Download PDF
Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2023; 28(01): 47-53
DOI: 10.1055/a-1867-1458
Originalarbeit

Kostensätze zur monetären Bewertung des Ressourcenverbrauchs psychischer Erkrankungen im Justizsektor: Ergebnisse des PECUNIA-Projekts für Deutschland

Calculation of Standardized Unit Costs of Mental Health in the Criminal Justice Sector – Results of the PECUNIA Project for Germany
Louisa-Kristin Muntendorf 
1   Institute for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Hans-Helmut König
1   Institute for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Luca Janssen
2   Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
,
Irina Pokhilenko
2   Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
,
Ruben Drost
2   Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
,
Judit Simon
3   Department of Health Economics, Centre for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
4   Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
Lidia García-Pérez
5   Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
,
Valentin Brodszky
6   Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary
,
Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
7   Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam Burgmeester Oudlaan 50, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
,
A-La Park
8   London School of Economics (LSE), Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
,
Silvia Evers
2   Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
9   Trimbos Institute Centre of Economic Evaluation & Machine Learning, Utrecht, Netherlands
,
Alexander Konnopka
1   Institute for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
10   Department Psychology, MSH Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung Bisher konnte der Ressourcenverbrauch bei einem Kontakt mit dem Justizsektor in gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationen aus gesellschaftlicher Perspektive nicht monetär bewertet werden.

Methodik Es wurden 12 Kostensätze (KS) zur Messung des Ressourcenverbrauchs basierend auf Definitionen des PECUNIA-Projekts ermittelt. KS wurden mittels Literatur- und Internetrecherche, direkter Korrespondenz mit Kostenträgern oder Proxys erhoben.

Ergebnisse Es wurden KS für Polizei, Feuerwehr, Vandalismus, Gefängnisaufenthalt, Polizeigewahrsam, einfachen und schweren Diebstahl, geringfügigen und schweren Vandalismus an Immobilien und Anwaltskosten vor Gericht kalkuliert.

Schlussfolgerung Bisher fehlten KS für den Justizsektor, die für ökonomische Evaluationen aus gesellschaftlicher Perspektive erforderlich sind. Die Nutzbarkeit der KS in Forschungsfeldern außerhalb der Gesundheitsökonomie betont die Relevanz dieser Arbeit.

Schlüsselwörter Intersektorale Kosten, Bewertungssätze, ökonomische Evaluation, psychische Erkrankungen, Kostenkalkulation Calculation of Standardized Unit Costs of Mental Health in the Criminal Justice Sector – Results of the PECUNIA Project for Germany

Abstract

Aim Health economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective currently do not consider inter-sectoral unit costs (UC) of the German Criminal Justice Sector.

Methods UC were calculated according to the pre-defined measurement parameters from the PECUNIA questionnaire by means of literature and internet research, or direct correspondence with the institution. If UC could not be identified, proxies were used.

Results UC were calculated for police, fire brigade, vandalism, prison, police custody, simple and serious theft, minor and serious vandalism of real estate, and legal fees in court.

Conclusion The lack of UC for services in the criminal justice sector in Germany makes this work important for health economic evaluations from a societal perspective. The usability of the developed UC outside of health economics, such as forensic psychiatry, emphasizes the relevance of this work.

Schlüsselwörter

Intersektorale Kosten - Bewertungssätze - ökonomische Evaluation - psychische Erkrankungen - Kostenkalkulation

Key words

inter-sectoral cost - unit cost - economic evaluation - mental health - forensic psychiatry

Zusätzliches Material



Publication History

Article published online:
13 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, V. PuNe. Zahlen und Fakten der Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie Stand: Juli 2019. 2019, DOI:
    PubMed
  • 2 Deutschland SB. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2019 – Kapitel 4 Gesundheit. In. 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M. et al. Do productivity costs matter?. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29: 601-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wilke C, Elis T, Biallas B. et al. Gesundheitsbedingte Leistungseinbußen bei der Arbeit durch Präsentismus. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 2015; 10: 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fazel S, Grann M. Psychiatric morbidity among homicide offenders: a Swedish population study. American Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2129-2131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Weiner MD, Sussman S, Sun P. et al. Explaining the link between violence perpetration, victimization and drug use. Addictive behaviors 2005; 30: 1261-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hodgins S, Janson C-G. Criminality and violence among the mentally disordered: The Stockholm Metropolitan Project. Cambridge University Press; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Fazel S, Lichtenstein P, Grann M. et al. Bipolar disorder and violent crime: new evidence from population-based longitudinal studies and systematic review. Archives of general psychiatry 2010; 67: 931-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Thomsen SL. On the Economic Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Crime Prevention. In, Contributions from the 9th Annual International Forum 2015 within the German Congress on Crime Prevention Forum Verlag Godesberg GmbH 2016. 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Perry AE, Martyn-St James M, Burns L. et al. Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010901.pub3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford university press; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 12 vd Schulenburg J-MG, Greiner W, Jost F. et al. Deutsche Empfehlungen zur gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation-dritte und aktualisierte Fassung des Hannoveraner Konsens. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2007; 12: 285-290
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 vd Schulenburg J-MG. Methoden zur Ermittlung von Kosten-Nutzen-Relationen für Arzneimittel in Deutschland. 2007, DOI:
    PubMed
  • 14 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheiswesen. Allgemeine Methoden Version 6.1. 2021, DOI:
    PubMed
  • 15 Janssen LMM, Pokhilenko I, Evers S. et al. Exploring the identification, validation, and categorization of the cost and benefits of criminal justice in mental health: the PECUNIA project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020; DOI 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 PECUNIA. Vison & Mission. In; 2018
    PubMed
  • 17 Drost R, Paulus A, Ruwaard D. et al. Inter-sectoral costs and benefits of mental health prevention: towards a new classification scheme. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2013; 16: 179-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Romero-Lopez-Alberca C, Gutierrez-Colosia MR, Salinas-Perez JA. et al. Standardised description of health and social care: A systematic review of use of the ESMS/DESDE (European Service Mapping Schedule/Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs). Eur Psychiatry 2019; 61: 97-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz. Wertgebühren. In; 2013
    PubMed
  • 20 EHI Retail Institute. EHI-Studie – Inventurdifferenzen 2018. In. Juni 2018 ed. Online: EHI Handelsdaten; 2019: S. 42
    PubMed
  • 21 Gesamtverband Deutscher Versicherer. Beiträge, Leistungen und Schaden-Kosten-Quoten – Inländisches Direktgeschäft der GDV-Mitgliedsunternehmen. In; 2020
    PubMed
  • 22 Barrett B, Waheed W, Farrelly S. et al. Randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: economic outcomes. PLoS One 2013; 8: e74210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Herman PM, Mahrer NE, Wolchik SA. et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a preventive intervention for divorced families: reduction in mental health and justice system service use costs 15 years later. Prev Sci 2015; 16: 586-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar