Cost-effectiveness of treating first-episode psychosis: five-year follow-up results from an Italian early intervention programme

Authors

  • Cocchi Angelo,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Mental Health, Center for early detection and intervention in psychosis–Programma2000, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital
      Professor Dott Angelo Cocchi, A.O. Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Programma 2000 – Via Livigno, 3, 20128 Milan, Italy. Email: angelo.cocchi@ospedaleniguarda.it; programma2000@ospedaleniguarda.it
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mapelli Vittorio,

    1. Department of Public Health, University of Milan, Milan
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Meneghelli Anna,

    1. Department of Mental Health, Center for early detection and intervention in psychosis–Programma2000, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Preti Antonio

    1. Genneruxi Medical Center, Cagliari, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: Erratum Volume 5, Issue 4, 389, Article first published online: 16 September 2011

Professor Dott Angelo Cocchi, A.O. Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Programma 2000 – Via Livigno, 3, 20128 Milan, Italy. Email: angelo.cocchi@ospedaleniguarda.it; programma2000@ospedaleniguarda.it

Abstract

Aim: Early intervention programmes are expected to result in the reduction of illness severity in patients with schizophrenia, and contain health-care costs by reducing hospital admissions and improving the social functioning of patients. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of treatment in an early intervention programme in comparison to standard care.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of data prospectively recorded in an urban area (Milan, Italy). Twenty-three patients from an early intervention programme and 23 patients from standard care with first-episode psychosis were evaluated on their use of services over a 5-year period. The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale was used to measure clinical status.

Results: Significant changes with respect to initial assessment were recorded on the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, with larger effect sizes in the early intervention programme than in the standard care group. Consequently, the cost-effectiveness ratio per reduced score of severity was lower in the early intervention programme than in standard care (€ 4802 vs. € 9871), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, or net saving of €−1204 for every incremental reduced score of severity. Over time, greater recourse to hospital and residential facilities to obtain comparable improvement in symptoms resulted in a steady cost increase for the patients in standard care.

Conclusions: Allocation of funds to specialized early intervention programmes is the best alternative, as it can save costs by reducing the use of hospitals and residential facilities, and may produce net savings of costs in the long term.

Ancillary