Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Trade-off Between Costs and Quality of Care in the Treatment of Psychosomatic Patients with Somatoform Pain Disorder

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The introduction of efficiency-oriented provider payment systems in inpatient mental healthcare in various Western countries may lead to the use of less healthcare resources in the treatment of patients. To avoid unintended effects on quality of care that may result from reductions in resource utilization, it is essential for decision and policy makers to know whether there is a trade-off between costs and quality of care.

Aim of the Study

The aim of this study was to investigate and quantify the relationship between costs and outcomes in psychosomatic inpatients with somatoform pain disorder.

Methods

The inclusion criteria for patient selection (n = 101) were (i) a main diagnosis of somatoform pain disorder according to International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) [F45.4, F45.40, F45.41]; (ii) complete data on the mental component summary reflecting overall functioning of mental health (MCS-8) measured with the Short Form-8 Health Survey (SF-8) within 3 days of the admission and discharge dates; and (iii) treatment at Charité Universitaetsmedizin (Berlin, Germany) during the period January 2006–June 2010. The change in the MCS-8 score incurred over the treatment period was used as an indicator of quality of care. Treatment costs were calculated from the provider’s perspective, mainly using bottom-up micro-costing. The year of valuation for cost calculation was 2008 (with no inflation adjustment); for costs provided by the accounting department for services consumed by the patient, the valuation year was based on the year of service provision. We hypothesized that the outcome ‘change in MCS-8 score’ was a function of the independent variable costs, patient characteristics, socio-demographic variables, pain-related variables, co-morbidities and subjective illness attribution, i.e. whether patients attributed the origin of pain mainly to a somatic cause or not. An interaction term between costs and illness attribution was included to control for the hypothesized differing effects of resource input or costs on the outcome variable conditional on patients’ illness attribution. Hausman tests indicated that endogeneity was not present, thus, ordinary least squares regression (OLS) was conducted. We assessed whether the change in the MCS-8 score was clinically meaningful and perceptible by the patient, using the minimal clinical important difference (MCID). For Short Form Health Surveys, the MCID for changes in the mental component summary is typically around 3 points.

Results

We found a trade-off between costs and outcome for patients without or with only minor somatic illness attribution (77 % of the sample). This patient group improved 0.4 points in outcome after every 100 € increase in total costs per case (F 1,77 = 13.836, t(77) = 3.72, p = 0.0004). For patients with mainly somatic illness beliefs (23 % of the sample), we did not find a trade-off between costs and outcome.

Conclusion

For the majority of patients, we found a trade-off between costs and health outcome, thus, it seems advisable to carefully monitor outcome parameters when applying cost containment measures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drozd EM, Cromwell J, Gage B, et al. Patient casemix classification for medicare psychiatric prospective payment. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:724–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Geissler A, Quentin W. Prospective payment for inpatient psychiatric care. Health Policy Monitor, 2010. http://www.hpm.org/en/Surveys/TU_Berlin_-_D/15/Prospective_payment_for_inpatient_psychiatric_care.html. Accessed 2012 Oct 15.

  3. Mason A, Goddard M. Payment by results in mental health: a review of the international literature and an economic assessment of the approach in the English NHS. University of York, 2009. http://www.york.ac.uk/che/pdf/rp50.pdf. Accessed 2012 Oct 15.

  4. Schreyoegg J, Stargardt T. The trade-off between costs and outcomes: the case of acute myocardial infarction. Health Serv Res. 2010;45:1585–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cots F, Chiarello P, Salvador X, et al. DRG-based hospital payment: intended and unintended consequences. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, et al., editors. Diagnosis-related groups in Europe. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Open University Press; 2011. p. 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fleming ST. The relationship between quality and cost: pure and simple? Inquiry. 1991;28:29–387.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carey K, Burgess JF Jr. On measuring the hospital cost/quality trade-off. Health Econ. 1999;8:509–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mukamel DB, Spector WD. Nursing home costs and risk-adjusted outcome measures of quality. Med Care. 2000;38:78–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stargardt T, Schreyoegg J, Kondofersky I. Measuring the relationship between costs and outcomes: the example of acute myocardial infarction in German hospitals. Health Econ. 2013. doi:10.1002/hec.2941

  10. Romley JA, Jena AB, Goldman DP. Hospital spending and inpatient mortality: evidence from California: an observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:160–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Alter DA, et al. Association of hospital spending intensity with mortality and readmission rates in Ontario hospitals. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307:1037–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Dobson A, et al. Measuring efficiency: the association of hospital costs and quality of care. Health Aff. 2009;28:897–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Nathanson BH, et al. The relationship between hospital spending and mortality in patients with sepsis. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:292–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen LM, Jha AK, Guterman S, et al. Hospital cost of care, quality of care, and readmission rates: penny wise and pound foolish? Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:340–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research. World Health Organization, 1993. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf. Accessed 2013 Jun 25.

