coronary artery bypass patients. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 600 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SSIC treatment (8 hrs of intensive care treatment) or control treatment (care as usual, overnight intensive care treatment). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measures were intensive care readmissions and total hospital stay. The secondary outcome measures were total hospital costs, quality of life, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Hospital costs consisted of the cost of hospital admission or admissions and outpatient costs. MAIN RESULTS: The difference in intensive care readmission between the two groups of 1.13% was very small and not significantly different (p = .241; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 2.9%). The total hospital stay (p = .807; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to -0.4) and postoperative morbidity were comparable between the groups. The SSIC group's quality of life improved more compared with the control group's quality of life (p = .0238; 95% confidence interval, 0.0012 to 0.0464). The total hospital costs for SSIC were significantly lower (95% confidence interval, -1,581 to -174) compared with those for the control group (4,625 and 5,441, respectively). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost/delta quality-adjusted life months) thus showed the dominance of SSIC. Bootstrap and sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the study findings. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, SSIC is a safe and cost-effective approach. SSIC can be considered as an alternative for conventional postoperative intensive care treatment for low-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients.

General practitioners' satisfaction with and attitudes to out-of-hours services.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, Dutch general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours service has been reorganised into large-scale GP cooperatives. Until now little is known about GPs' experiences with working at these cooperatives for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into GPs' satisfaction with working at GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care in separated and integrated cooperatives. METHODS: A GP cooperative separate from the hospital Accident and Emergency (A&E) department, and a GP cooperative integrated within the A&E department of another hospital. Both cooperatives are situated in adjacent geographic regions in the South of The Netherlands. One hundred GPs were interviewed by telephone; fifty GPs working at the separated GP cooperative and fifty GPs from the integrated GP cooperative. Opinions on different aspects of GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care were measured, and regression analysis was performed to investigate if these could be related to GP satisfaction with out-of-hours care organisation. RESULTS: GPs from the separated model were more satisfied with the organisation of out-of-hours care than GPs from the integrated model (70 vs. 60 on a scale score from 0 to 100; P = 0.020). Satisfaction about out-of-hours care organisation was related to opinions on workload, guarantee of gatekeeper function, and attitude towards out-of-hours care as being an essential part of general practice. Cooperation with medical specialists was much more appreciated at the integrated model (77 vs. 48; P < 0.001) versus the separated model. CONCLUSION: GPs in this study appear to be generally satisfied with the organisation of GP cooperatives for out-of-hours care. Furthermore, GPs working at the separated cooperative seem to be more satisfied compared to GPs working at the integrated cooperative.

Predicting the cost of hospital stay for stroke patients: the use of diagnosis related groups.

In order to provide tailor-made care, governments are considering the implementation of output-pricing based on hospital case-mix measures, such as diagnosis related groups (DRG). The question is whether the current DRG classification system can provide a satisfactory prediction of the variance of costs in stroke patients and if not, in what way other variables may enhance this prediction. In this study, data from 731 stroke patients hospitalized at University Hospital Maastricht during 1996-1998 are used in the cost analysis. The DRG classification for this group uses information--in addition to the DRG classification operation or no operation--on the patient's age combined with discharge status. The results of regression analysis show that using DRGs, the variance explained in the costs amounts to 34%. Adding other variables to the DRGs, the variance explained increases to about 61%. Additional factors highly correlating with inpatient costs are the level of functioning after stroke, comorbidity, complications, and 'days of stay for non-medical reasons'. Costs decreased for stroke patients discharged during the latter part of the years studied, and if stroke patients happened to die during their hospital stay. The results do suggest that future implementation of output-pricing based on the DRG case-mix measures is feasible for stroke patients only if it is enhanced with information on complications and the level of functioning.