Extent and structure of health insurance expenditures for complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss primary care

BACKGROUND: The study is part of a nationwide evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in primary care in Switzerland. The goal was to evaluate the extent and structure of basic health insurance expenditures for complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss primary care. METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional evaluation of Swiss primary care providers and included 262 certified CAM physicians, 151 noncertified CAM physicians and 172 conventional physicians. The study was based on data from a mailed questionnaire and on reimbursement information obtained from health insurers. It was therefore purely observational, without interference into diagnostic and therapeutic procedures applied or prescribed by physicians. Main outcome measures included average reimbursed costs per patient, structured into consultation- and medication-related costs, and referred costs. RESULTS: Total average reimbursed cost per patient did not differ between CAM physicians and conventional practitioners, but considerable differences were observed in cost structure. The proportions of reimbursed costs for consultation time were 56% for certified CAM, 41% for noncertified CAM physicians and 40% for conventional physicians; medication costs--including expenditures for prescriptions and directly dispensed drugs--respectively accounted for 35%, 18%, and 51% of costs. CONCLUSION: The results indicate no significant difference for overall treatment cost per patient between CAM and COM primary care in Switzerland. However, CAM physicians treat lower numbers of patients and a more cost-favourable patient population than conventional physicians. Differences in cost structure reflect more patient-centred and individualized treatment modalities of CAM physicians.

Complementary and alternative medicine costs - a systematic literature review

Objective: The aim of this literature review, performed within the framework of the Swiss governmental Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK), was to investigate costs of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in 11 electronic databases. All retrieved titles and reference lists were also hand-searched. Results: 38 publications were found: 23 on CAM of various definitions (medical and non-medical practitioners, over-the-counter products), 13 on homeopathy, 2 on phytotherapy. Studies investigated different kinds of costs (direct or indirect) and used different methods (prospective or retrospective questionnaires, data analyses, cost-effectiveness models). Most studies report 'out of pocket' costs, because CAM is usually not covered by health insurance. Costs per CAM-treatment / patient / month were AUD 7-66, CAD 250 and GBP 13.62 +/- 1.61. Costs per treatment were EUR 205 (range: 15-1,278), USD 414 +/- 269 and USD 1,127. In two analyses phytotherapy proved to be cost-effective. One study revealed a reduction of 1.5 days of absenteeism from work in the CAM group compared to conventionally treated patients. Another study, performed by a health insurance company reported a slight increase in direct costs for CAM. Costs for CAM covered by insurance companies amounted to approximately 0.2-0.5% of the total healthcare budget (Switzerland, 2003). Publications had several limitations, e.g. efficacy of therapies was rarely reported. As compared to conventional patients, CAM patients tend to cause lower costs. Conclusion: Results suggest lower costs for CAM than for conventional patients, but the limited methodological quality lowers the significance of the available data. Further well-designed studies and models are required.

[Complementary and alternative medicine in primary care in Switzerland]

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the current supply of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Swiss primary care. Information was collected on physicians' qualifications in CAM, frequency of patients' demand for CAM, physicians' supply and temporal resources for CAM as well as physicians' referrals to CAM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 750 (500 German-speaking and 250 French-speaking) randomly selected Swiss female and male primary care physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire (response rate 50.4%). Sociodemographic data on professional training, place of residence, and sex were used to calculate a weighting factor to correct the responders' data in the analysis accordingly. RESULTS: 14.2% of the physicians were qualified in at least one CAM discipline. Around 30% (95% confidence interval 25.4-34.6%) of the physicians were asked for CAM by their patients more than once a week. Homeopathy and phytotherapy were the most frequently offered therapies, followed by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)/acupuncture. 62.5% (57.6-67.4%) of the physicians refer their patients to CAM. Most patients were referred to TCM/acupuncture. Of the 37.2% (32.6-42.4%) of the physicians who do not refer their patients to CAM, around 40% (35.1-44.9%) offer it themselves. CONCLUSION: About three quarters of the physicians offer CAM themselves or refer their patients to CAM treatments. CAM is very important in primary medical care in Switzerland. Clear regulations for CAM are required in order to ensure a high quality in care.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in patients with organ transplantation in Switzerland

