Search

Aim: To evaluate Medicaid spending and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Materials & methods: TRD beneficiaries were identified from Medicaid claims databases (January 2010–March 2017) and matched 1:1 with major depressive disorder (MDD) beneficiaries without TRD (non-TRD-MDD) and randomly selected patients without MDD (non-MDD). Differences in HRU and per-patient-per-year costs were reported in incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences (CDs), respectively. Results: TRD beneficiaries had higher HRU than 1:1 matched non-TRD-MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.41) and non-MDD beneficiaries (N = 14,710 per cohort; e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 3.42, p Conclusion: TRD is associated with higher HRU and costs versus non-TRD-MDD and non-MDD. TRD poses a significant burden to Medicaid.

BACKGROUND Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) poses a substantial burden to health care payers including employers, costing an estimated $29 billion-$48 billion yearly in the United States. Furthermore, variation of burden across increasing levels of resistance and the potential impact of TRD on employment status remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE To evaluate health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss, indirect costs, and employment status change in TRD. METHODS A claims-based algorithm identified adults with TRD from a US claims database of privately insured employees and dependents (January 2010-March 2015). TRD patients were matched 1:1 on demographics to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) (non-TRD MDD) and without MDD (non-MDD), who were identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Costs, HRU, and employment status change were compared over 2 years following the first antidepressant (randomly imputed date for non-MDD), adjusting for baseline comorbidity index and costs. RESULTS TRD patients (N = 6,411) had more HRU than either matched control cohort, translating into higher per patient per year (PPPY) health care costs: $6,709 and $9,917 more than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively (P < .001 for both). TRD patients with work loss data (N = 1,908) had 35.8 work loss days PPPY (1.7 and 6.2 times the work loss rate in non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively). Work loss-related costs in TRD patients were $1,811 higher than non-TRD MDD and $3,460 higher than in non-MDD patients (P < .001). TRD patients had 1.3-1.4 times the rate of employment status change versus control cohorts (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS TRD, even compared to MDD, poses a significant direct and indirect cost burden to US employers and may be associated with higher rates of employment status change.

Objective: To quantify the economic burden of postpartum depression (PPD) that accrues to commercially insured households in the year following childbirth. Methods: Administrative claims data from OptumHealth Care Solutions (2009-2016) were used to identify households that included women identified with PPD per the algorithm and propensity score–matched comparison households of women who were not identified with PPD or a history of depression after childbirth. Study outcomes included direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical costs during the first year following childbirth and number of outpatient visits at the household level stratified by household member. Results: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm (N = 7,769) incurred 22% higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than unaffected matched controls (N = 41,308) during the first year following childbirth ($36,049 versus $29,448, P 50%) of total all-cause spending. Mothers identified with PPD had significantly higher annual mean direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than their matched controls without PPD ($19,611 versus $15,410, P Conclusions: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm incurred higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending during the first year following childbirth than did their matched controls identified without PPD, but not all costs were attributable to maternal treatment for PPD. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the potential economic burden associated with PPD and demonstrated costs may extend beyond the mother to members of the household.

BackgroundPrevious studies have assessed the incremental economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (i.e., non-TRD MDD) in commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured patients, but none have focused on Medicare-insured patients.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with TRD versus non-TRD MDD or without major depressive disorder (MDD; i.e., non-MDD) in a Medicare-insured population.MethodsAdult patients were retrospectively identified from the Chronic Condition Warehouse de-identified 100% Medicare database (01/2010-12/2016). MDD was defined as ≥1 MDD diagnosis and ≥1 claim for an antidepressant. Patients initiated on a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatment regimens of adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined as the date of the first antidepressant claim for the TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts, and as a randomly imputed date for the non-MDD cohort. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to non-TRD MDD patients and randomly selected non-MDD patients based on propensity scores. Analyses were also performed for a subset of patients aged ≥65.ResultsOf 29,543 patients with MDD, 3,225 (10.9%) met the study definition of TRD; 157,611 were included in the non-MDD cohort. Matched patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD were, on average, 58.9 and 59.0 years old, respectively. The TRD cohort had higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HRU than the non-TRD MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36) and non-MDD cohorts (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.84, all PConclusionAmong Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

