Author
Listed:
- Jasmina Ivanova
- Howard Birnbaum
- Yohanne Kidolezi
- Ying Qiu
- David Mallett
- Sue Caleo
Abstract
Background: The direct cost burden of epilepsy in the US from a third-party payer perspective has not been evaluated. Furthermore, no study has quantified the indirect (work-loss) cost burden of epilepsy from an employer perspective in the US. Objective: To assess the annual direct costs for privately insured US patients diagnosed with epilepsy, and indirect costs for a subset of employees from an employer perspective. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a claims database for the privately insured, including employee disability claims from 1999 through 2005 and comprising 17 US companies, was conducted. A total of 4323 patients aged 16–64 years (including 1886 employees) with at least one epilepsy diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 345.x) over the period 19992004 were included. The control group was a demographically matched cohort of randomly chosen beneficiaries without an epilepsy diagnosis. All had continuous health coverage during 2004 (baseline) and 2005 (study period). Main outcome measures included annual direct (medical and pharmaceutical) costs and, for employees, indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) and total costs for the study period. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for univariate comparisons of annual direct costs, indirect costs (costs for the subset of employees with these data), and total (direct and indirect) costs during the study period. Two-part multivariate models that adjusted for patient characteristics were also used to compare costs between the study and control groups. Results: Patients with epilepsy were an average age of 43 years and 57% were female. They had more co-morbidities than controls. On average, direct annual costs were significantly higher per patient with epilepsy than per control ($US10 258 vs $US3862, respectively; p > 0.0001) [year 2005 values], with an annual per-patient difference of $US6396. Epilepsy-related costs ($US2057) accounted for 20% of direct costs for patients with epilepsy. Annual indirect costs were significantly higher for employees with epilepsy than for employed controls ($US3192 vs $US1242, respectively; p > 0.0001), with a difference of $US1950. Total direct plus indirect costs for employees with epilepsy were also higher than those for employed controls ($US13 595 vs $US5338, respectively; p > 0.0001), with a difference of $US8257. Conclusions: Epilepsy was associated with significant economic burden. The excess direct costs in patients with epilepsy are underestimated when only epilepsy-related costs are considered. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010
Suggested Citation
Jasmina Ivanova & Howard Birnbaum & Yohanne Kidolezi & Ying Qiu & David Mallett & Sue Caleo, 2010.
"Economic Burden of Epilepsy among the Privately Insured in the US,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(8), pages 675-685, August.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:8:p:675-685
DOI: 10.2165/11535570-000000000-00000
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Kristian Bolin & Lars Forsgren, 2012.
"The Cost Effectiveness of Newer Epilepsy Treatments,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 903-923, October.
- Lan Gao & Hao Hu & Fei-Li Zhao & Shu-Chuen Li, 2016.
"Can the Direct Medical Cost of Chronic Disease Be Transferred across Different Countries? Using Cost-of-Illness Studies on Type 2 Diabetes, Epilepsy and Schizophrenia as Examples,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, January.
- Grabowski, David C. & Fishman, Jesse & Wild, Imane & Lavin, Bruce, 2018.
"Changing the neurology policy landscape in the United States: Misconceptions and facts about epilepsy,"
Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(7), pages 797-802.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:8:p:675-685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.