[将补充医疗纳入健康保险一揽子福利的影响的卫生经济学分析]。

Q Medicine
J H Sommer
{"title":"[将补充医疗纳入健康保险一揽子福利的影响的卫生经济学分析]。","authors":"J H Sommer","doi":"10.1159/000057120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A randomized experiment was set up in which 7,500 policyholders of Switzerland's largest health insurance fund, Helvetia, were offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine for 3 years. This was meant to simulate a situation in which the experimental group had access to the full range of complementary medical treatments under their health insurance policies. The remaining policyholders in the scheme (670,000 people) formed the control group. A third group of policyholders who had taken out additional insurance for complementary medical services at their own expense is mentioned only in passing. The health insurer's cost and benefit data were analyzed to evaluate the effect of the offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine. In addition, a survey was carried out among random samples of subjects from the experimental group and from the control group using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to examine the effects of including complementary medicine on people's subjective state of health. The analysis of the cost data showed that subjects in the experimental group used complementary medicine in addition to mainstream medical services. It became also clear that alternative medical treatments were given in combination with orthodox medicine; less than 1% of the experimental group used exclusively alternative medical services. However, as only a very small percentage of the experimental subjects (6.6%) took advantage of complementary medicine, no significant impact on overall health cost could be inferred. On the other hand, multiple regressions showed that the use of complementary medicine had a greater effect on the treatment costs than sex, age or language region. Neither at the beginning nor the end of the experiment were any significant differences noted in the scales of the SF-36 between the experimental and the control group; nor did multiple regressions reveal any effects on subjects' state of health due to the inclusion of complementary medicine in the basic insurance cover. This study was presented in the media and at a public hearing of the Swiss National Science Foundation. It triggered numerous valuable discussions. The study design and the conclusions were not left uncontested.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"6 Suppl 1 ","pages":"7-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057120","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Health economic analysis of the effects of including complementary medicine in the benefit package of health insurance].\",\"authors\":\"J H Sommer\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000057120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A randomized experiment was set up in which 7,500 policyholders of Switzerland's largest health insurance fund, Helvetia, were offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine for 3 years. This was meant to simulate a situation in which the experimental group had access to the full range of complementary medical treatments under their health insurance policies. The remaining policyholders in the scheme (670,000 people) formed the control group. A third group of policyholders who had taken out additional insurance for complementary medical services at their own expense is mentioned only in passing. The health insurer's cost and benefit data were analyzed to evaluate the effect of the offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine. In addition, a survey was carried out among random samples of subjects from the experimental group and from the control group using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to examine the effects of including complementary medicine on people's subjective state of health. The analysis of the cost data showed that subjects in the experimental group used complementary medicine in addition to mainstream medical services. It became also clear that alternative medical treatments were given in combination with orthodox medicine; less than 1% of the experimental group used exclusively alternative medical services. However, as only a very small percentage of the experimental subjects (6.6%) took advantage of complementary medicine, no significant impact on overall health cost could be inferred. On the other hand, multiple regressions showed that the use of complementary medicine had a greater effect on the treatment costs than sex, age or language region. Neither at the beginning nor the end of the experiment were any significant differences noted in the scales of the SF-36 between the experimental and the control group; nor did multiple regressions reveal any effects on subjects' state of health due to the inclusion of complementary medicine in the basic insurance cover. This study was presented in the media and at a public hearing of the Swiss National Science Foundation. It triggered numerous valuable discussions. The study design and the conclusions were not left uncontested.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"volume\":\"6 Suppl 1 \",\"pages\":\"7-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057120\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

对瑞士最大的健康保险基金Helvetia的7500名投保人进行了一项随机试验,向他们提供为期3年的免费补充医疗保险。这是为了模拟一种情况,即实验组在其健康保险政策下可以获得全方位的补充医疗。其余参与该计划的投保人(67万人)组成对照组。第三类投保人自费为补充医疗服务购买了额外保险,这里只是顺带提到。分析健康保险公司的成本和效益数据,以评估提供免费补充医疗保险的效果。此外,利用36项简短健康调查(SF-36)对实验组和对照组的随机样本进行了调查,以检验纳入补充医学对人们主观健康状态的影响。成本数据分析显示,实验组受试者在主流医疗服务的基础上使用了补充医学。很明显,替代疗法与正统医学相结合;不到1%的实验组专门使用替代医疗服务。然而,由于只有很小比例的实验对象(6.6%)利用了补充医学,因此无法推断对总体健康成本的显著影响。另一方面,多元回归表明,使用补充药物对治疗费用的影响大于性别、年龄和语言地区。在实验开始和结束时,实验组和对照组在SF-36量表上都没有任何显著差异;多重回归也没有显示,将补充医疗纳入基本保险范围对受试者的健康状况有任何影响。这项研究在媒体和瑞士国家科学基金会的公开听证会上发表。它引发了许多有价值的讨论。这项研究的设计和结论并非没有争议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Health economic analysis of the effects of including complementary medicine in the benefit package of health insurance].

A randomized experiment was set up in which 7,500 policyholders of Switzerland's largest health insurance fund, Helvetia, were offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine for 3 years. This was meant to simulate a situation in which the experimental group had access to the full range of complementary medical treatments under their health insurance policies. The remaining policyholders in the scheme (670,000 people) formed the control group. A third group of policyholders who had taken out additional insurance for complementary medical services at their own expense is mentioned only in passing. The health insurer's cost and benefit data were analyzed to evaluate the effect of the offered free supplementary insurance for complementary medicine. In addition, a survey was carried out among random samples of subjects from the experimental group and from the control group using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to examine the effects of including complementary medicine on people's subjective state of health. The analysis of the cost data showed that subjects in the experimental group used complementary medicine in addition to mainstream medical services. It became also clear that alternative medical treatments were given in combination with orthodox medicine; less than 1% of the experimental group used exclusively alternative medical services. However, as only a very small percentage of the experimental subjects (6.6%) took advantage of complementary medicine, no significant impact on overall health cost could be inferred. On the other hand, multiple regressions showed that the use of complementary medicine had a greater effect on the treatment costs than sex, age or language region. Neither at the beginning nor the end of the experiment were any significant differences noted in the scales of the SF-36 between the experimental and the control group; nor did multiple regressions reveal any effects on subjects' state of health due to the inclusion of complementary medicine in the basic insurance cover. This study was presented in the media and at a public hearing of the Swiss National Science Foundation. It triggered numerous valuable discussions. The study design and the conclusions were not left uncontested.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信