Objective Our objective was to assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and those without MDD in US Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs). Methods This was a retrospective matched-cohort study. The Optum© Integrated Claims Electronic Health Record de-identified database was used to identify adult patients with TRD (January 2011–June 2017) across US IDNs. TRD patients were propensity score matched 1:1 with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients on demographics. Rates of HRU and costs were compared up to 2 years following the first antidepressant pharmacy claim (or randomly imputed date for non-MDD patients) using negative binomial and ordinary least squares regressions, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from nonparametric bootstraps (costs only) adjusted for baseline comorbidity index and costs. Results All 1582 TRD patients were matched to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients and evaluated. TRD patients were on average 46 years old, and 67% were female. Mean duration of observation was 20.1, 19.6, and 17.9 months in the TRD, non-TRD MDD, and non-MDD cohorts, respectively. Patients with TRD had significantly higher rates of HRU than did non-TRD MDD patients (inpatient visits 0.35 vs. 0.16 per patient per year [PPPY]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.04 [95% CI 1.74–2.39]) and non-MDD patients (0.35 vs. 0.09 PPPY, adjusted IRR 3.05 [95% CI 2.54–3.66]). TRD patients incurred significantly higher costs PPPY than did non-TRD MDD patients ($US25,807 vs. 13,701, adjusted cost difference $US9479 [95% CI 7071–11,621]) and non-MDD patients ($US25,807 vs. 8500, adjusted cost difference $US11,433 [95% CI 8668–13,876]). Conclusions HRU and costs associated with TRD are significant in US IDNs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-019-0154-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223255.].

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of depression in the United States-including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and dysthymia-was estimated at $83.1 billion in 2000. We update these findings using recent data, focusing on MDD alone and accounting for comorbid physical and psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Using national survey (DSM-IV criteria) and administrative claims data (ICD-9 codes), we estimate the incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD as well as the share of these costs attributable to MDD, with attention to any changes that occurred between 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: The incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD increased by 21.5% (from $173.2 billion to $210.5 billion, inflation-adjusted dollars). The composition of these costs remained stable, with approximately 45% attributable to direct costs, 5% to suicide-related costs, and 50% to workplace costs. Only 38% of the total costs were due to MDD itself as opposed to comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid conditions account for the largest portion of the growing economic burden of MDD. Future research should analyze further these comorbidities as well as the relative importance of factors contributing to that growing burden. These include population growth, increase in MDD prevalence, increase in treatment cost per individual with MDD, changes in employment and treatment rates, as well as changes in the composition and quality of MDD treatment services. Language: en

Background: Treatment utilization/costs and work performance for persons with major depressive disorder (MDD) by severity of illness is not well documented. Methods: Using National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (2001–2002) data, US workforce respondents (n=4,465) were classified by clinical severity (not clinically depressed, mild, moderate, severe) using a standard self-rating scale [Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR)]. Outcomes included 12-month prevalence of medical services/medications use/costs and workplace performance. Treatment costs (employer's perspective) were estimated by weighing utilization measures by unit costs obtained for similar services used by MDD patients in claims data. Descriptive analysis across three severity groups generated χ2 results. Results: Using a sample of 539 US workforce respondents with MDD, 13.8% were classified mild, 38.5% moderate, and 47.7% severe cases. Mental health services usage, including antidepressants, increased significantly with severity, with average treatment costs substantially higher for severe than for mild cases both regarding mental health services ($697 vs. $388, χ2=4.4, P=.019) and antidepressants ($256 vs. $88, χ2=9.0, P=.001). Prevalence rates of unemployment/disability increased significantly (χ2=11.7, P=.003) with MDD severity (15.7, 23.3, and 31.3% for mild, moderate, and severe cases). Severely and moderately depressed workers missed more work than nondepressed workers; the monthly salary-equivalent lost performance of $199 (severely depressed) and $188 (moderately depressed) was significantly higher than for nondepressed workers (χ2=10.3, P

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers generic and branded drugs to be therapeutically equivalent if they are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) disagrees and opposes generic substitution of branded antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) without physician and patient approval due to the risk of loss of seizure control.To review the evidence to date surrounding the economic impact of brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs.A systematic search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted; the bibliographies of key articles obtained from the search were used to identify additional sources.Current literature suggests statistically higher overall healthcare costs during periods of generic AED use than during periods when branded AED are used, consistently demonstrated across different countries (Canada and the USA) and in both stable and unstable epilepsy patients, with more pronounced cost increases in patients receiving multiple generic versions. Brand-to-generic substitutions of AEDs do not necessarily reduce overall healthcare costs and may even increase them.

Objective: To understand factors driving the economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with different treatment regimens, by evaluating the relationship between medical profiles and treatment costs. Abstract: Methods: Claims data for US privately insured employees (1999-2004) were analysed. Analysis included adult employees with ≥1 diagnosis of MDD and ≥1 prescription for specific antidepressants following a 6-month washout period. Patients were first classified into treatment pattern groups (switchers/discontinuers/maintainers/augmenters), then stratified into mutually exclusive treatment groups - nonstable, stable and intermediate - based on evidence of stability in treatment therapy. Rates of mental and physical co-morbidities, injuries/accidents, substance abuse and urgent care use were analysed across treatment pattern groups. Direct (medical/drug) costs were calculated per patient per year and disaggregated into depression- and non-depression-related components. A two-part multivariate model controlled for baseline characteristics. Costs were also estimated for patients with MDD only, patients with MDD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and patients with MDD and any type of anxiety. Abstract: Results: Annual per patient adjusted costs (year 2005 values) were significantly lower among stable patients (&dollar;US6215) than among intermediate (&dollar;US7317) and nonstable patients (&dollar;US9948; p < 0.001). Stable patients also had lower depression- and non-depression-related costs. Patients with MDD and comorbid GAD or any type of anxiety had significantly higher costs than MDD-only patients. Abstract: Conclusions: Nonstability of treatment is associated with higher comorbidity rates, more urgent care use and higher total, depression- and non-depression-related direct costs. The stable group represents continuity of care and is associated with significant cost savings. Co-morbidities are associated with increased costs.

Compare treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs for patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs in a real-world setting.Patients with a diagnosis for major depressive disorder (MDD) and at least one prescription for an SSRI or SNRI were identified from the Ingenix Impact Database (2002-2005). The baseline and study observation periods were defined as the 6 months before and after the index date (first date for an SSRI /SNRI pharmacy claim). Comparisons were made between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs using descriptive statistics and multivariate regressions.Escitalopram patients (n=10,465) had better treatment persistence compared to patients initiated on other SSRI/SNRIs (n=28,310): the hazard ratio of all discontinuation was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.94-0.99) for the escitalopram therapy (p=0.003), and the hazard ratio of switching to another second-generation antidepressant was 0.91 (95% CI=0.87-0.94) for the escitalopram therapy (p0.001). Escitalopram patients also had fewer inpatient service and emergency room visits. Adjusted average total all-cause healthcare costs and inpatient services costs were $839 and $405 lower in the escitalopram group (both p0.05).Escitalopram may be associated with lower healthcare utilisation and costs among adult MDD patients compared to other SSRI/SNRIs.

To compare escitalopram versus citalopram for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in geriatric patients.Administrative claims data (2003-2005) were analyzed for patients agedor =65 years with at least one inpatient claim or two independent medical claims associated with MDD diagnosis. Patients were continuously enrolled for at least 12 months, filled at least one prescription for citalopram or escitalopram and had no second generation antidepressant use during the 6-month pre-index date. Contingency table analysis and survival analysis were used to compare outcomes between the two treatment groups.Treatment persistence, hospitalization utilization, and prescription drug, medical, and total healthcare costs were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between patients initiated on escitalopram and those initiated on citalopram both descriptively and using multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline characteristics.Among 691 geriatric patients, escitalopram-treated patients (n=459) were less likely to discontinue treatment (hazard ratio [HR]=0.83, p=0.049) or switch to another second generation antidepressant (HR=0.62, p=0.001) compared to patients treated with citalopram (n=232). Patients treated with escitalopram had a significantly lower hospitalization rate (31.2% vs. 38.8%, p=0.045) and 66% fewer hospitalization days based on negative binomial regression (p0.001). While escitalopram patients had comparable prescription drug costs, they had lower total medical service costs (regression: $9748 vs. $19,208, p0.001) and lower total healthcare costs (regression: $11,434 vs. $20,601, p0.001).This study's limitations include its small sample size, short observational periods and exclusivity of indirect costs.Geriatric patients treated with escitalopram had better treatment persistence, fewer hospitalizations, and lower medical and total healthcare costs than patients treated with citalopram. Most of the cost reduction was attributable to significantly lower hospitalizations and total medical costs.

The prevalence and workplace consequences of adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are unknown.An ADHD screen was included in a national household survey (n = 3198, ages 18-44). Clinical re-interviews calibrated the screen to diagnoses of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition ADHD. Diagnoses among workers were compared with responses to the WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).A total of 4.2% of workers had ADHD. ADHD was associated with 35.0 days of annual lost work performance, with higher associations among blue collar (55.8 days) than professional (12.2 days), technical (19.8 days), or service (32.6 days) workers. These associations represent 120 million days of annual lost work in the U.S. labor force, equivalent to dollar 19.5 billion lost human capital.ADHD is a common and costly workplace condition. Effectiveness trials are needed to estimate the region of interest of workplace ADHD screening and treatment programs.

The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimate of the cost of ADHD by consider ing the healthcare and work loss costs of persons with ADHD, as well as those costs imposed on their family members.Excess per capita healthcare (medical and prescription drug) and work loss (disability and work absence) costs of treated ADHD patients (ages 7 years-44 years) and their family members (under 65 years of age) were calculated using administrative claims data from a single large company; work loss costs are from disability data or imputed for medically related work loss days. Excess costs are the additional costs of patients and their family members over and above those of comparable control individuals. The excess costs of untreated individuals with ADHD and their family members were also estimated. All per capita costs were extrapolated using published prevalence and treatment rates and population data; the prevalence of persons with ADHD was based upon the literature.The total excess cost of ADHD in the US in 2000 was $31.6 billion. Of this total, $1.6 billion was for the ADHD treatment of patients, $12.1 billion was for all other healthcare costs of persons with ADHD, $14.2 billion was for all other healthcare costs of family members of persons with ADHD, and $3.7 billion was for the work loss cost of adults with ADHD and adult family members of persons with ADHD.The annual cost of ADHD in the US is substantial. Both treated and untreated persons with ADHD, as well as their family members, impose consider able economic burdens on the healthcare system as a result of this condition. While these first estimates of the cost of ADHD to the nation are suggestive of its substantial economic burden, future research needs to refine and build on this analysis, particularly in the context of a model to control for related co-morbidities. Similarly, since these results are based on data from a single company for the period 1996-1998, the analysis should be validated with more representative, current data.

Background: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition of the airways that has a significant effect on the use of health care resources. Objective: This study is the first of its kind to estimate the overall cost of asthma to a major employer in the United States and to profile the nature of the asthma expenses. Methods: The annual per capita cost of asthma was determined for beneficiaries of a major employer by analyzing medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims data. The incremental cost of asthma was determined by using a case-control method matching asthmatic patients to individuals with no record of asthma treatment. Results: The use of health care services, as well as the rate of disability, was substantially higher among asthmatic patients than among control subjects. Annual per capita employer expenditures for asthmatic patients were approximately 2.5 times those for control subjects ($5385 vs $2121, respectively). Among asthmatic employees with disability claims, total costs were approximately 3 times higher than those among disability claimants in the employee control sample ($14,827 vs $5280). For asthmatic employees, wage-replacement costs for workdays lost as a result of disability and sporadic absenteeism (40%) accounted for almost as much as did medical care (43%). Conclusion: Failure to account fully for the broader consequences of asthma in terms of indirect and comorbid treatment costs would result in a significant underassessment of the cost of asthma to an employer. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:264-70.)

To compare medical and cost profiles of patients treated for depression classified by treatment pattern groups.An analysis used de-identified 1999-2004 employer claims data (n=2.9 million beneficiaries) for employees withor =1 diagnosis of major depressive disorder andor =1 antidepressant prescription, following a 6-month washout period of no antidepressant prescription. Patients were classified into switcher/discontinuer/augmenter/maintainer during Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set-defined initial and subsequent treatment periods, then grouped into stable, intermediate, or non-stable treatment groups, based on stability of treatment patterns. Medical/cost profiles for 6-month pre- and 12-month post-index periods were compared descriptively, and multivariate regressions were estimated, controlling for baseline characteristics/severity markers. Cost savings reflect differences between treatment pattern groups from a current US perspective.Of the 5,225 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 60.8% were in stable, 24.5% in intermediate and 14.7% in non-stable treatment groups. No significant differences existed in medical profiles and costs between the three groups in the pre-index period. In the post-index period, stable group patients had lower costs compared to intermediate and non-stable groups. Stable group patients generated cost savings of $1,842 compared to intermediate and $5,231 compared to non-stable groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed these findings.Patients on a more stable treatment regimen yield significant cost savings compared to patients on a less stable regimen.

