Deciphering Usage and Expenditures of Complementary Medicine: A Five-Year Longitudinal Data Analysis of 205,423 Individuals

IF 6.5 2区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Mayo Clinic proceedings Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-22 DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2025.09.018

David De Ridder DDR, MEng, PhD, Christophe Bagnoud CB, MSc, PhD, Stéphane Joost SJ, MEng, PhD, Idris Guessous IG, MD, PhD

{"title":"Deciphering Usage and Expenditures of Complementary Medicine: A Five-Year Longitudinal Data Analysis of 205,423 Individuals","authors":"David De Ridder DDR, MEng, PhD, Christophe Bagnoud CB, MSc, PhD, Stéphane Joost SJ, MEng, PhD, Idris Guessous IG, MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocp.2025.09.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify factors associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, investigate regional patterns, and examine whether CAM usage is associated with decreased expenditures in conventional medicine (CM).</div></div><div><h3>Participants and Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective analysis of Swiss health insurance claims data from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, including mandatory health insurance (MHI) and supplementary insurance (SI) schemes. We analyzed 816,080 person-years from 205,423 Swiss residents with dual coverage using 2-part multilevel models and geographic clustering analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>CAM utilization differed markedly between schemes: 59% (481,176 of 816,080) used CAM (SI) while 2.2% (18,023) used CAM (MHI). Women had nearly double the odds of CAM (MHI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; <em>P</em><.001) and 56% higher odds of CAM (SI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; <em>P</em><.001). Higher socioeconomic status was associated with dose-response relationships, with increased usage across both schemes. Substantial geographic variations emerged, with French-speaking regions having 33% lower odds of CAM (MHI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; <em>P</em><.001) yet 26.6% higher expenditures (<em>P</em><.001) among users. CAM users initially incurred 49.1% higher CM expenditures, but this gap narrowed to 34.2% by year 5, representing a 14.9 percentage point convergence. This pattern was most pronounced among individuals without chronic conditions based on medication patterns (CAM MHI: 139.7% to 20.1% difference) and patients with cancer (CAM SI: expenditure differences shifted from +13.9% to −5.9%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>CAM serves distinct populations through different insurance schemes, with initial higher CM costs but slower expenditure growth over time. These findings suggest expenditure patterns that warrant further mechanistic investigation to optimize integrative health care delivery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18334,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings","volume":"101 9","pages":"Pages 1529-1557"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619625005531","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To identify factors associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, investigate regional patterns, and examine whether CAM usage is associated with decreased expenditures in conventional medicine (CM).

Participants and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of Swiss health insurance claims data from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, including mandatory health insurance (MHI) and supplementary insurance (SI) schemes. We analyzed 816,080 person-years from 205,423 Swiss residents with dual coverage using 2-part multilevel models and geographic clustering analyses.

Results

CAM utilization differed markedly between schemes: 59% (481,176 of 816,080) used CAM (SI) while 2.2% (18,023) used CAM (MHI). Women had nearly double the odds of CAM (MHI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; P<.001) and 56% higher odds of CAM (SI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; P<.001). Higher socioeconomic status was associated with dose-response relationships, with increased usage across both schemes. Substantial geographic variations emerged, with French-speaking regions having 33% lower odds of CAM (MHI) usage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; P<.001) yet 26.6% higher expenditures (P<.001) among users. CAM users initially incurred 49.1% higher CM expenditures, but this gap narrowed to 34.2% by year 5, representing a 14.9 percentage point convergence. This pattern was most pronounced among individuals without chronic conditions based on medication patterns (CAM MHI: 139.7% to 20.1% difference) and patients with cancer (CAM SI: expenditure differences shifted from +13.9% to −5.9%).

Conclusion

CAM serves distinct populations through different insurance schemes, with initial higher CM costs but slower expenditure growth over time. These findings suggest expenditure patterns that warrant further mechanistic investigation to optimize integrative health care delivery.

查看原文本刊更多论文

辅助医学的解读使用和支出：205,423人的五年纵向数据分析。

目的：确定辅助和替代医学（CAM）使用的相关因素，调查区域模式，并检查辅助和替代医学的使用是否与传统医学（CM）支出的减少有关。参与者和方法：我们对2017年1月1日至2021年12月31日瑞士健康保险索赔数据进行了回顾性分析，包括强制性健康保险（MHI）和补充保险（SI）计划。我们使用两部分多层模型和地理聚类分析分析了来自205,423名瑞士居民的816,080人/年的双重覆盖。结果：不同方案间CAM的使用差异显著：816,080例患者中59%（481,176例）使用CAM (SI), 2.2%（18,023例）使用CAM （MHI）。妇女使用CAM （MHI）的几率几乎翻了一番（调整后的优势比为1.97;p）结论：CAM通过不同的保险计划服务于不同的人群，初始CM成本较高，但随着时间的推移支出增长较慢。这些发现表明，支出模式值得进一步的机制调查，以优化综合卫生保健服务。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Mayo Clinic proceedings 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

16.80

自引率

1.10%

发文量

383

审稿时长

37 days

期刊介绍： Mayo Clinic Proceedings is a premier peer-reviewed clinical journal in general medicine. Sponsored by Mayo Clinic, it is one of the most widely read and highly cited scientific publications for physicians. Since 1926, Mayo Clinic Proceedings has continuously published articles that focus on clinical medicine and support the professional and educational needs of its readers. The journal welcomes submissions from authors worldwide and includes Nobel-prize-winning research in its content. With an Impact Factor of 8.9, Mayo Clinic Proceedings is ranked #20 out of 167 journals in the Medicine, General and Internal category, placing it in the top 12% of these journals. It invites manuscripts on clinical and laboratory medicine, health care policy and economics, medical education and ethics, and related topics.