Estimating Nationwide Prevalence of Live Births with Down Syndrome and Their Medical Expenditures in Korea

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the nationwide prevalence of live births with Down syndrome (DS) and its trends and compare the observed and model-based predicted prevalence rates. Further, we compared the direct medical expenditures among DS and non-DS patients. METHODS: Using the health administrative data of Health Insurance Review and Assessment in Korea, we selected 2,301 children with DS who were born between 2007 and 2016 to estimate the prevalence of live births with DS, and 12,265 non-DS children who were born between 2010 and 2014 to compare the direct medical expenditures among patients. RESULTS: The prevalence of live births with DS was 5.03 per 10,000 births in 9 years, and 13% of children with DS were medical aid recipients during the study period. The medical expenditure of children with DS was about 10-fold higher than that of non-DS children and their out-of-pocket expenditure was about twice as high. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of live birth with DS is high in the low socioeconomic group and the healthcare costs for the children with DS are significantly higher than those for non-DS children. Therefore, health authorities should help mothers at lower socioeconomic levels to receive adequate antenatal care and consider the cost of medical care for children with DS.

Medical Service Utilization with Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND: Although osteoporosis is increasing in the elderly population, attempts to analyze the patterns of medical service utilization for osteoporosis are currently not sufficient. The medical services and treatment patterns were investigated using Korea's National Health Insurance claims data, which includes all of the Korean population. METHODS: Through the patient identification algorithm developed by using the administrative claims data in 2007, the adult patients (between 50-100 years) with osteoporosis were identified. The age and gender of the patients who used medical service for osteoporosis were described, in relation with six dichotomous variables. The medical service use patterns such as the type of medical institution and conducting bone mineral density measurement were investigated. RESULTS: The number of patients who used medical service were 1,230,580 (females 89.9%). Sixty one point six percent of the patients were prescribed osteoporosis medicine (indicated for osteoporosis only), and 12.9% of the patients had experienced osteoporotic fracture. The primary medical institutions for treatment were clinics (54.3%), while hospitals were mainly used among the patients with a history of fracture and disease or drug use that may induce secondary osteoporosis. The number of visited medical institutions was 6.4 (as an outpatient) and 0.2 (as admissions) during 6 months. The proportion of patients who conducted bone mineral density measurements within one year before and after the diagnosis of osteoporosis was 66.7% and DXA was the most frequently used densitometry (46.3%). The average number of days for the prescriptions for osteoporosis medicine was 70 days. CONCLUSION: In order to prevent further osteoporotic fractures, appropriate management and treatment should be implemented for osteoporosis patients. To do this, we need to understand the current state of medical service utilization and the treatment of osteoporosis using the National Health Insurance claims data.