This study estimates the costs to society of prescription opioid analgesic (RxO) abuse in the United States.Costs associated with RxO abuse were grouped into healthcare, criminal justice, and workplace categories. Costs were estimated by either (1) a quantity method that multiplies the number of RxO abusers derived from various national surveys by the estimated per abuser cost, or (2) an apportionment method that starts with overall (ie, prescription and nonprescription) drug abuse costs for a cost component (eg, police protection) and apportions the share of costs based on the prevalence of RxO abuse relative to overall drug abuse. Medical costs in excess of those for otherwise similar nonabusers were based on an analysis of a large administrative claims database for an employed population using multivariate regression methods.A lower bound estimate of the costs of RxO abuse in the United States was 8.6 billion dollars in 2001 (or 9.5 billion dollars in 2005 dollars). Of this amount, 2.6 billion dollarswere healthcare costs, 1.4 billion dollars were criminal justice costs, and 4.6 billion dollars were workplace costs.The costs of RxO abuse represent a substantial economic burden. Rising trends of RxO abuse suggest an escalating economic and public health burden in coming years in the United States, and potentially, elsewhere.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compared treatment patterns and costs for patients with recognized and unrecognized bipolar disorder with those of depressed patients without a bipolar disorder claim. METHOD: Claims data for 7 large national employers covering 585,584 persons aged less than 65 years were used to identify patients diagnosed with depression and initially treated with antidepressants. Data on employees, as well as spouses and dependents, for the period 1998 to mid-2001 were used. Patients were identified as bipolar based on the criteria of a bipolar diagnosis claim (ICD-9 codes: 296.0, 296.1, 296.4-296.8) and/or a mood stabilizer prescription claim. Of the patients identified as bipolar, unrecognized bipolar disorder (unrecognized-BP) patients met the criteria after antidepressant initiation, while recognized bipolar disorder (recognized-BP) patients met the criteria at or before initiation. The remaining patients in the sample were non-bipolar depressed (non-BP) patients. Outcome measures included treatment patterns and monthly medical costs in the 12 months subsequent to initiation of antidepressant treatment. RESULTS: Of the 9009 patients treated for depression with antidepressants, there were 8383 non-BP patients (93.1%), 293 recognized-BP patients (3.3%), and 333 unrecognized-BP patients (3.7%). Use of combination therapies varied among the non-BP (11%), unrecognized-BP (32%), and recognized-BP patients (44%) (all pairwise p

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating condition with significant economic consequences. Conservative estimates indicate that between 10% and 20% of all individuals with MDD are treatment resistant. The objectives for this study were ( I ) to use current treatment strategies identified in the literature to evaluate the validity of studying treatment-resistant depression (TRD) using claims data and (2) to estimate cost differences between TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients identified by use of treatment patterns. Method: The data source consisted of medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims from a Fortune 100 manufacturer for 1996 through 1998 (N = 125,242 continuously enrolled beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 64 years). The sample included individuals with medical or disability claims for MDD (N MDD = 4186). A treatment pattern algorithm was applied to classify adult MDD patients into TRD-likely (N TRI ) = 487) and TRD-unlikely groups. Resource utilization and costs were compared among TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients and a random sample of average beneficiaries (i.e., 10% of all beneficiaries) for 1998. Results: Consistent with the epidemiologic literature, the algorithm classified 12% of the MDD sample as TRD-likely. Mean annual costs were $10,954 for TRD-likely patients, $5025 for TRD-unlikely patients, and $3006 for average beneficiaries. TRD-likely patients used almost twice as many medical services as did TRD-unlikely patients and incurred significantly greater indirect costs (p

