Skip to main content
Log in

Was erwartet die Medizin von der Gesundheitsökonomie?

What can medicine expect from health economics?

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

In den vergangenen 10 Jahrzehnten hat sich die Medizin dank der Einführung innovativer diagnostischer und therapeutischer Verfahren dramatisch gewandelt. Neben einem unverkennbaren medizinischen Fortschritt sind jedoch die Kosten aller Gesundheitssysteme dramatisch gestiegen. Dem Anstieg auf der Kostenseite stehen jedoch nur moderate Steigerungen bei den Einnahmen gegenüber. Diese Situation macht es erforderlich, künftig die finanziellen Ressourcen gezielt einzusetzen. Das Fachgebiet der Gesundheitsökonomie hat sich zur Aufgabe gemacht, medizinische Maßnahmen unter Kosten-Nutzen-Aspekten zu analysieren, um den Handelnden im Gesundheitswesen Informationen über diese Parameter an Hand zu geben. Die dabei auftretenden Probleme sind vielfältig und reichen von der Bewertung von Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen einerseits bis hin zu Problemen einer Standardisierung von analytischen Verfahren sowie zur Vergleichbarkeit von Ergebnissen zwischen verschiedenen Gesundheitssystemen.

Im Rahmen des vorliegenden Manuskripts wurde der Versuch unternommen, anhand von aktuellen Fragenstellungen zu Diagnostik und Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms die methodischen Ansätze der Gesundheitsökonomie aufzuzeigen. Der Beitrag soll dazu motivieren, die Gesundheitsökonomie als Instrument zur Weiterentwicklung der medizinischen Versorgung und nicht als Regulierung und Rationierung medizinischer Maßnahmen zu verstehen.

Abstract

Medicine has changed dramatically in the past ten decades thanks to the introduction of innovative diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. However, besides the unmistakable advances achieved in medicine, the costs of all health care systems have risen dramatically. In contrast to the escalation in expenditures, only moderate gains in proceeds have been accomplished. This situation requires that future financial resources be judiciously expended. The field of health economics has set as its goal the analysis of medical measures in terms of costs and benefits to be able to provide information on these parameters to those involved in the public health sector. The emerging problems are diverse and extend from assessment of effects and side effects to difficulties in standardizing analytical procedures and comparing results between different health care systems.

In the context of this manuscript an attempt has been made to illustrate the methodological approaches to health economics based on current issues in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. This contribution intends to motivate stakeholders to view health economics as a tool to promote improvements in medical care and not as a means to regulating and rationing medical measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G et al (2010) Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 11(8):725–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S et al (2011) The excess burden of side-effects from treatment in men allocated to screening for prostate cancer. The Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur J Cancer 47(4):545–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tunder R (2001) Was leistet die Gesundheitsökonomie? Urologe 51:000–000

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schöffski O, Schulenburg JM Graf (2011) Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation, 4. Aufl. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  6. Shteynshlyuger A, Andriole GL (2011) Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer. J Urol 185(3):828–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Imamura T, Yasunaga H (2008) Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen. Int J Urol 15(4):285–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heijnsdijk EA, Kinderen A der, Wever EM et al (2009) Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 101(11):1833–1838

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kobayashi T, Goto R, Ito K, Mitsumori K (2007) Prostate cancer screening strategies with rescreening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective. Eur J Surg Oncol 33(6):783–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu-Yao GL, Yao SL (1997) Population-based study of long-term survival in patients with clinically localised prostate cancer. Lancet 349(9056):906–910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sandblom G, Varenhorst E, Rosell J et al (2011) Randomised prostate cancer screening trial: 20 year follow-up. BMJ 342:d1539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Labrie F, Candas B, Cusan L et al (2004) Screening decreases prostate cancer mortality: 11-year follow-up of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 59(3):311–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Djulbegovic M, Beyth RJ, Neuberger MM et al (2010) Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 341:c4543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carter CA, Donahue T, Sun L et al (2003) Temporarily deferred therapy (watchful waiting) for men younger than 70 years and with low-risk localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 21(21):4001–4008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A et al (2010) Clinical results of long-term followup of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wirth M (Hrsg) (2011) Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Version 2.0. DGU, Berlin

  20. Corcoran AT, Peele PB, Benoit RM (2010) Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 76(3):703–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Andersson SO, Andrén O, Lyth J et al (2011) Managing localized prostate cancer by radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: cost analysis of a randomized trial (SPCG-4). Scand J Urol Nephrol 45(3):177–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Passerotti CC, Antunes AA, Okano RTF et al (2011) Early results on a prospective Randomized trial: robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) study. 109th Annual Meeting, American Urological Association, Washington

  23. Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Abdollah F et al (2011) Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) holds no advantage over open radical prostatectomy with regards to complication rates. 109th Annual Meeting, American Urological Association, Washington

  24. Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K (2011) A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 14(4):403–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sleeper J, Lotan Y (2011) Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures in urologic surgery in the USA. Expert Rev Med Devices 8(1):97–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Petrylak DP, Tangen CM, Hussain MH et al (2004) Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 351(15):1513–1520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tannock IF, Wit R de, Berry WR et al (2004) Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 351(15):1502–1512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Machiels JP, Mazzeo F, Clausse M et al (2008) Prospective randomized study comparing docetaxel, estramustine, and prednisone with docetaxel and prednisone in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5261–5268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berthold DR, Pond GR, Soban F et al (2008) Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer: updated survival in the TAX 327 study. J Clin Oncol 26(2):242–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Collins R, Fenwick E, Trowman R et al (2007) A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 11(2):1–179

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B.J. Schmitz-Dräger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bismarck, E., Schmitz-Dräger, B. & Schöffski, O. Was erwartet die Medizin von der Gesundheitsökonomie?. Urologe 51, 533–538 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2778-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2778-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation