Burden of disease study of overweight and obesity; the societal impact in terms of cost-of-illness and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the burden that overweight and obesity impose on Dutch society. The aim of this study is to examine this burden in terms of cost-of-illness and health-related quality of life. METHOD: A bottom-up, prevalence-based burden of disease study from a societal perspective was performed. Cost-of-illness information including healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and other costs was obtained via the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TiC-P) questionnaire. Health-related quality of life was assessed through the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) and the BODY-Q instruments. Non-parametric bootstrapping was applied to test for significant differences in costs. Subgroup analyses were performed on all outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 97 people with overweight and obesity completed the survey. Per respondent, mean healthcare costs were €2907, patient and family costs were €4037, and other costs were €4519, leading to a total societal cost of €11,463 per respondent per year. Total costs were significantly higher for respondents with obesity versus overweight and between low & intermediate versus highly educated respondents. The mean utility score of our population was 0.81. A significantly lower utility score was found for respondents with obesity in comparison with respondents with overweight. BODY-Q results show that respondents with obesity scored a significantly lower Rasch-score than did respondents with overweight in three scales. Respondents with a high education level and having paid work scored significantly higher Rasch-scores in two scales than did those with a low education level and without having paid work. The age group 19-29 have significantly higher Rasch-scores in three scales than respondents in the other two age categories. CONCLUSIONS: Overweight and obesity have a considerable impact on the societal costs and on health-related quality of life. The results show that the impact of overweight and obesity go beyond the healthcare sector, as the other costs have the biggest share of the total costs. Another interesting finding of this study is that obesity leads to significant higher costs and lower health-related quality of life than overweight. These findings draw attention to policy making, as collective prevention and effective treatment are needed to reduce this burden.

The view of European experts regarding health economics for medical nutrition in disease-related malnutrition.

Health-care systems are currently facing tremendous budget constraints resulting in growing pressure on decision makers and health-care providers to obtain the maximum possible health benefits of the resources available. Choices have to be made, and health economics can help in allocating limited health-care resources among unlimited wants and needs. Attempts to achieve cost reductions often focus on severe pathologies and chronic diseases as they commonly represent high health-care expenditures. In this context, awareness of the considerable financial burden caused by disease-related malnutrition (DRM) is lacking. Possibilities of reducing costs by optimising the management of DRM through medical nutrition will mostly not even be taken into account. During a European expert meeting, the total evaluation of medical nutrition was viewed and discussed. The aim of this meeting was to gain an experts' outline of the key issues relating to the health economic assessment of the use of medical nutrition. This article provides a summary of the observations per discussed item and describes the next steps suggested.

Analysis of the health economic impact of medical nutrition in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: A health economic analysis was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements (ONS), being a medical nutrition product, in the Netherlands. METHODS: This analysis is based on a comparison of the use of ONS versus 'no use' of ONS in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. The costs and benefits of the two treatment strategies were assessed using a linear decision analytical model reflecting treatment patterns and outcomes in abdominal surgery. The incremental cost difference was based on costs associated with ONS and hospitalization. Clinical probabilities and resource utilization were based on clinical trials and published literature; cost data were derived from official price tariffs. RESULTS: The use of ONS reduces the costs with a \[euro] 252 (7.6%) cost saving per patient. The hospitalization costs reduce from \[euro] 3,318 to \[euro] 3,044 per patient, which is a 8.3% cost saving and corresponds with 0.72 days reduction in length of stay. The use of ONS would lead to an annual cost saving of a minimum of \[euro] 40.4 million per year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the use of ONS remains cost saving compared with 'no use' of ONS. A threshold analysis on the length of stay shows that at 0.64 days, the use of ONS is still cost-effective, which is an unrealistic value. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the use of medical nutrition, ONS in this case, is a cost-effective treatment in the Netherlands and is dominant over standard care without medical nutrition: it leads to cost savings and a higher effectiveness.