OBJECTIVES: The two major types of diabetes, Type I and Type II diabetes, can have life-threatening complications, which often lead to significant adverse economic consequences. This study investigates the extent to which Type I and Type II diabetes impose significant financial burdens on an employer METHODS: The data source is a rich administrative claims database from a national, Fortune 100 manufacturer. It includes all medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims for employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees (n> 100,000). The diabetes research sample consists of individuals with at least two medical and/or disability claims for diabetes or at least one prescription drug claim for a hypoglycemic agent. Resource utilization by diabetes patients, who are identified as either Type I or Type II diabetics, is contrasted with that of matched samples from the employer's overall beneficiary population. RESULTS: Direct (medical and pharmaceutical) and indirect (disability and sporadic absenteeism) costs of Type I and Type II diabetes are analyzed. The total average per capita annual costs are $2,612 for the Matched Type I Control sample compared to $9,397 for Type I diabetics, and $3,432 for the Matched Type II Control sample compared to $7,639 for Type II diabetics. While Type I diabetics cost the employer more than Type II diabetics on average, the cost of Type II diabetes patients, who were prescribed insulin, exceeds the cost of Type I diabetes patients. Also, while the costs of both types of diabetes are relatively high, less than 50% of total medical costs for these patients are for the treatment of diabetes or related co-morbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes adds a significant financial burden on the employer. The resources used by both types of diabetics are substantial, not only for the treatment of diabetes, but also for the treatment of related co-morbid conditions, as well as other conditions.

Although work performance has become an important outcome in cost-of-illness studies, little is known about the comparative effects of different commonly occurring chronic conditions on work impairment in general population samples. Such data are presented here from a large-scale nationally representative general population survey. The data are from the MacArthur Foundation Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) survey, a nationally representative telephone-mail survey of 3032 respondents in the age range of 25 to 74 years. The 2074 survey respondents in the age range of 25 to 54 years are the focus of the current report. The data collection included a chronic-conditions checklist and questions about how many days out of the past 30 each respondent was either totally unable to work or perform normal activities because of health problems (work-loss days) or had to cut back on these activities because of health problems (work-cutback days). Regression analysis was used to estimate the effects of conditions on work impairments, controlling for sociodemographics. At least one illness-related work-loss or work-cutback day in the past 30 days was reported by 22.4% of respondents, with a monthly average of 6.7 such days among those with any work impairment. This is equivalent to an annualized national estimate of over 2.5 billion work-impairment days in the age range of the sample. Cancer is associated with by far the highest reported prevalence of any impairment (66.2%) and the highest conditional number of impairment days in the past 30 (16.4 days). Other conditions associated with high odds of any impairment include ulcers, major depression, and panic disorder, whereas other conditions associated with a large conditional number of impairment days include heart disease and high blood pressure. Comorbidities involving combinations of arthritis, ulcers, mental disorders, and substance dependence are associated with higher impairments than expected on the basis of an additive model. The effects of conditions do not differ systematically across subsamples defined on the basis of age, sex, education, or employment status. The enormous magnitude of the work impairment associated with chronic conditions and the economic advantages of interventions for ill workers that reduce work impairments should be factored into employer cost-benefit calculations of expanding health insurance coverage. Given the enormous work impairment associated with cancer and the fact that the vast majority of employed people who are diagnosed with cancer stay in the workforce through at least part of their course of treatment, interventions aimed at reducing the workplace costs of this illness should be a priority.

Background We assess the annual economic burden of anxiety disorders in the United States from a societal perspective. Method Using data from the National Comorbidity Study, we applied multivariate regression techniques to calculate the costs associated with anxiety disorders, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and the presence of comorbid psychiatric conditions. Based on additional data, in part from a large managed care organization, we estimated a human capital model of the societal cost of anxiety disorders. Results We estimated the annual cost of anxiety disorders to be approximately $42.3 billion in 1990 in the United States, or $1542 per sufferer. This comprises $23.0 billion (or 54% of the total cost) in nonpsychiatric medical treatment costs, S13.3 billion (31%) in psychiatric treatment costs, $4.1 billion (10%) in indirect workplace costs, $1.2 billion (3%) in mortality costs, and $0.8 billion (2%) in prescription pharmaceutical costs. Of the $256 in workplace costs per anxious worker, 88% is attributable to lost productivity while at work as opposed to absenteeism. Posttraumatic stress disorder and panic disorder are the anxiety disorders found to have the highest rates of service use. Other than simple phobia, all anxiety disorders analyzed are associated with impairment in workplace performance. Conclusion Anxiety disorders impose a substantial cost on society, much of which may be avoidable with more widespread awareness, recognition, and appropriate early intervention.

There is growing recognition that bipolar disorder (BPD) has a spectrum of expression that is substantially more common than the 1% BP-I prevalence traditionally found in population surveys.To estimate the prevalence, correlates, and treatment patterns of bipolar spectrum disorder in the US population.Direct interviews.Households in the continental United States.A nationally representative sample of 9282 English-speaking adults (agedor=18 years).Version 3.0 of the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a fully structured lay-administered diagnostic interview, was used to assess DSM-IV lifetime and 12-month Axis I disorders. Subthreshold BPD was defined as recurrent hypomania without a major depressive episode or with fewer symptoms than required for threshold hypomania. Indicators of clinical severity included age at onset, chronicity, symptom severity, role impairment, comorbidity, and treatment.Lifetime (and 12-month) prevalence estimates are 1.0% (0.6%) for BP-I, 1.1% (0.8%) for BP-II, and 2.4% (1.4%) for subthreshold BPD. Most respondents with threshold and subthreshold BPD had lifetime comorbidity with other Axis I disorders, particularly anxiety disorders. Clinical severity and role impairment are greater for threshold than for subthreshold BPD and for BP-II than for BP-I episodes of major depression, but subthreshold cases still have moderate to severe clinical severity and role impairment. Although most people with BPD receive lifetime professional treatment for emotional problems, use of antimanic medication is uncommon, especially in general medical settings.This study presents the first prevalence estimates of the BPD spectrum in a probability sample of the United States. Subthreshold BPD is common, clinically significant, and underdetected in treatment settings. Inappropriate treatment of BPD is a serious problem in the US population. Explicit criteria are needed to define subthreshold BPD for future clinical and research purposes.

Objective To estimate the overall economic burden of pneumonia from an employer perspective. Methods The annual, per capita cost of pneumonia was determined for beneficiaries of a major employer by analyzing medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims data. The incremental costs of 4036 patients with a diagnosis of pneumonia identified in a health claims database of a national Fortune 100 company were compared with a 10% random sample of beneficiaries in the employer overall population. Results Total annual, per capita, employer costs were approximately 5 times higher for patients with pneumonia ($11 544) than among typical beneficiaries in the employer overall population ($2368). The increases in costs were for all components (eg, medical care, prescription drug, disability, and particularly for inpatient services). A small proportion (10%) of pneumonia patients (almost all of whom were hospitalized) accounted for most (59%) of the costs. Conclusions Patients with pneumonia present an important financial burden to employers. These patients use more medical care services, particularly inpatient services, than the average beneficiary in the employer overall population. In addition to direct health care costs related to medical utilization and the use of prescription drugs, indirect costs due to disability and absenteeism also contribute to the high cost of pneumonia to an employer.

OBJECTIVES: Morbidity due to respiratory infections leads to significant adverse societal and economic consequences. This study investigates the extent to which treatment for respiratory infections imposes a financial burden on an employer, and documents variations in employer payments between specific respiratory infections. METHODS: The data source is a rich administrative claims database for a national, Fortune 100 manufacturer. It includes 1997 medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims for employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees (n> 100,000) under age 65. The research sample consists of individual patients with one or more medical or disability claims for at least one of eleven respiratory infection condition. Resource utilization is contrasted with a 10 percent random sample of the employer's overall beneficiary population. RESULTS: Direct (medical and pharmaceutical) and indirect (disability and sporadic absenteeism) costs are analyzed. The average per capita annual costs are: for the entire employer population, $2,368; for all respiratory infections patients, $4,397; and for respiratory infections employees eligible for disability, $6,838. Total costs for respiratory infections patients are 1.8 times those for the typical beneficiary. Total costs are highest for patients with pneumonia ($11,544) and lowest for patients with acute tonsillitis and acute pharyngitis ($2,180). Medical and pharmaceutical treatment account for 65% of total costs for all respiratory infections employees, while the remaining 35% of costs are attributable to disability and sporadic absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory infections impose a significant financial burden on the employer. Resource utilization by respiratory infections patients is substantial, not only for the direct treatment of respiratory infections, but also for the treatment of co-morbid medical conditions of respiratory infections patients. These costs also vary considerably by type of respiratory infection. The study also shows that respiratory infections impose substantial indirect costs on employers from work loss associated with these infections.