Services utilization before and after the prospective payment system by patients with somatization disorder

Home Dialysis in the Prospective Payment System Era

The ESRD Prospective Payment System introduced two incentives to increase home dialysis use: bundling injectable medications into a single payment for treatment and paying for home dialysis training. We evaluated the effects of the ESRD Prospective Payment System on home dialysis use by patients starting dialysis in the United States from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013. We analyzed data on dialysis modality, insurance type, and comorbidities from the United States Renal Data System. We estimated the effect of the policy on home dialysis use with multivariable logistic regression and compared the effect on Medicare Parts A/B beneficiaries with the effect on patients with other types of insurance. The ESRD Prospective Payment System associated with a 5.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.0% to 6.0%) increase in home dialysis use by the end of the study period. Home dialysis use increased by 5.8% (95% CI, 4.3% to 6.9%) among Medicare beneficiaries and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.3% to 5.4%) among patients covered by other forms of health insurance. The difference between these groups was not statistically significant (1.8%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 3.8%). Conversely, in both populations, the training add-on did not associate with increases in home dialysis use beyond the effect of the policy. The ESRD Prospective Payment System bundling, but not the training add-on, associated with substantial increases in home dialysis, which were identical for both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. These spill-over effects suggest that major payment changes in Medicare can affect all patients with ESRD.

Health care utilization and poor reassurance: potential predictors of somatoform disorders

OBJECTIVE

Somatoform disorders are common conditions, but the current diagnostic criteria are considered to be unreliable, based largely on medically unexplained symptoms. DSM-5 is considering other possible characteristics of somatizers including high utilization, dissatisfaction with care, and poor response to reassurance. This paper reviews the available literature for evidence to support these criteria, and evaluates if distinctive aspects of these characteristics exist in somatizers.

METHODS

The Pubmed database was searched combining terms such as “somatoform disorder” with “reassurance,” “satisfaction,” and “utilization.” Articles were individually inspected.

RESULTS

Many studies report a deficit in long-term response to reassurance in somatizers; there was some evidence that patients respond initially to reassurance, followed by return of anxiety, leading to further reassurance seeking. There was insufficient evidence to support poor satisfaction with care as a characteristic of somatizers. While there is no standard criterion for high utilization, regardless of definition, evidence was found to support over-utilization, particularly in outpatient visits. However, no unique pattern of utilization was found that could identify somatizers within a broader group of high utilizers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed evidence of over-utilization in many areas of healthcare, as well as poor long term response to reassurance in somatizers. Dissatisfaction with care, though, was not a consistent finding. It is difficult to study alternative diagnostic criteria for somatoform patients when the current criteria rest on so many problematic assumptions. Future research should attempt to validate criteria empirically in patient groups, with selection not based on medically unexplained symptoms.

The quantification inventory for somatoform syndromes (QUISS): a novel instrument for the assessment of severity

BACKGROUND

To date, specific scales for the assessment of severity of somatoform disorders are still rare. Characteristic cognitive and behavioural domains, representing severity are not incorporated in the existing scales. Results with the novel quantification inventory for somatoform syndromes (QUISS) are presented in this paper.

METHODS

The QUISS has been developed as a qualified severity scale for patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria according to DSM-IV or/and ICD-10. It was designed to be particularly suitable for application in clinical trials and for monitoring the efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Not only number, severity and frequency of somatoform symptoms, but also common cognitive and behavioural domains of somatoform disorders have been included into this instrument. Both an 18-item patient- and observer-rated version are available taking about 20 min to complete. The questionnaire was applied to patients with somatoform disorder (N = 96), major depression (N = 24), and panic disorder (N = 16).

RESULTS

The psychometric properties of the scale are satisfactory. The QUISS showed high objectivity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90 for both versions; inter-scale correlations r = 0.64-0.88; p < 0.05), good test-retest- (r = 0.87; p < 0.05) and inter-rater-reliability (r = 0.89; p < 0.05). External validity (moderately high correlations of QUISS-T to SOMS 7T (r = 0.54), significant discrimination to major depression p < 0.05) was satisfactory. Factor structure revealed five relevant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The QUISS could be a useful instrument in somatoform disorders for the assessment of syndrome severity and treatment outcome in scientific and clinical settings.

The somatization in primary care study: a tale of three diagnoses

Somatization is a common phenomenon that has been defined in many ways. The two most widely used diagnoses, Somatization Disorder (SD) and Abridged Somatization Disorder (ASD), are based on lifetime unexplained symptoms. However, reports indicate instability in lifetime symptom recall among somatizing patients. Multisomatoform disorder (MSD) is a new diagnosis based on current unexplained symptoms. To understand how knowledge about SD and ASD translates to MSD, we examined the diagnostic concordance, impairment and health care utilization of these groups in a sample from the Somatization in Primary Care Study. The diagnostic concordance was high between MSD and SD, but lower between MSD and ASD. All three groups reported considerable physical impairment (measured using the PCS subscale of the SF-36). The mental health (MCS) scores for the three groups were only slightly lower than those of the general population. Over the course of one year, physical functioning fell significantly for all three groups. Mental functioning did not change significantly for any of the three groups over this period. Utilization patterns were very similar for the three groups. The high prevalence, serious impairment, and worsening physical functioning over the course of one year suggest the importance of developing interventions in primary care to alleviate the impaired physical functioning and reduce utilization in somatizing patients. MSD should be a useful diagnosis for targeting these interventions because it identifies a sizable cohort of somatizing patients reporting impairment of comparable severity to full SD, using a more efficient diagnostic algorithm based on current symptoms.