Cited by 18Genomics and Rare DiseasesHealthcare cost, quality, practicesHealthcare Policy and Management

The cost of the diagnostic odyssey of patients with suspected rare diseases

Open access
Glaubitz, Rick, Heinrich, Luise, Tesch, Falko, Seifert, Martin, Reber, Katrin Christiane, Marschall, Ursula, Schmitt, Jochen, Müller, Gabriele·2025·Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients with rare diseases often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey. However, there is little empirical evidence on the cost incurred during the diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected rare diseases. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of healthcare costs and utilization during the diagnostic pathway for a heterogeneous sample of patients with suspected rare diseases but unclear diagnosis. METHODS: Using claims data from five German statutory health insurance organizations for the years 2014-2019, we analyzed costs and healthcare utilization of 1,243 patients (aged 0 to 82 years) with suspected rare diseases referred to a rare disease center. A control cohort was assigned using 1:75 exact matching on age, sex and place of residence. RESULTS: In the years prior to referral to an expert center, healthcare utilization of patients with suspected rare diseases was, on average, substantially and significantly higher compared to a matched control cohort during the same observation period - e.g. in terms of the number of hospitalizations (3.1 (95%CI: 2.9-3.4) vs. 0.5 (95%CI: 0.5-0.5)), different diagnoses (50.0 (95%CI: 48.1-51.9) vs. 26.4 (95%CI: 26.2-26.5)), different active substances prescribed (12.7 (95%CI: 12.2-13.3) vs. 8.2 (95%CI: 8.2-8.3)) and the number of genetic tests (14.7 (95%CI: 12.6-16.7) vs. 0.3 (95%CI: 0.3-0.3)). We found evidence of heterogeneity in utilization by age and sex. On average, direct costs (inpatient, outpatient and prescription drug costs) of patients with suspected rare diseases during the diagnostic pathway were 7.6-fold higher than the costs of matched controls (€26,999 (95%CI: €23,751 - 30,247) vs. €3,561 (95% CI: € 3,455-3,667)). Inpatient costs were the main cost component, accounting for 62.5% of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic odyssey of patients with suspected rare diseases is associated with extensive healthcare utilization and high cost. Against this background, new ways to shorten the diagnostic journey have a high potential to decrease the financial burden related to rare diseases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13023-025-03751-y

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For patients with rare, undiagnosed, or complex diseases, MAS has the potential to mitigate the heavy financial burden offsetting computational costs through the reduction of redundant secondary testing and acute care utilization.

    “For patients with rare, undiagnosed, or complex diseases, MAS has the potential to mitigate the heavy financial burden offsetting computational costs through the reduction of redundant secondary testing and acute care utilization [41].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Results (Cost analysis; page unavailable) document substantially higher inpatient and outpatient costs for patients with suspected rare diseases. The Discussion says diagnostic support systems may reduce diagnostic delays and costs, but the paper does not address MAS, computational costs, or whether reducing redundant secondary testing and acute care utilization would offset those costs. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For patients with suspected rare diseases, uncoordinated clinical investigations typically incur costs 7.6-fold higher than matched controls.

    “For patients with suspected rare diseases, uncoordinated clinical investigations typically incur costs 7.6-fold higher than matched controls [41].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract Results and Conclusion report that mean direct healthcare costs during the diagnostic pathway were 7.6-fold higher for patients with suspected rare diseases than for matched controls. They do not establish that the investigations were uncoordinated or that the 7.6-fold difference was specifically the cost of clinical investigations; the measure includes inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drug costs. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent systematic reviews of 39 medical AI benchmarks quantify a significant 'knowledge-practice gap', finding that models achieving 84-90% on examinations often drop to 45-69% success rates when subjected to practice-based assessments requiring diagnostic reasoning under uncertainty.

    “Recent systematic reviews of 39 medical AI benchmarks quantify a significant ‘knowledge-practice gap,’ finding that models achieving 84–90% on examinations often drop to 45–69% success rates when subjected to practice-based assessments that require diagnostic reasoning under uncertainty [41].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A fundamental 'knowledge-practice gap' remains a bottleneck for clinical adoption of MAS.

    “Beyond reporting bias, a fundamental ‘knowledge-practice gap’ remains a bottleneck for clinical adoption of MAS [41].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Methods section describes a study of diagnostic pathways and costs for patients with suspected rare diseases; the Discussion addresses limitations of that study. Searches for “knowledge-practice gap” and barriers to clinical adoption of MAS found no passage addressing the claimed bottleneck. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This disparity suggests that current models suffer from 'inflexible reasoning,' or the Einstellung effect, where they rely on pattern matching from training data rather than engaging in adaptive, threshold-based decision-making required at the bedside.

    “This disparity suggests that current models suffer from “inflexible reasoning,” or the Einstellung effect, where they rely on pattern matching from training data rather than engaging in the adaptive, threshold-based decision-making required at the bedside [41,68].”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glaubitz, R., Heinrich, L., Tesch, F., Seifert, M., Reber, K. C., Marschall, U., Schmitt, J., & Müller, G.
Affiliations
University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
Corresponding author
Glaubitz, Rick
Venue
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Published
2025-05-10
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
222-222
ISSN
1750-1172 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410250231
Cited by
17
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 2
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Technische Universität Dresden
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
rare diseases, diagnostic odyssey, diagnostic pathway, health care costs, health care utilization, hospitalization, genetic testing, rare disease centers, hospital costs, prescription drug costs, age and sex differences, Germany, statutory health insurance claims data, unmet medical needs, delayed diagnosis, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Germany, Hospitalization, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Health Care Costs, Rare Diseases, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review