Introduction: The aim was to investigate retrospectively use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the treatment of patients with organ transplantation in Switzerland. Methods: Members of the Swiss transplant association completed a questionnaire about CAM use retrospectively. Five different stages were differentiated: CAM usage (1) during underlying disease, (2) before transplant, (3) during hospitalisation/ rehabilitation from transplant, (4) for transplant complications and (5) after transplant for other diseases. Results: Of the 267 patients contacted, 124 (46%) completed the questionnaire, and data of 118 (44%) participants could be analyzed: 55 women (47%), mean age 56 years. Overall, 64 (54%) indicated CAM use, with about 30% usage at every stage (except during hospitalization with only 10%). Different methods were most common: during underlying disease classical homeopathy (15% of all participants), before transplant dietary supplements (13%), during hospitalization meditation (3%), for transplantation complications dietary supplements (10%), and after transplant for other diseases massage (11%). Among the 64 CAM-users, the most important reasons for the usage were improvement of general condition (36%) and abatement of adverse effects of conventional treatment (25%). Among the 54 non-CAM-users, most frequent reasons for not choosing CAM were insecurity about interactions with conventional treatment (46%), and ignorance of this option (28%). About 35% of the CAM-users reported an improved general condition, while 30% noticed an abatement of side effects of conventional treatment. Conclusions: To prevent dangerous interactions with conventional treatment, more information on possibilities of CAM in the treatment of patients with transplantations is needed for doctors and patients.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Children with Cancer: A Study at a Swiss University Hospital

Background Though complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are frequently used by children and adolescents with cancer, there is little information on how and why they use it. This study examined prevalence and methods of CAM, the therapists who applied it, reasons for and against using CAM and its perceived effectiveness. Parent-perceived communication was also evaluated. Parents were asked if medical staff provided information on CAM to patients, if parents reported use of CAM to physicians, and what attitude they thought physicians had toward CAM. Study Design All childhood cancer patients treated at the University Children’s Hospital Bern between 2002–2011 were retrospectively surveyed about their use of CAM. Results Data was collected from 133 patients (response rate: 52%). Of those, 53% had used CAM (mostly classical homeopathy) and 25% of patients received information about CAM from medical staff. Those diagnosed more recently were more likely to be informed about CAM options. The most frequent reason for choosing CAM was that parents thought it wouldimprove the patient’s general condition. The most frequent reason for not using CAM was lack of information. Of those who used CAM, 87% perceived positive effects. Conclusions Since many pediatric oncology patients use CAM, patients’ needs should be addressed by open communication between families, treating oncologists and CAM therapists, which will allow parents to make informed and safe choices about using CAM.

How should complementary and alternative medicine be taught to medical students in Switzerland? A survey of medical experts and students

In Switzerland and in the whole western world, the growing popularity of CAM is calling for its implementation in the undergraduate medical curriculum.

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

The supply of complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss hospitals

OBJECTIVES: Over the past few years, a considerable increase in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been observed, particularly in primary care. In contrast little is known about the supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals. This study aims at the investigation of amount and structure of CAM activities of Swiss hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey using a 2-step, questionnaire- based approach acquiring overview information form hospital managers in a first questionnaire leading to detailed information on CAM usage at medical department level (head of department). This second questionnaire provides data of physician-based and non-physician-based CAM supply. RESULTS: The size of hospitals was significantly associated with the provision of CAM. 33% of the hospital managers indicated 1 or more medical doctor (MD) using CAM in their hospital compared to 37% of confirmation on department level (Kappa value 0.5). Mostly different CAM methods were applied. Acupuncture was used most frequently. However only 13 hospitals (11%) occupied more than 3 CAM MDs and only 5 hospitals had more than 2 full-time equivalents for MDs. Furthermore, 74.7% of these personnel resources were dedicated for outpatient care. In terms of CAM methods anthroposophic medicine accounted for more than half of the total personnel costs. On the other hand usage of non-physician based CAM accounted for 41% according to hospital managers compared to 64% of CAM usage according to medical departments (Kappa values 0.31). Reflexology of the foot was used most frequently. CONCLUSION: Total supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals is low and concentrates on few hospitals. Acupuncture is the widest spread discipline but anthroposophic medicine spends the most resources. The study shows that a high patient demand for CAM faces low supply in hospitals.