Direct Costs of Opioid Abuse in an Insured Population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) describe the demographics of opioid abusers; (b) compare the prevalence rates of selected comorbidities and the medical and drug utilization patterns of opioid abusers with patients from a control group, for the period from 1998 to 2002; and (c) calculate the mean annual per-patient total health care costs (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, drug, other) from the perspective of a private payer. METHODS: An administrative database of medical and pharmacy claims from 1998 to 2002 of 16 self-insured employer health plans with approximately 2 million lives was used to identify "opioid abusers"-patients with claims associated with ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) codes for opioid abuse (304.0, 304.7, 305.5, and 965.0 [excluding 965.01]). A control group of nonabusers was selected using a matched sample (by age, gender, employment status, and census region) in a 3:1 ratio. Per-patient annual health care costs (mean total medical and drug costs) were measured in 2003 U.S. dollars. Multivariate regression techniques were also used to control for comorbidities and to compare costs with a benchmark of depressed patients. RESULTS: 740 patients were identified as opioid abusers, a prevalence of 8 in 10,000 persons aged 12 to 64 years continuously enrolled in health care plans for whom 12 months of data were available for calculating costs. Opioid abusers, compared with nonabusers, had significantly higher prevalence rates for a number of specific comorbidities, including nonopioid poisoning, hepatitis (A, B, or C), psychiatric illnesses, and pancreatitis, which were approximately 78, 36, 9, and 21 (P<0.01) times higher, respectively, compared with nonabusers. Opioid abusers also had higher levels of medical and prescription drug utilization. Almost 60% of opioid abusers had prescription drug claims for opioids compared with approximately 20% for nonabusers. Prevalence rates for hospital inpatient visits for opioid abusers were more than 12 times higher compared with nonabusers (P<0.01). Mean annual direct health care costs for opioid abusers were more than 8 times higher than for nonabusers ($15,884 versus $1,830, respectively, P < 0.01). Hospital inpatient and physician-outpatient costs accounted for 46% ($7,239) and 31% ($5,000) of opioid abusers' health care costs, compared with 17% ($310) and 50% ($906), respectively, for nonabusers. Mean drug costs for opioid abusers were more than 5 times higher than costs for nonabusers ($2,034 vs. $386, respectively, P<0.01), driven by higher drug utilization (including opioids) for opioid abusers. Even when controlling for comorbidities using a multivariate regression model of a matched control of depressed patients, the average health care costs of opioid abusers were 1.8 times higher than the average health care costs of depressed patients. CONCLUSION: The high costs of opioid abuse were driven primarily by high prevalence rates of costly comorbidites and high utilization rates of medical services and prescription drugs. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by an unrestricted grant from Janssen Medical Affairs, L.L.C. and was obtained by authors Susan Vallow and Jeff Schein, who are employed by Janssen Medical Affairs, L.L.C. Nathaniel Katz is a consultant to Janssen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies that manufacture branded opioid products and nonopioid analgesics; authors Alan G. White, Howard G. Birnbaum, Milena N. Mareva, and Maham Daher disclose no potential bias or conflict of interest relating to this article. White served as principal author of the study. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by White, