Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on August 5, 2008
Rheumatology 2008 47(10):1527-1534; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ken315
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/10/1527    most recent
ken315v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeidler, J.
Right arrow Articles by Merkesdal, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeidler, J.
Right arrow Articles by Merkesdal, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Economics
Right arrow Myositis and Muscle Disease
Right arrow Vasculitis
Right arrow Spondylarthropathies
Right arrow Soft Tissue Rheumatism
Right arrow Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease
Right arrow Rheumatoid Arthritis
Right arrow Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Autoimmunity
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparative cost analysis of outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation for musculoskeletal diseases in Germany

J. Zeidler1, T. Mittendorf1, G. Vahldiek2, H. Zeidler3 and S. Merkesdal4

1Center for Health Economics, Leibniz University Hannover, 2Kaufmaennische Krankenkasse – KKH, 3Rheumatologikum and 4Medical School of Hannover, Department for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover, Germany.

Correspondence to: J. Zeidler, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Center for Health Economics, Koenigsworther Platz 1, D-30167, Hannover, Germany. E-mail: jz{at}ivbl.uni-hannover.de


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Objectives. To examine the costs of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders from the perspective of a major statutory health insurance fund in Germany.

Methods. A nation-wide database from a major health insurance fund in Germany was used to evaluate all rehabilitation cases in 2005. In addition, to all direct cost domains of the rehabilitation itself, costs incurred in the preceding and the following year for hospital treatment, drugs and physical therapy were analysed. A cost–cost analysis in different institutional settings was chosen for the cost comparison of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation. To minimize the influence of possible confounders, a statistical control system was implemented.

Results. After a preceding hospital stay, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation results in mean costs of {euro}2047 and {euro}1111, respectively. If the rehabilitation was not preceded by a directly related hospital treatment, mean costs for inpatient (outpatient) rehabilitation were {euro}2067 ({euro}1310). No systematic differences could be found between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation evaluating costs for hospital treatment, drugs or physical therapy in the year preceding and the year directly following the rehabilitation.

Conclusions. Assuming comparable medical outcomes, outpatient rehabilitation seems to be a superior alternative compared with inpatient rehabilitation from an economic perspective. Hence, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance, fostering a higher market share of outpatient rehabilitation may add to a better allocation of overall health care resources. For this, regional differences in rehabilitation infrastructure have to be taken into account.

KEY WORDS: Rehabilitation, Inpatient rehabilitation, Outpatient rehabilitation, Cost analysis, Musculoskeletal disorders, Germany


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Musculoskeletal disorders are the most frequent cause of chronic pain and physical disability in the population [1]. This figure will rapidly rise in the future due to demographic changes with a clear increase of the elderly in the population [2]. In industrialized nations, bone and joint disorders already account for half of all chronic diseases in the population over the age of 50 yrs. Hence, this will result in a rising need for rehabilitative services and care, since many of the affected persons will require rehabilitation as an integral part of their treatment regimen in case of progression of their chronic problems or after surgery. Particularly, in musculoskeletal disorders such as chronic back pain, osteoporosis and RA or after joint replacements, an indication-specific rehabilitation plan plays a major role in the treatment spectrum. For a successful therapy, current treatment guidelines foster the idea of combining various treatment elements with each other in this process of creating a comprehensive rehabilitation approach. However, thus far, scientific data on cost structures for a comprehensive rehabilitation in musculoskeletal disorders are limited and only available for some disorders [3]. Furthermore, at present, only a few studies have compared the cost structures of outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation [4–6].

So far, Germany has a mainly hospital-based (inpatient) rehabilitation system that has been closely linked to the spa treatment system. In recent years, demand for outpatient rehabilitation has increased since insurance funds expect savings via an increased use of rehabilitation services offered in to patients close to their homes. In 2005, the proportion of outpatient rehabilitation in Germany was 5.10%. Within the German rehabilitation system, outpatient rehabilitation aims at a comprehensive (medical as well as psychosocial) interdisciplinary care that is qualitatively equal to an inpatient setting, with a mandatory daily presence of the patient over a period of at least 4 h/day [7]. Differences to inpatient rehabilitation are that (i) patients go home after their daily treatment, and (ii) patients receive their treatments in close proximity to their homes and therefore use local resources.

The medical outcome of outpatient rehabilitation has been intensively analysed. However, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance, which pays for a high share of rehabilitation services in Germany, there is no sound information thus far concerning the effectiveness of outpatient rehabilitation for the whole spectrum of musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, the overall cost as well as the cost structures of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation will be compared in this study. For a comprehensive cost analysis, it is also necessary to evaluate other cost areas that may be affected by the rehabilitation efforts. Therefore, through the inclusion of hospital costs, drug costs and costs for physical therapy in the year before and after rehabilitation, a comprehensive cost comparison between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation can be presented for the first time in this article.

Based on health insurance remuneration data, the following three questions were examined:

  • What are the costs of rehabilitation in musculoskeletal disorders?
  • What direct costs occur in other cost domains in the years (e.g. drug costs) before and after inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation?
  • Do the rehabilitation costs as well as other cost domains significantly differ between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation from the view of a sickness fund?


   Patients and methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients and data cleaning
This work is based on the reimbursement database of the Kaufmännische Krankenkasse (KKH), which is a major statutory health insurance fund with nearly 2 million insurants. In Germany, medical rehabilitation is reimbursed by statutory health funds and retirement funds. Rehabilitation for employed patients is funded by retirement funds whereas rehabilitation of unemployed patients is financed by health insurance funds. Therefore, the data of rehabilitation covered by health insurance funds represents only patients unable to work, retired and out of employment as well as housewives, students and other people in education or unemployed. All patients receiving a rehabilitation service in 2005 were extracted from the database and stored in a Microsoft Access database for data cleaning and further analysis.

All outpatient rehabilitation treatments with other indications as any musculoskeletal disease were deleted. For German-specific technical reasons, the patient's co-payment within the database is handled as a separate case in outpatient rehabilitation, which makes it necessary to consolidate these cases, reducing the size of the database by nearly a third. In some cases, the rehabilitation was interrupted (e.g. as the result of an unforeseen hospital stay or a worsened general status) or extended for medical reasons. Hence, rehabilitations that were continued after an interruption or extended had to be connected in the data set. If there was a shorter time span than 15 days between different rehabilitation treatments, the data set was manually adjusted for inpatient and outpatient rehabilitations.

Clinical data and cost analyses
For each single rehabilitation cycle, the duration, the specific service provider and the type of service were recorded as a standard procedure. The type of service can be differentiated between rehabilitation that takes place after a hospital stay and rehabilitation for a chronic condition without a preceding hospital stay. In addition, the age, gender, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding in inpatient rehabilitation and the place of residence of the patient was provided. In outpatient rehabilitation, the diagnosis was not provided in detailed ICD-10 encoding since this rating is manually added in another format by an employee of the health insurance fund. Hence, these data were linked to the preceding hospital diagnosis trying to validate the diagnosis. Apart from the demographic and clinical data, all billing information could be extracted from the database and were at hand for every single rehabilitation case.

Since the perspective of a statutory health insurance fund is used in this analysis, all costs of the rehabilitation or costs in other cost domains that were directly linked to that treatment must be taken into account [8]. On the other hand, co-payments or out of pocket payments by patients are not relevant from the perspective of a sickness fund [9]. Indirect costs are at least in Germany also irrelevant for a sickness fund since they are primarily borne by society and not (or only indirectly) through social insurance. Therefore, the focus of this study is primarily on the direct health care costs for rehabilitation services that are reimbursed by the health insurance fund.

Apart from the costs of the rehabilitation, other direct costs produced in other cost domains that are interdependent with rehabilitation are also relevant. This particularly concerns costs for hospital treatment, drugs and physical therapy 1 yr before and after the rehabilitation. Only drugs that are relevant for the treatment in musculoskeletal conditions were included in the analysis. All costs for relevant physical therapy (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, functional training, rehabilitation sport, medical massage and spa treatment) were also taken into account.

A cost–cost analysis approach was chosen for comparing the costs of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation [10]. Hence, differences in clinical effects or changes in health-related quality of life of the compared rehabilitation approaches were not evaluated since it is assumed in this analysis that those outcomes are identical in all alternatives. This was already shown in several studies [4–6]. German health insurances also consider the alternatives as equivalent in terms of expected clinical outcomes. This approach will be backed by analysing the total costs in the years before and after the rehabilitation.

Statistics
Various descriptive and analytical statistical methods were used for processing and evaluating the data on demographics, costs and services. Descriptive statistics include mean values (S.D.) and different measures of location and dispersion. Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) was used for the statistical calculations. SPSS Version 15 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for statistical testing (non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test) [11].

In order to minimize the influence of possible confounding variables, a parallelization process was used for the comparison of the inpatient and outpatient alternatives of rehabilitation. Due to the retrospective character of the study design statistical control groups were applied. In statistical controls, all obtained data are analysed and in a second step groups that are similar to the test group are formed using different relevant attributes [12]. As the comparison groups are formed retrospectively from the available data these are called statistical controls. Constructed and statistical controls are equivalent approaches for the generation of comparable groups despite certain procedural differences. Age and gender of the rehabilitation recipients were taken into account in this analysis. A total of seven age classes were formed for each gender: ≤29 yrs, 30–59 yrs, 60–64 yrs, 65–69 yrs, 70–74 yrs, 75–79 yrs and ≥80 yrs. Aside from age and gender, another parallelization criterion that was taken into account consisted of whether the rehabilitation was after a hospital stay or without a preceding treatment in a hospital. For this purpose, all hospital stays that occurred ≤14 days prior to the rehabilitation were taken into account. The German law has defined a special form of rehabilitation initiated immediately (≤14 days) after a hospital stay, which is called ‘Anschlussrehabilitation’ (§ 40 Nr. 6 sentence 1 SGB V). Important confounders, which were identified in previous studies, such as age, gender and type of rehabilitation could be controlled [5, 6]. Based on the statistical control system the influence of these possible confounders is neutralized and costs of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation can be compared for each type of rehabilitation, age and gender group separately.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Study population
The database includes a total of 16 208 rehabilitation cases, of which 13 833 received inpatient rehabilitation and 2375 received outpatient rehabilitation (Fig. 1). A total of 14 419 cases remained after data cleaning. The remaining 13 267 inpatient and 1152 outpatient rehabilitation cases represent all rehabilitations that incurred nation-wide in the health insurance fund in 2005. A total of 7346 (51%) rehabilitations were due to musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, there were 1857 (13%) cardiological rehabilitation cases, 2179 (15%) neurological rehabilitation cases and 3037 (21%) cases for other indications. Therefore, it was possible to analyse a total of 7346 musculoskeletal rehabilitation cases that included a total of 6491 inpatient and 855 outpatient episodes.


Figure 1
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 1. Patients and data cleaning.

 
For the group of rehabilitation with a preceding hospital stay there is detailed information on diagnosis in the data set. Between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation there is no structural difference in the different indications for that measure. In the group of patients in inpatient rehabilitation with a preceding hospital stay, 76% of all cases were due to only five indications (ICD-10: M16, M17, M48, M51 and M75). The same five indications made up for 68% of all cases in outpatient rehabilitation with a preceding hospital stay.

With 90% of the cases, rehabilitation after a hospital stay represents the most common case (Table 1). While only 7% of all cases received outpatient rehabilitation after a hospital stay, outpatient rehabilitation is the preferred form of rehabilitation in cases without a preceding hospital stay (57%). The mean age ranges between 66 (outpatient) and 71 yrs (inpatient) for rehabilitation after a hospital stay and between 54 (outpatient) and 64 yrs (inpatient) for rehabilitation without a preceding hospital stay. The proportion of female rehabilitation recipients is above average throughout all service types and rehabilitation settings. The distribution of rehabilitation cases over all age and gender classes of the statistical control system concentrates around female patients aged between 60 and 80 yrs of age (Fig. 2). Therefore, these age classes are of special importance from the perspective of the health insurance. In inpatient and in outpatient rehabilitation after a hospital stay, the class of 65- to 69-yr-old females comprises the largest number of cases. The sample size of the patients aged ≤29 is low, but to present a complete picture of all information this group is shown in the analysis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Demographic data

 

Figure 2
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 2. Overview of the statistical control system.

 
Costs of rehabilitation
The mean cost of inpatient rehabilitation after a hospital stay are {euro}2047 (S.D. = 430). In outpatient rehabilitation, mean costs are lower by 46% at {euro}1111 (S.D. = 606) (P = 0.000). In inpatient rehabilitation, 75% of all cases cost more than {euro}1900 (Fig. 3), while in outpatient rehabilitation 75% of all cases cost less than {euro}1303. The median in inpatient (outpatient) rehabilitation after a hospital stay is {euro}2010 ({euro}1049).


Figure 3
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 3. Cost of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation after hospitalization (in euros).

 
Even in rehabilitation without a preceding hospital stay, costs differ significantly (P = 0.000). Inpatient rehabilitation costs {euro}2067 (S.D. = 1024), while outpatient rehabilitation costs {euro}1310 (S.D. = 557). Therefore, costs are on average 37% lower for outpatient rehabilitation without a preceding hospitalization. The median without a preceding hospital stay is {euro}1799 in inpatient and {euro}1260 in outpatient rehabilitation (Fig. 4). The upper quartile of outpatient rehabilitation comes to {euro}1600 and, therefore, still lies below the lower quartile of hospital rehabilitation at costs of {euro}1630.


Figure 4
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 4. Cost of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation without preceding hospitalization (in euros).

 
The costs of outpatient rehabilitation are significantly lower even if the data is controlled for age and gender (Table 2). A non-significant difference was with the ≥80-yr-old males without a preceding hospital stay only observed in one group. In all other groups, costs differed significantly if the age and gender was statistically controlled (P < 0.05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Costs and significance (P-values) for cost differences between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation (Mann–Whitney U-test)

 
Costs in the year before and after rehabilitation
In the year prior to inpatient rehabilitation with a preceding hospital stay, there were mean hospital costs of {euro}9124. Prior to outpatient rehabilitation, the costs were {euro}7550 (Table 3). No significant differences were found in the hospital costs in the year before inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation (with the exception of 70- to 74-yr-old men as well as 60- to 64-yr-old and 65- 69-yr-old women) (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Costs in the year before and after inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation (In euros)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4. Costs and significance (P-values) of cost differences between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation in the year before and in the year after rehabilitation (Mann–Whitney U-test)

 
In the year after rehabilitation, mean hospital costs are {euro}2082 after outpatient rehabilitation and {euro}2843 after inpatient rehabilitation. Hospital costs after inpatient rehabilitation (vs outpatient) are only higher in ≤29-yr-old men. No hospital costs at all were incurred for more than half of all patients both after inpatient rehabilitation and after outpatient rehabilitation.

Unlike in rehabilitation after a hospital stay, mean hospital costs in the year before rehabilitation do not differ between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation ({euro}2596 vs {euro}2559) without an immediately preceding hospital treatment. No significant differences were found in any of the age and gender groups.

In the year after rehabilitation, mean hospital costs were {euro}2403 in inpatient rehabilitation and {euro}1183 in outpatient rehabilitation. Despite the difference, significant results could only be observed for the group of 30- to 59-yr-old women. In this group, the average amount of after inpatient rehabilitation is higher than after outpatient rehabilitation.

Drugs constitute another important cost domain within a health insurance (Table 3). With a few exceptions (75- to 79-yr-old and ≥80-yr-old males and 30-to 59-yr-old females) no significant differences were found in drug costs before inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation after a hospital stay (Table 4). Significant differences in drug costs in the year after rehabilitation were observed only for 75- to 79-yr-old and ≥80-yr-old males.

In the year preceding rehabilitation without a previous hospital stay, significant cost differences can only be found in the group of ≤29-yr-old men. The drug costs in this group are higher before outpatient rehabilitation. Furthermore, only one group showed differences in drug costs in the year after rehabilitation without a preceding hospital treatment. In the group of 70- to 74-yr-old men, costs were lower after outpatient rehabilitation.

Physical therapy is another cost domain directly linked to rehabilitation (Table 3). With the exception of 30- to 59-yr-old and 60- to 64-yr-old men, no significant differences were determined in this field. After inpatient (outpatient) rehabilitation with preceding hospital stays, mean costs of {euro}513 ({euro}380) were observed. Significant differences were reported in the year after rehabilitation in nearly half of all male and female age groups. In all of these groups, the average amount was lower after outpatient rehabilitation. At least one-quarter of outpatient rehabilitation cases lead to no costs in this area. Prior to rehabilitation without a preceding hospital stay, costs of {euro}697 ({euro}447) for inpatient (outpatient) rehabilitation were observed. No significant differences between costs were found in this issue. In the year after rehabilitation, costs were {euro}685 after inpatient rehabilitation and {euro}341 after outpatient rehabilitation. In only a few groups (≤29-, 30–59 and 65- to 69-yr-old men and 30–59-yr-old women), costs were significantly lower after outpatient rehabilitation.

