Nachhaltige Vergütung der B-Zentren für Seltene Erkrankungen in Deutschland – Status quo und Lösungsansätze

Background: To ensure specialized care of patients with rare diseases, numerous centres for rare diseases were funded over the past few years. The reimbursement of patients’ ambulatory care in hospitals, however, is characterized by a plurality of forms of care and payment. There is some evidence of deficits in the reimbursement of care of patients suffering from a rare disease from studies on individual rare diseases. Objectives: To investigate current forms of care provision and reimbursement of centres for rare diseases and to develop future approaches for sustainable compensation. Materials and methods: Initially, centres for rare diseases in Germany were asked to provide information about their forms of care and reimbursement using questionnaires. Subsequently, two focus group interviews and one expert interview with representatives from centres for rare diseases, health insurance, health politics and patients were conducted to discuss current and future meritocratic forms of care provision and reimbursement. The data were evaluated using content analysis. Results and conclusions: Thirty-nine centres for rare diseases participated in the questionnaire survey. Of those, 38% receive a flat fee/allowance for university outpatient departments, the amount of which varies notably, and 41% obtain a mixed payment comprising an allowance for university outpatient departments and other forms of reimbursement. An under-recovery of costs in centres for rare diseases and its impact on patient care were mentioned in the interviews. In this context, a need to further develop forms of care provision and reimbursement has been identified. Participants prefer a special flat fee/allowance for rare diseases that covers the time-consuming care for patients with rare diseases. © 2022, The Author(s).Hintergrund: Um eine spezialisierte Versorgung von Menschen mit seltenen Erkrankungen (sE) zu gewährleisten, wurden zahlreiche Zentren für Seltene Erkrankungen (ZSE) gegründet. Für die ambulante Behandlung von Betroffenen in Krankenhäusern steht dabei eine Vielzahl von Versorgungs- und Vergütungsformen zur Verfügung. Studien zu einzelnen sE ergaben bereits Hinweise auf Defizite in Bezug auf eine kostendeckende Vergütung der ZSE. Ziel der Arbeit: Untersuchung der aktuellen Versorgungs- und Vergütungsstrukturen in den ZSE und die Entwicklung von Ansätzen für zukünftige nachhaltige Vergütungsstrukturen. Material und Methoden: Mittels Fragebogenerhebung wurden zunächst ZSE in Deutschland zu ihrer Versorgungs- und Vergütungsform befragt. Im Rahmen zweier Fokusgruppen- und eines Experteninterviews mit Vertreter:innen der ZSE, der Kostenträger, der Gesundheitspolitik sowie Patient:innen wurden im Anschluss die aktuellen Versorgungs- und Vergütungsformen, Möglichkeiten der zukünftigen Gestaltung der Versorgung von Menschen mit sE sowie Ansätze für eine leistungsorientierte Vergütung diskutiert. Das Material wurde inhaltsanalytisch nach Kuckartz ausgewertet. Ergebnisse und Diskussion: 39 Zentren beteiligten sich an der Fragebogenerhebung. 38 % dieser Zentren werden über eine Pauschale für Hochschulambulanzen (HSA) vergütet, deren Höhe stark variiert. 41 % weisen eine Mischvergütung aus HSA-Pauschale und weiteren Vergütungsformen auf. In den Interviews wurde eine Unterdeckung der Kosten in den ZSE mit Auswirkungen auf die Patientenversorgung benannt und zur Sicherstellung einer nachhaltigen Versorgung Handlungsbedarf zur Weiterentwicklung der Vergütungsstrukturen festgestellt. Eine „Sonderpauschale für sE“, die den besonderen zeitlichen Bedarf in der Versorgung von Menschen mit sE abbildet, wurde als möglicher nachhaltiger Vergütungsansatz präferiert

How about your peers? Cystic fibrosis questionnaire data from healthy children and adolescents

