Disease identification based on ambulatory drugs dispensation and in-hospital ICD-10 diagnoses: a comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-based case mix measures are an alternative source of information to the relatively scarce outpatient diagnoses data. But most published tools use national drug nomenclatures and offer no head-to-head comparisons between drugs-related and diagnoses-based categories. The objective of the study was to test the accuracy of drugs-based morbidity groups derived from the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs by checking them against diagnoses-based groups. METHODS: We compared drugs-based categories with their diagnoses-based analogues using anonymous data on 108,915 individuals insured with one of four companies. They were followed throughout 2005 and 2006 and hospitalized at least once during this period. The agreement between the two approaches was measured by weighted kappa coefficients. The reproducibility of the drugs-based morbidity measure over the 2 years was assessed for all enrollees. RESULTS: Eighty percent used a drug associated with at least one of the 60 morbidity categories derived from drugs dispensation. After accounting for inpatient under-coding, fifteen conditions agreed sufficiently with their diagnoses-based counterparts to be considered alternative strategies to diagnoses. In addition, they exhibited good reproducibility and allowed prevalence estimates in accordance with national estimates. For 22 conditions, drugs-based information identified accurately a subset of the population defined by diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Most categories provide insurers with health status information that could be exploited for healthcare expenditure prediction or ambulatory cost control, especially when ambulatory diagnoses are not available. However, due to insufficient concordance with their diagnoses-based analogues, their use for morbidity indicators is limited.

La concurrence : un instrument de maîtrise des coûts de la santé?

[Table des matières] 1. Les acteurs du système suisse de santé : les assureurs maladies, les fournisseurs de prestations, l'Etat, les assurés patients. 2. Quelle concurrence pour quelle organisation? : 2.1 Concurrence entre fournisseurs de prestations: Références étrangères (Grande-Bretagne, USA, Pays-Bas); Le système suisse: Financement et planification, Conventions tarifaires, Un élement indispensable à la concurrence: l'information. 2.2 Concurrence entre assureurs maladie. 3. Nouvelles formes d'organisation : 3.1 Les Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO); 3.2 Les HMO en Suisse: un moyen d'endiguer la croissance des coûts; 3.3 Les Nouvelles Orientations de Politique Sanitaire (NOPS); 3.4 La concurrence dans le cadre des réseaux intégrés.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Switzerland: a comprehensive quality control report on centre effect.

Interest groups advocate centre-specific outcome data as a useful tool for patients in choosing a hospital for their treatment and for decision-making by politicians and the insurance industry. Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) requires significant infrastructure and represents a cost-intensive procedure. It therefore qualifies as a prime target for such a policy. We made use of the comprehensive database of the Swiss Blood Stem Cells Transplant Group (SBST) to evaluate potential use of mortality rates. Nine institutions reported a total of 4717 HSCT - 1427 allogeneic (30.3%), 3290 autologous (69.7%) - in 3808 patients between the years 1997 and 2008. Data were analysed for survival- and transplantation-related mortality (TRM) at day 100 and at 5 years. The data showed marked and significant differences between centres in unadjusted analyses. These differences were absent or marginal when the results were adjusted for disease, year of transplant and the EBMT risk score (a score incorporating patient age, disease stage, time interval between diagnosis and transplantation, and, for allogeneic transplants, donor type and donor-recipient gender combination) in a multivariable analysis. These data indicate comparable quality among centres in Switzerland. They show that comparison of crude centre-specific outcome data without adjustment for the patient mix may be misleading. Mandatory data collection and systematic review of all cases within a comprehensive quality management system might, in contrast, serve as a model to ascertain the quality of other cost-intensive therapies in Switzerland.