A comparison of outpatient ambulatory services provided by physicians did not show systematic differences in utilization in patients who received inpatient vs outpatient rehabilitation (both before and after rehabilitation) (data not shown).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In this study, a nation-wide cost analysis of all musculoskeletal diseases-related rehabilitations was performed for the first time for a statutory health insurance fund. The presented data allow a comprehensive comparison between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation in Germany. Applying a cost–cost analysis method, it is essential that the alternatives and settings are identical in terms of their outcome. This becomes even more important, if statements are to be made regarding the benefits of one or more rehabilitation alternatives. In recent years, a number of studies concluded that the outcome of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic indications [4–6], but also in other indications such as cardiological [13] and neurological disorders [14, 15], are likely to be equivalent looking at significant outcome parameters. Therefore, there is more than one belief in health policy that inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation may be of equal value with regard to its structural and its process quality [16].

A lower quality of one rehabilitation approach could manifest itself via a higher use of the health care system after rehabilitation [17]. The comparison of costs for hospital treatments, drugs, outpatient service by physicians and other areas in the year after rehabilitation showed that there are no significant differences between the two rehabilitation settings. Hospital and drug costs in the year after rehabilitation showed no significant differences in nearly all examined age and gender classes. In the few age and gender groups in which significant differences were reported, the costs (with one exception) were lower than after outpatient rehabilitation. Therefore, based on this extensive remuneration data base of the year following rehabilitation, there is no evidence that outpatient rehabilitation may have a lower outcome quality and, therefore, higher costs than inpatient rehabilitation.

As both the results of the literature analysis and the analysis of the cost data in the context of this study allow us to make the assumption of a similar outcome of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, the evaluation of the benefits of inpatient vs outpatient rehabilitation can be focused on a pure cost comparison. It was shown that the costs of outpatient rehabilitation are significantly lower throughout all age and gender classes both for rehabilitation with a preceding hospital stay and for rehabilitation without a preceding hospital stay than the costs of inpatient rehabilitation (with the exception of the few men aged ≥80 yrs who constitute 0.11% of the cohort). In rehabilitation after a hospital stay, outpatient rehabilitation is 2-fold more favourable at {euro}1111 than inpatient rehabilitation ({euro}2047). Even for rehabilitation without preceding hospital treatment, the costs of outpatient episodes are 37% lower at {euro}1310.

In recent years, two studies have been published about the costs of rehabilitation that support the results of this study [4–5]. Bührlen et al. [5] compared the costs of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation from the perspective of the statutory pension insurance scheme with a smaller collective (n = 239). They showed that the costs of outpatient rehabilitation are on average {euro}1200 lower per case than the costs of inpatient rehabilitation. Their study collective clearly differs from the patients who were examined for this study (mean age of 45 yrs with only 12% women). In Germany, the pension insurance is traditionally responsible for the rehabilitation of persons who are employed, while the statutory health insurance is responsible for the rehabilitation of persons who are not employed, mostly pensioners. Therefore, the perspective is not identical also. But even in their cohort, the equivalence of outpatient rehabilitation compared with inpatient rehabilitation was demonstrated only from a cost perspective.

Klingelhöfer et al. [4], using data from the years 1999 to 2001, also examined the costs of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation based on a small study collective (n = 93) of younger, primarily male patients (mean age 42 yrs). The authors also concluded that the costs of inpatient (outpatient) rehabilitation are clearly higher at {euro}2162 ({euro}1148). However, a comparison of only the costs for the rehabilitation itself does not allow for a conclusion about the effectiveness of inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation. This would require the inclusion of all costs that are correlated with the rehabilitation. From a societal perspective, the results are also supported by a study from Merkesdal et al. [18], who compared the disease costs in the years before and after inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation in dorsopathies. For the period prior to rehabilitation and for the following year, no significant differences could be found between individual cost components. Assuming an equivalent outcome between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, they conclude that all results indicate the superiority of outpatient rehabilitation.

As a limitation of this study, it is necessary to state that due to the specific setting of the German rehabilitation system the transferability of the results to other health systems is only possible within limits. It is also necessary to state that the process of data cleaning may lead to specific distortions. And, of course, the presented cost differences may at least partially be due to differences in the disease severity of the compared study collectives. The latter, the possibility of bias caused by missing clinical data was minimized by extensive further analyses: with age, gender, indication and type of rehabilitation, important sociodemographic and medical confounders were statistically controlled. We also argued that the costs before and also after rehabilitation may function as a weak proxy for the severity of illness. With regard to that, significant cost differences were only found in a very low number of age and gender groups. Therefore, this may be a more than weak signal, that there may not have been very large differences in the severity of the cases in either group. Since the analyses were performed using the complete database of one of the largest health insurance funds in Germany, it may also be assumed that the data are representative for Germany as a whole.

