Number and cost of claims linked to minor cervical trauma in Europe: results from the comparative study by CEA, AREDOC and CEREDOC

Comparative epidemiological study of minor cervical spine trauma (frequently referred to as whiplash injury) based on data from the Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) gathered in ten European countries. To determine the incidence and expenditure (e.g., for assessment, treatment or claims) for minor cervical spine injury in the participating countries. Controversy still surrounds the basis on which symptoms following minor cervical spine trauma may develop. In particular, there is considerable disagreement with regard to a possible contribution of psychosocial factors in determining outcome. The role of compensation is also a source of constant debate. The method followed here is the comparison of the data from different areas of interest (e.g., incidence of minor cervical spine trauma, percentage of minor cervical spine trauma in relationship to the incidence of bodily trauma, costs for assessment or claims) from ten European countries. Considerable differences exist regarding the incidence of minor cervical spine trauma and related costs in participating countries. France and Finland have the lowest and Great Britain the highest incidence of minor cervical spine trauma. The number of claims following minor cervical spine trauma in Switzerland is around the European average; however, Switzerland has the highest expenditure per claim at an average cost of €35,000.00 compared to the European average of €9,000.00. Furthermore, the mandatory accident insurance statistics in Switzerland show very large differences between German-speaking and French- or Italian-speaking parts of the country. In the latter the costs for minor cervical spine trauma expanded more than doubled in the period from 1990 to 2002, whereas in the German-speaking part they rose by a factor of five. All the countries participating in the study have a high standard of medical care. The differences in claims frequency and costs must therefore reflect a social phenomenon based on the different cultural attitudes and medical approach to the problem including diagnosis. In Switzerland, therefore, new ways must be found to try to resolve the problem. The claims treatment model known as “Case Management” represents a new approach in which accelerated social and professional reintegration of the injured party is attempted. The CEA study emphasizes the fundamental role of medicine in that it postulates a clear division between the role of the attending physician and the medical expert. It also draws attention to the need to train medical professionals in the insurance business to the extent that they can interact adequately with insurance professionals. The results of this study indicate that the usefulness of the criterion of so-called typical clinical symptoms, which is at present applied by the courts to determine natural causality and has long been under debate, is inappropriate and should be replaced by objective assessment (e.g. accident and biomechanical analysis). In addition, the legal concept of adequate causality should be interpreted in the same way in both third party liability and social security law, which is currently not the case.