Costs and outcomes for individuals with psychosis prior to hospital admission and following discharge in Bulgaria
To examine the cost of psychotic disorders in Bulgaria prior to hospital admission and following discharge from two perspectives: healthcare and societal; and to evaluate the association between the costs and the patient’s characteristics.
96 individuals with psychosis experiencing psychotic exacerbation and their primary caregivers were evaluated upon the patients’ hospital admission. The participants were followed up after 12 months. The costs were evaluated from healthcare and societal perspective using the Client’s Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI-EU). The psychopathology, functioning, quality of life and caregiver’s burden were measured using standardized instruments. The mean differences in the costs and the associations with the clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of the patients were evaluated.
The healthcare costs increase from EUR 120.66 (SD = 163.85) at baseline to EUR 177.54 (SD = 136.98) at follow-up. The total cost from societal perspective are up to sixfold higher than the healthcare costs at both assessments [EUR 717.41 (SD = 402.33) and 880.40 (SD = 1592.00), respectively] and do not change significantly. A major shift in the subtypes of costs, and significant associations of the costs with the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, were found.
Psychotic disorders and psychotic exacerbations have high societal costs. The underfunding of mental healthcare in Bulgaria is at the expense of high caregivers’ and societal cost. The treatment of psychotic exacerbation is effective and investment in mental healthcare for the improvement of the psychopathology, social functioning, quality of life and the burden of informal care should be viewed as a sustainable investment.
KeywordsCost Healthcare Societal Psychosis Psychotic exacerbation Admission
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical University of Sofia. All participants gave written informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study and their anonymity was guaranteed.
- 1.World Health Organization (WHO) (1992) The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bedrozova A, Gerdjikov I (2005) Economical aspects of the inpatient psychiatric help in the Republic of Bulgaria. Retseptor Bulg Psikhiatr Zhurnal 2:9–21 (in Bulgarian) Google Scholar
- 12.Morosini PL, Magliano L, Brambilla L et al (2000) Development, reliability and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. Acta Psychiatr Scand 101:323–329Google Scholar
- 16.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al (2013) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010
- 17.National Center of Public Health and Analyses (NCPHA) (2017) Bulletin “Economic analysis of wards in multi-profile hospitals for active treatment for the period 2005–2016”. National Center of Public Health and Analyses (NCPHA). http://ncphp.government.bg
- 18.National Center of Public Health and Analyses (NCPHA). Bulletin “Economic analysis of the activities of the medical institutions for hospital care in the public health system in the Republic of Bulgaria for the period 2010–2016”. National Center of PublicGoogle Scholar
- 20.Aebi MF, Delgrande N (2014) SPACE I—Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2012. Strasbourg: Council of EuropeGoogle Scholar
- 21.Max W, Rice DPD, Sung H-Y, Michel M (2000) Valuing human life: estimating the present value of lifetime earningsGoogle Scholar
- 23.Pagano E, Petrelli A, Picariello R et al (2015) Is the choice of the statistical model relevant in the cost estimation of patients with chronic diseases? An empirical approach by the Piedmont Diabetes Registry. BMC Health Serv Res 15:582. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1241-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Stant AD, Buskens E, Jenner JA et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis in severe mental illness: outcome measures selection. J Ment Health Policy Econ 10:101–108Google Scholar
- 28.Jablensky A (2009) Worldwide burden of schizophrenia. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P (eds) Kaplan&Sadock’s Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, 9th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1451–1462Google Scholar
- 32.European Psychiatric Association (EPA) Report on Bulgarian Mental Health Care and Reform Process 2018Google Scholar
- 34.Levin C, Chisholm D (2016) Cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions, policies, and platforms for the prevention and treatment of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World BankGoogle Scholar
- 35.Goeree R, Blackhouse G, Agro K et al (1999) The valuation of productivity costs due to premature mortality: a comparison of the human-capital and friction-cost methods for schizophreniaGoogle Scholar