Since, as mentioned, detailed clinical information can only be obtained to a limited extent from the databases of the health insurance fund, future studies should examine the influence of different disease severities on rehabilitation costs over longer time periods than 1 yr after the rehabilitation [19]. Moreover, randomized controlled trials are needed to address potential differences in cost–effectiveness between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation.

Should outpatient rehabilitation now be preferred to inpatient rehabilitation in all cases where this is feasible and possible? In indications with rather low case numbers, it is questionable whether sufficient rehabilitation candidates would be present for illness-specific (economically efficient) outpatient service in regions with weak populations. Hence, outpatient rehabilitation is an option whenever the patient: (i) has the mobility required to be an active part in outpatient rehabilitation; (ii) is physically and mentally able to handle the services; (iii) the facility can be reached within a driving time that is feasible depending on the respective conditions; (iv) there is no need to remove the patient from the home environment; (v) home care is assured; and (vi) the formulated rehabilitation goal can be reached through outpatient rehabilitation.

Formula

Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Brooks PM. The burden of musculoskeletal disease – a global perspective. Clin Rheumatol (2006) 25:778–81.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ (2003) 81:646–56.[Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Uhlig T, Finset A, Kvien TK. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of comprehensive rehabilitation programs. Curr Opin Rheumatol (2003) 15:134–40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Klingelhöfer HE, Timm A. Economic efficiency of outpatient rehabilitation – final results of a study in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (in German). Rehabilitation (2005) 44:1–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Bührlen B, Jäckel WH. Outpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation: treatment, outcomes and costs as compared to inpatient rehabilitation (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:148–59.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bürger W, Dietsche S, Morfeld M, Koch U. Outpatient and inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation – results of a study comparing outcome and costs (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:92–102.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation. Guidelines for outpatient rehabilitation for musculoskeletal diseases (in German). In: Frankfurt am Main. (2001).
  8. Mittendorf T, Merkesdal S, Huelsemann JL, von der Schulenburg JM, Zeidler H, Ruof J. Implementing standardized cost categories within economic evaluations in musculoskeletal diseases. Eur J Health Econ (2003) 4:43–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Hülsemann JL, Mittendorf T, Merkesdal S, et al. Direct costs related to rheumatoid arthritis: the patient perspective. Ann Rheum Dis (2005) 64:1456–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Ruof J, Hülsemann JL, Mittendorf T, von der Schulenburg JM, Zeidler H, Merkesdal S. Conceptual and methodological basics of cost assessments in rheumatology (in German). Z Rheumatol (2004) 63:372–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric statistical methods. (1999) 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
  12. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Freeman HE. Evaluation: a systematic approach. (2004) 7th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  13. Vom Orde A, Schott T, Iseringhausen O. Outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation treatment and cost-effectiveness relations – a comparison between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation programmes (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:119–29.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Bölsche F, Hasenbein U, Reißberg H, Lotz-Rambaldi W, Wallesch CW. Short term results of outpatient vs. inpatient rehabilitation after stroke (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:175–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Schönle PW. Outpatient and inpatient neurological rehabilitation – a follow-up comparison (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:183–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Dietsche S, Bürger W, Morfeld M, Koch U. Structural and procedural quality of different orthopaedic rehabilitation settings: a comparison (in German). Rehabilitation (2002) 41:103–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Hansmeier T, Müller-Fahrnow W, Klosterhuis H, Spyra K. Cost-benefit evaluation of medical rehabilitation by social security pensions and effects of the growth and occupational rehabilitation regulation (WFG) (in German). Z Gerontol Geriatr (1997) 30:450–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Merkesdal S, Bernitt K, Busche T, Bauer J, Mau W. Comparison of costs-of-illness in a year before and after inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation in persons with spinal disorders (in German). Rehabilitation (2004) 43:83–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Mau W. Long-term follow-up and changes of costs of illness after medical rehabilitation of persons with musculoskeletal diseases (in German). Phys Med Rehab Kuror (2006) 16:134–8.[CrossRef]
Submitted 18 February 2008; revised version accepted 7 July 2008.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/10/1527    most recent
ken315v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zeidler, J.
Right arrow Articles by Merkesdal, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zeidler, J.
Right arrow Articles by Merkesdal, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Economics
Right arrow Myositis and Muscle Disease
Right arrow Vasculitis
Right arrow Spondylarthropathies
Right arrow Soft Tissue Rheumatism
Right arrow Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease
Right arrow Rheumatoid Arthritis
Right arrow Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Autoimmunity
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?