G Lindena1, U Marnitz, P Hartmann, G Müller. 1. CLARA Klinische Forschung, Clara-Zetkin-Str. 34, 14532, Kleinmachnow, Deutschland. gabriele.lindena@clara-klifo.de
Abstract
QUESTION: Back pain is a challenge for case management but is a health insurance fund (HIF) that identifies high risk patients and includes them in a back pain assessment and a multimodal program cost-effective? METHODS: Case managers of a HIF contacted selected patients and requested information on pain and current perspectives. Patients in the intervention group were offered a multimodal assessment and, if applicable, a multimodal treatment program. Control group patients received verbal or written (back book) information. Cost data were evaluated with respect to the interview data 1 year prior and 1 year afterwards. FINDINGS: Of the 800 insured persons contacted 621 were nationwide, 88 were regional controls and 91 were intervention patients. Inability to work was still rising in all groups but less in the intervention group versus both control groups. Drugs, hospital as well as cure/adjuvant costs were less for intervention patients than in both control groups. The investment for the program was thus more than refinanced. INTERPRETATION: Case management was well accepted but the intervention was in need of training for case managers and the specific diagnostic and treatment option regionally. FUNDING: The HIF was responsible for the study investment and project partners shared the training of the HIF regional case managers.
QUESTION: Back pain is a challenge for case management but is a health insurance fund (HIF) that identifies high risk patients and includes them in a back pain assessment and a multimodal program cost-effective? METHODS: Case managers of a HIF contacted selected patients and requested information on pain and current perspectives. Patients in the intervention group were offered a multimodal assessment and, if applicable, a multimodal treatment program. Control group patients received verbal or written (back book) information. Cost data were evaluated with respect to the interview data 1 year prior and 1 year afterwards. FINDINGS: Of the 800 insured persons contacted 621 were nationwide, 88 were regional controls and 91 were intervention patients. Inability to work was still rising in all groups but less in the intervention group versus both control groups. Drugs, hospital as well as cure/adjuvant costs were less for intervention patients than in both control groups. The investment for the program was thus more than refinanced. INTERPRETATION: Case management was well accepted but the intervention was in need of training for case managers and the specific diagnostic and treatment option regionally. FUNDING: The HIF was responsible for the study investment and project partners shared the training of the HIF regional case managers.
Authors: Maurits van Tulder; Annette Becker; Trudy Bekkering; Alan Breen; Maria Teresa Gil del Real; Allen Hutchinson; Bart Koes; Even Laerum; Antti Malmivaara Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ellen M Håland Haldorsen; Astrid L Grasdal; Jan Sture Skouen; Alf Erling Risa; Karsten Kronholm; Holger Ursin Journal: Pain Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: C J Wagner; G Ayyad; A Otzdorff; K Bienek; U Marnitz; B von Pickardt; W Seidel; S Sehlen; P Supantia; G Lindena Journal: Schmerz Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 1.107