Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Participating versus Non-Participating Somatizing Patients Referred to a Behavioral Medicine Group in a Health Maintenance Organization

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

Aim

To determine whether participation in a six-session behavioral medicine group program was associated with a post-intervention decrease in health costs among participants.

Methods

A retrospective study conducted in a convenience sample of 295 high utilizers of healthcare at a health maintenance organization in northeast USA. High utilizers were considered to be those patients with at least $US1500 in utilization costs (excluding eye care, dental services and pharmacy services) in the 12 months prior to the course. Five patients with $US20 000 or more in utilization costs for any 6-month period were excluded from the analysis because of the occurrence of severe acute medical illnesses. The intervention group comprised 114 patients who completed at least four of six behavioral medicine group sessions in the Personal Health Improvement Program (PHIP). The comparison group (n = 176) consisted of those patients who were referred but declined participation.

Healthcare utilization for both groups was measured for two epochs: the 12 months before the referral and the 12 months following the referral for the control group, or the 12 months following completion of the program for the PHIP group.

Results

The PHIP course significantly decreased utilization from an average of $US4079 prior to course participation to an average of $US2462 in the 12-month period after the course, a decrease of $US1616 (p < 0.0001). Utilization in the comparison group decreased by $US608 (from $US4347 before referral to $US3739 12 months after referral). Post-intervention health costs were $US1008 less than those observed in the control group during the same time period. There was a mean decrease in costs from baseline of 25% for the PHIP group and less than 1% for the control group (p = 0.031, one-tailed).

Conclusion

This cost saving, if attributable to a direct impact of PHIP on morbidity and a subsequent reduction in healthcare utilization, would represent roughly a 25% saving in health costs. The study was limited by the non-random assignment to condition and the resulting potential for selection bias, as well as other possible confounds. However, the present finding of lower health costs after PHIP participation is consistent with earlier studies showing reductions in ambulatory visit rates following PHIP. Taken together, these findings suggest that the integration of behavioral medicine group programs into primary care will benefit patients and clinicians as well as help to control health costs.

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

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burnes HG. Personal health improvement program. HMO Pract 1995; 9: 57–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Budd MA. Treating the somaticizer. Behavioral Health Management 1996; 15: 20–1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson PB, Staubach LB, Millar AP. High utilizers of health services: the purchaser perspective and experience with the Personal Health Improvement Program (PHIP). In: Haber JD, Mitchell GE, editors. Primary care meets mental health. Tiburon (CA): CentraLink Publications, 1997: 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Locke SE, Larsson KM. Clinical presentation, screening, and treatment of somatization in primary care settings. In: Haber JD, Mitchell GE, editors. Primary care meets mental health. Tiburon (CA): CentraLink Publications, 1997: 179–91.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kroenke K, Mangelsdorff AD. Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy, and outcome. Am J Med 1989; 86: 262–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kroenke K, Arrington ME, Mangelsdorff D. The prevalence of symptoms in medical outpatients and the adequacy of therapy. Arch Int Med 1990; 150: 1685–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hellman CJ, Budd M, Borysenko J, et al. A study of the effectiveness of two group behavioral medicine interventions for patients with psychosomatic complaints. Behav Med 1990; 16 (4): 165–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McLeod CC. Psychological factors associated with positive outcome in a behavioral medicine program [doctoral dissertation]. Boston (MA): Boston University, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gick M, McClelland DC, Budd MA. Group treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and implicit motivational predictors of outcomes. Mind/Body Med 1997; 2 (2): 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McLeod CC, Budd MA. Treatment of somatization in primary care: evaluation of the Personal Health Improvement Program. HMO Pract 1997; 11 (2): 88–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McLeod CC, Budd MA, McClelland DC. Treatment of somatization in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1997; 19 (4): 251–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Locke SE. Treating somatization: an update. Behav Health Manage. 1997; 17 (4): 22–246.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Locke SE, Chan PP, Morley DS, et al. Behavioural medicine group intervention for high-utilising somatizing patients: evaluation across seven unrelated healthcare organisations. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1999; 6 (6): 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frasure-Smith N. In-hospital symptoms of psychological stress as predictors of long-term outcome after acute myocardial infarction in men. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67: 121–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruberman W, Weinblatt E, Goldberg JD, et al. Psychosocial influences on mortality after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 552–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahern DK, Gorgin L, Anderson J, et al. Biobehavioral variables and mortality or cardiac arrest in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Pilot Study (CAPS). Am J Cardiol 1990; 66: 59–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Frasure-Smith N, Lesperance F, Talajic M. Depression following myocardial infarction: impact on 6-month survival. JAMA 1993; 270: 1819–925.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Allison T, Williams D, Miller TD, et al. Medical and economic costs of psychologic distress in patients with coronary artery disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1995; 70: 734–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Blumenthal J, Babyak M, Wei J, et al. Usefulness of psychosocial treatment of mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia in men. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 164–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Surwit RS. Stress management and diabetes. Annual meeting, American Psychological Association; 2002 Aug 22–25, Chicago (IL).