Contains fulltext : 97967.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) is widely used in research as an instrument to measure quality of life in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). In routine patient care however, measuring quality of life is still not implemented in guidelines. One of the reasons might be the lack of consensus on how to interpret CFQ scores of an individual patient, because appropriate reference data are lacking. The question which scores reflect normal functioning and which scores reflect clinically relevant problems is still unanswered. Moreover, there is no knowledge about how healthy children and adolescents report on their quality of life (on the CFQ). With regard to quality of life the effect of normal development should be taken into account, especially in childhood and adolescence. Therefore, it is important to gain more knowledge about how healthy children and adolescents report on their quality of life and if there are any difference in a healthy populations based on age or gender. Without these data we cannot adequately interpret the CFQ as a tool in clinical care to provide patient-tailored care. Therefore this study collected data of the CFQ in healthy children and adolescents with the aim to refer health status of CF youngsters to that of healthy peers. METHODS: The CFQ was completed by 478 healthy Dutch children and adolescents (aged 6-20) in a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: The majority of healthy children (over 65%) did not reach maximum scores on most domains of the CFQ. Median CFQ-scores of healthy children and adolescents ranged from 67 to 100 (on a scale of 0-100) on the different CFQ-domains. Significant differences in quality of life exist among healthy children and adolescents, and these depend on age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Reference data of quality of life scores from a healthy population are essential for adequate interpretation of quality of life in young patients with CF. Clinicians should be aware that the perception of health-related quality of life is not as disease-specific as one might think and also relies on factors such as age, normal maturation and gender

Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to evaluate the use of all direct and indirect methods used to estimate health utilities in both children and adolescents. Utilities measured pre- and post-intervention are combined with the time over which health states are experienced to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) estimate the cost-effectiveness of health technologies based on their costs and benefits using QALYs as a measure of benefit. The accurate measurement of QALYs is dependent on using appropriate methods to elicit health utilities. OBJECTIVE: We sought studies that measured health utilities directly from patients or their proxies. We did not exclude those studies that also included adults in the analysis, but excluded those studies focused only on adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We evaluated 90 studies from a total of 1,780 selected from the databases. 47 (52%) studies were CUAs incorporated into randomised clinical trials; 23 (26%) were health-state utility assessments; 8 (9%) validated methods and 12 (13%) compared existing or new methods. 22 unique direct or indirect calculation methods were used a total of 137 times. Direct calculation through standard gamble, time trade-off and visual analogue scale was used 32 times. The EuroQol EQ-5D was the most frequently-used single method, selected for 41 studies. 15 of the methods used were generic methods and the remaining 7 were disease-specific. 48 of the 90 studies (53%) used some form of proxy, with 26 (29%) using proxies exclusively to estimate health utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Several child- and adolescent-specific methods are still being developed and validated, leaving many studies using methods that have not been designed or validated for use in children or adolescents. Several studies failed to justify using proxy respondents rather than administering the methods directly to the patients. Only two studies examined missing responses to the methods administered with respect to the patients' ages

Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health', a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years

Background: Effective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. ‘Families for Health’ focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project. Objective: The aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design: The trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families. Setting: Three sites in the West Midlands, England, UK. Participants: Children aged 6–11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral. Interventions: Families for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality. Main outcome measures: Joint primary outcome measures were change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months’ follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children’s waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent–child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods. Results: The study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the ‘usual-care’ control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.001 to 0.229; p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (–0.118, 95% CI –0.203 to –0.034; p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (–0.005, 95% CI –0.085 to 0.078; p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548; p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators’, parents’ and children’s experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome. Conclusions: Families for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6–11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Prävention in Deutschland : eine Analyse aus ökonomischer Sicht

Leppert F. Prävention in Deutschland : eine Analyse aus ökonomischer Sicht. In: Eidt-Koch D, Prenzler A, von der Schulenburg J-M, eds. Steuerung des Gesundheitsverhaltens im Spannungsfeld zwischen staatlichem Paternalismus und individueller Freiheit. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Versicherungsbetriebslehre der Universität Hannover, 15. Göttingen: Cuvillier; 2009: 107-130

Die Umsetzung des Nationalen Aktionsplans für Menschen mit seltenen Erkrankungen: Ergebnisse und Handlungsempfehlungen aus der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung

Seltene Erkrankungen stellen eine besondere Herausforderung für die Gesundheitsversorgung dar. Mit dem Nationalen Aktionsbündnis für Menschen mit Seltenen Erkrankungen wurde ein neuer Weg eingeschlagen, um die Versorgungssituation zu verbessern. Das Bündnis veröffentlichte 2013 einen Nationalen Aktionsplan. Im Rahmen der Evaluation wurden Umsetzungsstand, Steuerung und Arbeitsweise des Bündnisses sowie erste Effekte und Wirkungen der Aktivitäten untersucht. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass wichtige Erfolge erzielt werden konnten, bei den zentralen Themen jedoch weitere Anstrengungen notwendig sind