Cost-outcome of XXXX treatment intervention in primary care in Hungary.

@entity1 @entity308 @entity146 @entity1316 @entity148
AIM OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this paper is to estimate the changes in health utilization and indirect costs of @entity148 and @entity1316 in primary care @entity1 after initiation of mental health treatment. METHOD: This study was conducted in 12 general practices for the primary care of adult populations in Budapest, Hungary. Among 2,000 eligible @entity1 aged 18 to 64 years, 1,815 gave written informed consent to participate in the study. The Hungarian version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) for @entity1316 was used to generate @entity146 diagnoses. For all @entity1 , health care utilization data for the previous 12 months was collected including number of visits, specialist consultations, days spent in hospital, sick days in the last year and prescribed medication. Among the first 1,000 attenders, 151 @entity1 were given DIS/DSM-III-R diagnoses of current @entity1316 or uncomplicated bereavement. Fifty-one @entity1 who agreed to @entity146 treatment were assigned to the treatment group. After the first 1,000 @entity1 , 75 @entity1 were given DIS diagnoses and were considered as controls. In the treatment group, five psychiatrists administered treatment on an outpatient basis for one year. @entity1 in the control group received as-usual treatment from their primary care physicians. After one year, health care utilization data for the study period was collected. For the purposes of this study, the direct costs considered were limited to health care expenses and the indirect costs were limited to lost workdays. Statistical significance was calculated using a paired-samples T-test procedure comparing the means of two variables for a simple group. RESULTS: In the treatment group, the total cost of prescription drugs increased sharply due to @entity146 drug treatment, thus increasing the direct overall costs of care. In this same group the cost of non- @entity146 drugs showed a 37% decrease, suggesting that a reduction in general medical treatment partially offset the costs of @entity148 and @entity308 treatment. The number of hospital days showed marked decrease in the treatment group and a slight, insignificant increase in the control group. Absenteeism fell sharply in the treatment group (-56%) and in the group of @entity1 who received @entity146 treatment elsewhere (-62%). In the control group, there was a large upturn (+182%) in the number of days spent on sick leave. DISCUSSION: Among primary care @entity1 diagnosed with @entity148 , @entity146 treatment led to higher direct costs, but this was offset by a decline in indirect costs due to reduced absenteeism compared with ordinary primary care. LIMITATIONS: @entity1 were not assigned randomly to the different groups because of ethical concerns. There were also significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the groups. Differences in the severity of illness and reasons not attributable to treatment effects may play a role in the change in the rate of service use. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Limiting @entity148 @entity1 access to @entity146 treatment causes an increase in absenteeism, thus resulting in higher indirect costs.
