Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care program for schizophrenia: an analysis of routine data

In Germany, a regional social health insurance fund provides an integrated care program for patients with schizophrenia (IVS). Based on routine data of the social health insurance, this evaluation examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the IVS compared to the standard care (control group, CG). The primary outcome was the reduction of psychiatric inpatient treatment (days in hospital), and secondary outcomes were schizophrenia-related inpatient treatment, readmission rates, and costs. To reduce selection bias, a propensity score matching was performed. The matched sample included 752 patients. Mean number of psychiatric and schizophrenia-related hospital days of patients receiving IVS (2.3 ± 6.5, 1.7 ± 5.0) per quarter was reduced, but did not differ statistically significantly from CG (2.7 ± 7.6, 1.9 ± 6.2; p = 0.772, p = 0.352). Statistically significant between-group differences were found in costs per quarter per person caused by outpatient treatment by office-based psychiatrists (IVS: €74.18 ± 42.30, CG: €53.20 ± 47.96; p < 0.001), by psychiatric institutional outpatient departments (IVS: €4.83 ± 29.57, CG: €27.35 ± 76.48; p < 0.001), by medication (IVS: €471.75 ± 493.09, CG: €429.45 ± 532.73; p = 0.015), and by psychiatric outpatient nursing (IVS: €3.52 ± 23.83, CG: €12.67 ± 57.86, p = 0.045). Mean total psychiatric costs per quarter per person in IVS (€1117.49 ± 1662.73) were not significantly lower than in CG (€1180.09 ± 1948.24; p = 0.150). No statistically significant differences in total schizophrenia-related costs per quarter per person were detected between IVS (€979.46 ± 1358.79) and CG (€989.45 ± 1611.47; p = 0.084). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed cost savings of €148.59 per reduced psychiatric and €305.40 per reduced schizophrenia-related hospital day. However, limitations, especially non-inclusion of costs related to management of the IVS and additional home treatment within the IVS, restrict the interpretation of the results. Therefore, the long-term impact of this IVS deserves further evaluation.