Ist ein Brustzentrum finanzierbar? - Ein Kalkulationsmodell für das Universitäts-Brustzentrum Franken (UBF)

Cost effectiveness of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy

Background

Growing demand for risk-reducing surgery in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer leads to the question whether these procedures are cost effective for the executing hospitals. This study compared the clinical costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) with and without different types of reconstruction, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), and their combinations with corresponding reimbursements in the statutory health-care system in Germany.

Patients and methods

Real total costs of care for BRRM with and without reconstruction, RRSO, and their combinations were calculated as the sum of all personnel and technical costs. These costs calculated in a German University hospital were compared with the sum of all reimbursements in the German DRG-based health-care system.

Results

While sole RRSO, BRRM without reconstruction, and BRRM with secondary DIEP (deep inferior epigastric perforator)—reconstruction still result in a small benefit, we even found shortfalls for the hospital with all other prophylactic operations under consideration. The calculated deficits were especially high for BRRM with implant-based breast reconstruction and for combined operations when the risk reduction is achieved with a minimum of separate operations.

Conclusions

Risk-reducing surgery in BRCA-mutation carriers is frequently not cost-covering for the executing hospitals in the German health-care system. Thus, appropriate concepts are required to ensure a nationwide care.

Relevance of health economics in breast cancer treatment - the view of certified breast centres and their patients

Breast cancer centres - certified in accordance with the criteria of the German Cancer Association and the German Mastology Association - are established throughout Germany. Although the setting up of centres and the subsequent need for certification are associated with a marked increase in costs, initial data show positive effects on quality. Certified centres are cost-effective from the point of view of health economics - they lead to improved quality in processes and results without creating any increase in costs for the funding bodies. However, the organization of the necessary structures, with interdisciplinary treatment, documentation and quality-assurance measures, requires considerable resources. Increasing consolidation of inpatient services is also involved, while shortening of the patients' hospitalization periods is leading to reduced remuneration from the funding bodies. The current cost deficits, which have resulted from the increased resources required, need to be recouped through additional charges. It will only be possible to maintain the high quality achieved if additional charges become available to cover the centres' added costs. Good data are increasingly becoming available as a basis for negotiations on charges - e.g., with regard to the quality of results and the National Cancer Plan - as well as clear support from patients.

Financing of certified centers: a willingness-to-pay analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although care in certified breast centers is now established throughout Germany, numerous services are still not being reimbursed. This also affects other centers involved in the specialty of gynecology such as gynecological cancer centers, perinatal centers, and endometriosis centers. Although a certified center is entitled to charge additional fees, these are in most cases not reimbursed. Calculation of additional costs is limited by the fact that data from the Institute for the Hospital Reimbursement System (Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus, InEK) do not reflect interdisciplinary services and procedures. For decision-makers, society's willingness to pay is an important factor in guiding decisions on the basis of social priorities. A hypothetical maximum willingness to pay can be calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis, making it possible to identify deficiencies in the arbitrary setting of health budgets at the macro-level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multicenter study conducted between November 2009 and December 2010, 2,469 patients at a university hospital and at a non-university hospital were asked about the extent of their awareness of certified centers, the influence of centers on hospital presentation, and about personal attitudes toward quality-oriented reimbursement. A subjective assessment of possible additional charges was calculated using a willingness-to-pay analysis.

RESULTS

In the overall group, 53.4 % of the patients were aware of what a certified center is and 27.4 % had specific information (obstetrics 40.0/32.3 %; mastology 66.8/23.2 %; gynecological oncology 54.7/27.3 %; P < 0.001). For 43.8 %, a certified center was one reason or the major reason for presentation (obstetrics 26.2 %; mastology 66.8 %; gynecological oncology 46.6 %; P < 0.001). A total of 72.6 % were in favor of quality-oriented reimbursement and 69.7 % were in favor of an additional charge for a certified center amounting to €538.56 (mastology €643.65, obstetrics €474.67, gynecological oncology €532.47). In all, 33.9 % would accept an increase in health-insurance fees (averaging 0.3865 %), and 28.3 % were in favor of reduced remuneration for non-certified centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The existence of certified centers is being increasingly recognized by patients. Additional charges for certified centers are generally supported. There is therefore a clear demand for them-from patients as well. This may be useful when negotiations are being conducted.

Psycho-oncological care in certified cancer centres--a nationwide analysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, a nationwide voluntary certification system for cancer centres has been established in Germany. To qualify for certification, cancer centres must provide psycho-oncological care to every patient who needs it. The aim of this study was to find out how many patients have been treated by a psycho-oncologist in the certified centres.

METHODS

All cancer centres in Germany that were re-certified in 2010 provided data documenting how many patients with primary cancer received at least 30 min of psycho-oncological consultation in 2009.

