Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 371–373 | Cite as

Erratum to: Treatment costs of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Germany

  • Sebastian Braun
  • Jan Zeidler
  • Roland Linder
  • Susanne Engel
  • Frank Verheyen
  • Wolfgang Greiner
Erratum

Erratum to: Eur J Health Econ (2013) 14:939–945 DOI 10.1007/s10198-012-0440-5

In the original article, duplicates regarding the number of occupational therapy prescriptions and cost category occupational therapy were identified. Duplicates resulted in overestimation of the number of occupational therapy prescriptions and costs of occupational therapy. A corrected version of Tables 1, 2 and 4 as well as Fig. 1 presenting the key results of the analysis as well as corrected paragraphs are given below.
Table 1

Total costs in 2008 in € (n = 30,264)

Type of costs

Mean

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Outpatient care

837

764

0

38,509

Inpatient care

779

4,066

0

190,393

Pharmaceuticals

483

1,392

0

47,846

Therapeutic devices and remedies

228

601

0

32,034

Sick leave payments

50

976

0

53,658

Rehabilitation

35

584

0

49,096

Total

2,412

4,933

19

214,353

Table 2

Incremental costs in 2008 in € (n = 30,264/n = 151,320)

Type of costs

Mean

Mean

Incremental costs

ADHD patients

Control group

Outpatient care

837

231

606

Inpatient care

779

178

601

Pharmaceuticals

483

123

359

Therapeutic devices and remedies

228

84

144

Sick leave payments

50

11

39

Rehabilitation

35

9

26

Total

2,412

637

1,775

Table 4

Overview of the average costs 2008 (standard deviation) of all age groups in €

Type of costs

0–5 years

6–17 years

18–90 years

ADHD (n = 552)

Control group (n = 2,760)

ADHD (n = 24,268)

Control group (n = 121,340)

ADHD (n = 5,444)

Control group (n = 27,220)

Outpatient care

866 (684)

320 (341)

841 (757)

213 (340)

819 (801)

301 (510)

Inpatient care

567 (1,993)

190 (1,896)

690 (3,970)

142 (1,817)

1,198 (4,587)

335 (2,365)

Pharmaceuticals

147 (288)

71 (285)

465 (1,295)

111 (6,651)

595 (1,806)

182 (1,499)

Therapeutic devices and remedies

539 (700)

144 (540)

234 (584)

85 (568)

173 (650)

80 (473)

Sick leave payments

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (2)

0 (2)

277 (2,289)

61 (948)

Rehabilitation

31 (366)

9 (252)

30 (530)

7 (312)

61 (794)

19 (409)

Total

2,150 (2,627)

734 (2,346)

2,260 (4,568)

558 (7,579)

3,123 (6,401)

978 (3,818)

Fig. 1

Mean incremental costs in different age groups and types of costs

On Page 939, paragraph 3, second sentence in the abstract should read:

The total costs for these patients were €2,412, and the incremental costs were €1,775.

On Page 939, paragraph 3, the third sentence in the abstract should read:

The largest proportions of incremental costs were due to outpatient care amounting to €606.

On Page 939, paragraph 4, second sentence in the abstract should read:

The expenses for outpatient and inpatient constitute the cost driver.

On Page 939, paragraph 4, third sentence in the abstract should read:

A relevant category regarding ADHD-treatment in Germany is occupational therapy.

On Page 941, paragraph 2, first sentence in the results should read:

In 2008, the mean overall direct costs amounted to €2,412 (see Table 1).

On Page 941, paragraph 2, second sentence in the results should read:

Outpatient care accounted for the largest proportion of the total costs with an amount of €837 (35 %).

On Page 941, paragraph 2, third sentence in the results should read:

However, the costs for hospital treatment (32 %), medication (20 %) and therapeutic devices and remedies (10 %) were relevant.

On Page 941, paragraph 3, third sentence in the results should read:

In 2008, these incremental costs added up to €1,775 on average per patient in all cost categories (Table 2).

On Page 941, paragraph 3, fourth sentence in the results should read:

The costs for outpatient care accounted for the largest proportion of €606.

On Page 941, paragraph 3, fourth sentence in the results, the sentence “Of these costs, €971 were for occupational therapy” should be deleted.

On Page 942, paragraph 8, first sentence in the results should read:

The group of patients with an age of 18 years and older differed from the basic analysis in relation to mean total costs.

On Page 942, paragraph 8, second sentence in the results should read:

The costs in the ADHD group and the control group (€3,123 vs. €978) as well as the ADHD-specific costs (€2,145), respectively, were slightly higher than in the other groups.

On Page 942, paragraph 9, second sentence in the results should read:

Outpatient care and inpatient care constituted the largest cost factor in absolute terms and as ADHD-specific costs.

On Page 942, paragraph 9, third sentence in the results should read:

Expenses in the service sector therapeutic devices and remedies were considerably lower within the older age groups.

On Page 942, paragraph 10, first sentence in the results should read:

In the group of newborn to 5-year-old patients expenses for therapeutic devices and remedies ranked third after inpatient and outpatient treatment. However, in the age group of 6–17 years and 18–90 years next to inpatient and outpatient treatments, medication expenses ranked third.

On Page 943, paragraph 1, fifth sentence in discussion should read:

However, these findings did not include cost categories such as therapeutic devices and remedies which were not available in the data set.

On Page 943, paragraph 2, second sentence in discussion should read:

The expenses for outpatient care and inpatient care constitute the cost driver.

On Page 943, paragraph 4, first sentence in discussion should read:

A relevant category regarding ADHD-treatment in Germany is therapeutic devices and remedies.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Braun
    • 1
  • Jan Zeidler
    • 2
  • Roland Linder
    • 3
  • Susanne Engel
    • 3
  • Frank Verheyen
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Greiner
    • 4
  1. 1.Herescon GmbH–Health Economic Research and ConsultingHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Center for Health Economics, Leibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Scientific Institute of TK for Benefit and Efficiency in Health CareHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations