To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture.Design:
Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients).Main measures:
At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives.Results:
Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation (p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid’s salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control (p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation (p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary (p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009).Conclusions:
Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.