  21. Moore J, Korff M, Cheekin D, et al. A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavioral program for enhancing back pain self care in a primary setting. Pain 2000; 88: 145–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lorig K, Holman H. Arthritis self-management studies: a twelve-year review. Health Educ Q 1993; 20 (1): 17–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rybarczyk B, DeMarco G, DeLaCruz M, et al. A classroom mind/body Wellness intervention for older adults with chronic illness: comparing immediate and 1-year benefits. Behav Med 2001; 27: 15–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Herron RE, Hillis SL. The impact of the transcendental meditation program on government payments to physicians in Quebec: an update. Am J Health Promot. 2000; 14 (5): 284–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Emerson JD, Stoto MA. Transforming data. In: Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW, editors. Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Locke SE, Ford P, Budd, et al. Managing high-utilizing, somatizing patients in primary care: the Personal Health Improvement Program [oral presentation]. Inaugural Conference, Disease Management Association of America; 1999 Oct 17–20, San Francisco (CA).

  27. Anon. Fed Regist, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001 Nov 1; 66 (212): 55499.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gruman J, Follick M. Putting evidence into practice: the OBSSR report of the working group on the integration of effective behavioral treatments into clinical care [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cfah.org/publications/evidence_into_practice.cfm. [Accessed 2003 Feb 4].

  29. Craske MG, Barlow DH. Mastery of your anxiety and panic. 3rd ed. Albany (NY): Graywind Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Budd M, Rothstein L. You are what you say. New York: Crown Publishers, 2000.

  31. Koop CE. Time life medical series. Available from URL: http://www.milner-fenwick.com/pe/tlmv.htm [Accessed 2003 Feb 4].

  32. CHESS: Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System. Available from URL: http://www.chess.chsra.wisc.edu/Chess/ [Accessed 2003 Feb 4].

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Jerry Salkowe for his encouragement and support during the design and performance of the study, Mark Gianetti for help with data collection, and Andy Turner for his help with the data analysis. This work was supported in part by Mertech, Inc., Rockland, Massachusetts, USA and National Institutes of Medicine and Health Research Infrastructure Support Program grant MH56217-04 (TM, SEL).

Dr Locke was employed through 31 August 2001 by Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates (HVMA), which at the time of the study was, along with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC), co-owners of the Personal Health Improvement Program. In addition, until 31 August 2001, he was a consultant to Mertech, Inc., a marketing partner of HPHC and HVMA. Dr Ford is currently an employee of Mertech Inc, where she is Clinical Director of Behavioral Programs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Steven E. Locke (Associate Professor, President) &  Thomas McLaughlin (Associate Professor)

  2. Mertech Inc, 1001 Hingham Street, Rockland, Massachusetts, 02370, USA

    Patricia Ford (Clinical Director)

Authors
  1. Steven E. Locke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Ford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Locke, S.E., Ford, P. & McLaughlin, T. A Comparative Cost Analysis of Participating versus Non-Participating Somatizing Patients Referred to a Behavioral Medicine Group in a Health Maintenance Organization. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 11, 327–335 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311050-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311050-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation