Search

This article reviews the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality disorders (PDs). Although the evidence is still scarce, several well-designed cost-effectiveness studies provide insight into the question - how cost effective is it to reimburse therapies for PDs? This article further argues that the implementation costs and effects should be an integral part of cost-effectiveness analyses to enhance the dissemination of treatment recommendations. Moreover, cost-effectiveness analyses are important in working towards a more patient-centered approach in psychotherapy research that could potentially help accelerate the implementation and adoption of cost-effective care for PDs.

Objective: In a budget-constrained health care system, decisions regarding resource allocation towards research and implementation are critical and can be informed by cost-effectiveness analysis. The objective of this study was to assess the societal value of conducting further research to inform reimbursement decisions and implementation of cost-effective psychotherapy for clusters B and C personality disorders (PDs)., Methods: Value of information and value of implementation analyses were conducted using previously developed cost-effectiveness models for clusters B and C PDs to evaluate the parameters that contribute to most of the decision uncertainty, and to calculate the population expected values of perfect information (pEVPI) and perfect implementation (pEVPIM)., Results: The pEVPI was estimated to be €425 million for cluster B PDs and €315 million for cluster C PDs, indicating that gathering additional evidence is expected to be cost-effective. The categories of parameters for which reduction of uncertainty would be most valuable were transition probabilities and health state costs. The pEVPIM was estimated to be €595 million for cluster B PDs and €1,372 million for cluster C PDs, suggesting that investing in implementation of cost-effective psychotherapy is likely to be worthwhile., Conclusions: The societal value of additional research on psychotherapy for clusters B and C PDs is substantial, especially when prioritizing information on transition probabilities and health state costs. Active implementation of cost-effective treatment strategies into clinical practice is likely to improve the efficiency of health care provision in The Netherlands., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To conduct a formal economic evaluation of various dosages of psychotherapy for patients with avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive (ie, cluster C) personality disorders (Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality criteria)., Method: We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 5 dosages of psychotherapy (ie, long-term outpatient psychotherapy, short-term and long-term day hospital psychotherapy, and short-term and long-term inpatient psychotherapy) over a 5-year time horizon in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model parameters were estimated using data from 466 patients with cluster C personality disorders who were admitted to 6 specialist centers of psychotherapy in The Netherlands and assigned to 1 of the 5 treatment groups. Probabilistic analysis was conducted to explore the stability of results over uncertain data ranges. Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives., Results: From the societal perspective and below a threshold of € 2,637 (US $3,351.92) per recovered patient-year, short-term day hospital psychotherapy resulted in the highest level of benefit for its cost; above the threshold, short-term inpatient psychotherapy was the most cost-effective choice. In terms of cost per QALY, this switch point was at a threshold value of € 16,570 (US $21,062.29) per QALY. From the payer perspective, the optimal strategy changed from short-term day hospital psychotherapy to short-term inpatient psychotherapy at threshold values of € 9,874 (US $12,550.94) per recovered patient-year and € 66,302 (US $84,277.13) per QALY., Conclusions: This study indicates that short-term day hospital psychotherapy and short-term inpatient psychotherapy are the most cost-effective treatment strategies for patients with cluster C personality disorders. The ultimate selection depends on what cost-effectiveness threshold is considered acceptable and what perspective is adopted., (© Copyright 2011 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Recommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence., Aims: A formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders., Method: A probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives., Results: From the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of 12,274 euros per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at 113,298 euros. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at 56,325 euros and 286,493 euros per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at 9895 euros and 155,797 euros per recovered patient-year, and 43,427 euros and 561,188 euros per QALY., Conclusions: Out-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.

Objective: Despite scientific evidence of effectiveness, psychotherapy for personality disorders is not yet fully deployed, nor is its reimbursement self-evident. Both clinicians and health care policy-makers increasingly rely on evidence-based medicine and health economics when determining a treatment of choice and reimbursement. This article aims to contribute to that understanding by applying these criteria on psychotherapy as a treatment for patients with personality disorder., Method: We have evaluated the available empirical evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and integrated this with necessity of treatment as a moderating factor., Results: The effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality disorders is well documented with favourable randomized trial results, 2 metaanalyses, and a Cochrane review. However, the evidence does not yet fully live up to modern standards of evidence-based medicine and is mostly limited to borderline and avoidant personality disorders. Data on cost-effectiveness suggest that psychotherapy for personality disorders may lead to cost-savings. However, state-of-the-art cost-effectiveness data are still scarce. An encouraging factor is that the available studies indicate that patients with personality disorder experience a high burden of disease, stressing the necessity of treatment., Conclusions: When applying an integrated vision on outcome, psychotherapy can be considered not only an effective treatment for patients with personality disorder but also most likely a cost-effective and necessary intervention. However, more state-of-the-art research is required before clinicians and health care policy-makers can fully appreciate the benefits of psychotherapy for personality disorders. Considerable progress is possible if researchers focus their efforts on evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness research.

The burden of disease of 1,651 inpatients in the Netherlands who had complex personality problems and personality disorders and who were treated in specialized units that provide psychotherapy was compared with the burden of disease of patients with other mental and physical conditions. Patients completed the EuroQol EQ-5D, a generic quality-of-life questionnaire. The mean EQ-5D index score was .54 (possible scores range from -.59 to 1.00, with higher scores indicating fewer problems). This score reflects a burden of disease comparable with the burden in severe illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease (.58) or rheumatic disease (.53).