ZHANG Huiwen 1,3 , CHU Tianshu 1,4 , ZHANG Shiwen 1 , LI Yuhan 1 , JING Limei 2
  • 1. Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 201203, P. R. China;
  • 2. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, P. R. China;
  • 3. Shanghai Geriatrics Center, Shanghai 201104, P. R. China;
  • 4. Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, P. R. China;
JING Limei, Email: limei_jing@163.com
TCM dominant diseases; Cost analysis; Curative effect analysis; Health economic evaluation
10.7507/1672-2531.202401125
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective Under the principle of promoting the reform of TCM payment methods, analyzing the difference in efficacy and cost of treatment using Western medicine or traditional Chinese medicine, and providing health economics basis for the reform of payment methods for advantageous diseases of TCM. Methods Data from the first page of medical records of 4 Chinese hospitals and 4 western hospitals of the same level were collected from 2020 to 2021 in typical areas, focusing on four typical TCM advantageous diseases that were consistent with diabetes, cervical spondylosis, arthralgia syndrome in the lumbar area or pelvic inflammation, and a total of 14 958 cases were included through propensity score matching. Under the assumption of same disease, same effect and same price, the age, bed days, total cost, discharge condition and reoperation condition of the same disease in 90 days were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results In terms of outcomes, the experimental group showed significantly better discharge outcomes compared with the control group for the four diseases. In terms of cost, the control group had higher total costs for arthralgia syndrome in the lumbar area and cervical spondylosis, while the control group had lower total costs for diabetes. After controlling for treatment effects, the control group had higher costs for cervical spondylosis and pelvic inflammatory disease compared to the experimental group, while the control group had lower costs for diabetes and arthralgia syndrome in the lumbar area compared to the experimental group. Conclusion The experimental group shows better treatment effectiveness for the four TCM-dominant diseases. The control group has higher costs for cervical spondylosis and pelvic inflammatory disease when discharge outcomes are limited, while the control group has lower costs for diabetes and arthralgia syndrome in the lumbar area. This highlights the necessity of reforming the payment methods for TCM-dominant diseases. Additionally, the development of TCM-dominant diseases should focus on addressing the high demand for elderly chronic diseases in TCM.