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.

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.