RESULTS

Data from n = 456 certified cancer centres were available. In the centres, a total of 36,165 patients were seen by a psycho-oncologist for at least 30 min, representing 37.3% of all patients in the centres. The highest percentage of patients who received psycho-oncological care was found in breast cancer centres (66.7%), and the lowest in prostate cancer centres (6.8%). Half of the patients (50.0%) in gynaecological cancer centres, 37.7% in colon cancer centres and 25.4% in lung cancer centres received psycho-oncological care.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with non-certified centres, the proportion of patients receiving psycho-oncological care in certified cancer centres has increased.

[Certification of breast centers]

The primary focus of the establishment and certification of specialized cancer centers in the context of the National Cancer Plan is to improve the quality of care for patients with various carcinoma entities. The era of organ center certification started with the establishment of specialized breast cancer centers in line with the high incidence of breast cancer, the high mortality rate and the high level of interdisciplinary cooperation in the diagnosis and therapy of breast cancer. The introduction of quality management and external monitoring aims to provide high quality care in the diagnosis and therapy of breast cancer and is expected to improve long-term quality data (disease-free survival and overall survival) and to reduce mortality rates by about 25-30%. Certification requires the implementation of a quality management system and care provision structures assuring diagnosis and therapy according to the quality guidelines and recommendations of the specialist societies. Basic requirements for improving the quality of breast cancer patient care are centralization, specialization and interdisciplinarity. It has been demonstrated that the improvement of overall survival is associated with an increasing annual case load of a center, an increasing case load per surgeon per year, study participation and interdisciplinarity. Tumor documentation will be harmonized in the future by the establishment of local clinical cancer registries and cross-linking them with the National Cancer Registry. The data collection and analysis of several quality markers and current follow-up and survival data for each breast cancer patient will allow direct comparison of participating institutions. Individual breast cancer centers may demonstrate quality improvement longitudinally. Both certification and specialization require additional services which are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Preliminary data suggest that certified breast cancer centers are dependent on cross-financing by the participating departments of a hospital. Up to now cost-effective analyses for certified breast cancer centers are not available due to a substantial lack of data defining the additional financial burden.

The era of centers: the influence of establishing specialized centers on patients' choice of hospital

PURPOSE

It is considered that establishing accredited specialized centers can serve as a marketing tool. This study investigated whether accredited specialized centers influence patients' choice of hospital.

METHODS

A total of 2,389 patients was included in a questionnaire survey: 468 at the Department of Gynecology, 745 at the certified University Breast Center of Franconia, 1,000 at the University Perinatal Center of Franconia and 176 for whom classification details were lacking.

RESULTS

Among the oncological patients, physicians in private practice played an important role in the choice of hospital (58.4 vs. 25.7%; P < 0.001; OR 4.058). Among obstetric patients, the primary factors were recommendations from family [odds ratio (OR) 0.495], friends (OR 0.218), and previous personal experience of the hospital (OR 0.695). For oncological patients, treatment quality (OR 2.693), availability of a center (OR 1.785), and certification (OR 3.939) were comparatively more important. For obstetric patients, friendliness (OR 0.409) and attractive accommodation (OR 0.153) were more important.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are the most important source of recommendations for oncological patients. From the marketing point of view, intensive involvement of local private-practice physicians is necessary. The availability of certified perinatal centers does not currently play any part in patients' choice of hospital.

Certification of breast centres in Germany: proof of concept for a prototypical example of quality assurance in multidisciplinary cancer care

Background

The main study objectives were: to develop a set of requirements of comprehensive breast centres; to establish a nationwide voluntary certification programme for breast centres based on such requirements, a certified quality management system (QMS), and scheduled independent, external audits and periodic recertification; and to demonstrate the general acceptance of such a certification programme with a view to introducing similar certification programmes for other major cancers.

Methods

Breast centres introduced a QMS and voluntarily participated in an external certification procedure based on guideline-derived Requirements of Breast Centres specifically developed for the application procedure, all subsequent audits and recertification. All data (numbers of pending and successful applications, sites/centre, etc.) were collected by a newly founded, independent organisation for certification of cancer services delivery. Data analysis was descriptive.

Results

Requirements of Breast Centres were developed by the German Cancer Society (DKG), the German Society of Senology (DGS) and other relevant specialist medical societies in the form of a questionnaire comprising 185 essential items based on evidence-based guidelines and the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists' (EUSOMA) requirements of specialist breast units. From late 2002 to mid 2008, the number of participating breast centres rose from 1 to 175. As of mid 2008, 77% of an estimated 50,000 new breast cancers in Germany were diagnosed and treated at certified breast centres, 78% of which were single-site centres.

Conclusion

Nationwide voluntary certification of breast centres is feasible and well accepted in Germany. Dual certification of breast centres that involves certification of breast services to guideline-derived requirements in conjunction with independent certification of a mandatory QMS can serve as a model for other multidisciplinary site-specific cancer centres.