  16. Froehlich C, Jacobi F, Wittchen HU. DSM-IV pain disorder in the general population. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;256:187–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grabe HJ, Meyer C, Hapke U, et al. Somatoform pain disorder in the general population. Psychother Psychosom. 2003;72:88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hiller W, Fichter MM, Rief W. A controlled treatment study of somatoform disorders including analysis of healthcare utilization and cost-effectiveness. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:369–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rost K, Kashner TM, Smith GR. Effectiveness of psychiatric intervention with somatization disorder patients: improved outcomes at reduced costs. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1994;16:381–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Escobar JI, Golding JM, Hough RL, et al. Somatization in the community: relationship to disability and use of services. Am J Pub Health. 1987;77:837–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaw J, Creed F. The cost of somatization. J Psychosom Res. 1991;35:307–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Treurniet HF, Essink-Bot ML, Mackenbach JP, et al. Health-related quality of life: an indicator of quality of care? Qual Life Res. 1997;6:363–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273:59–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tan SS, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. Comparing methodologies for the cost estimation of hospital services. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:39–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Donabedian A. Basic approaches to assessment: structure, process and outcome. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. 1980;1:75–125.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Quart. 2005;83:691–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Patrick DL, Bergner M. Measurement of health status in the 1990s. Annu Rev Public Health. 1990;11:165–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ebrahim S. Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1383–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ware JE Jr. The status of health assessment 1994. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:327–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kilbourne AM, Keyser D, Pincus HA. Challenges and opportunities in measuring the quality of mental health care. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55:549–57.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Martin M, Blaisdell-Gross B, Fortin EW, et al. Health-related quality of life of heart failure and congestive artery disease patients improved during participation in disease management programs: a longitudinal observational study. Dis Manag. 2007;10:164–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, et al. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the of the SF-8 Health Survey. Lincoln: Qual Metr; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Turner-Bowker DM, Bayliss MS, Ware JE, et al. Usefulness of the SF-8 Health Survey for comparing the impact of migraine and other conditions. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1003–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Walker DR, Landis DL, Stern PM, et al. Disease management positively affects patient quality of life. Manag Care Interface. 2003;16:56–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lefante JJ, Harmon GN, Ashby KM, et al. Use of the SF-8 to assess health-related quality of life for a chronically ill, low-income population participating in the Central Louisiana Medication Access Program (CMAP). Qual Life Res. 2005;14:665–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.

  38. Hausman JA. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica. 1978;46:1251–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, et al. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:141–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ware JE. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Lincoln: Qual Metr; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Huber D, Albrecht C, Hautum A, et al. Effectiveness of inpatient psychodynamic psychotherapy: a follow-up study. Z Psychosom Med Psyc. 2009;55:189.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Haase M, Frommer J, Franke GH, et al. From symptom relief to interpersonal change: treatment outcome and effectiveness in inpatient psychotherapy. Psychother Res. 2008;18:615–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kroenke K. Efficacy of treatment for somatoform disorders: a review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosom Med. 2007;69:881–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sattel H, Lahmann C, Guendel H, et al. Brief psychodynamic interpersonal psychotherapy for patients with multisomatoform disorder: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200:60–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Duddu V, Isaac MK, Chaturvedi SK. Somatization, somatosensory amplification, attribution styles and illness behaviour: a review. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2006;18:25–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rief W, Nanke A, Emmerich J, et al. Causal illness attributions in somatoform disorders: associations with comorbidity and illness behavior. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57:367–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Groben S, Hausteiner C. Somatoform disorders and causal attributions in patients with suspected allergies: do somatic causal attributions matter? J Psychosom Res. 2011;70:229–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wise TN, Mann LS. The attribution of somatic symptoms in psychiatric outpatients. Compr Psychiatry. 1995;36:407–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kirmayer LJ, Robbins JM. Patients who somatize in primary care: a longitudinal study of cognitive and social characteristics. Psychol Med. 1996;26:937–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13(6):475–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zeeck A, Wietersheim J, Hartmann, et al. Inpatient or day clinic treatment? Results of a multi-site-study. GMS Psycho Soc Med. 2009. doi:10.3205/psm000059.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was planned and written up by Laura Haas, Tom Stargardt, Jonas Schreyoegg, Rico Schlösser, Gerhard Danzer and Burghard F. Klapp, and the final version of the manuscript was approved by all the authors. The conceptual work was mainly done by Tom Stargardt, Jonas Schreyoegg and Laura Haas. Rico Schlösser was responsible for the data collection process, and Gerhard Danzer and Burghard F. Klapp provided all of the medical information. Rico Schlösser calculated part of the costs. Laura Haas was responsible for the data analysis and for drafting the manuscript, supported by Tom Stargardt and Jonas Schreyoegg. The results were interpreted by all authors. The guarantor for the overall content is Laura Haas. There was no external funding for this study, and none of the authors has any potential conflicts of interests that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité Universitaetsmedizin, Luisenstr. 13a, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Laura Haas, Burghard F. Klapp & Gerhard Danzer

  2. Hamburg Center for Health Economics, Hamburg, Germany

    Tom Stargardt & Jonas Schreyoegg

  3. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, USA

    Jonas Schreyoegg

  4. Management Accounting/Controlling, Berlin School of Economics and Laws, Berlin, Germany

    Rico Schlösser

Authors
  1. Laura Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Stargardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonas Schreyoegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rico Schlösser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Burghard F. Klapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerhard Danzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Haas.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haas, L., Stargardt, T., Schreyoegg, J. et al. The Trade-off Between Costs and Quality of Care in the Treatment of Psychosomatic Patients with Somatoform Pain Disorder. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 359–368 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0042-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0042-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation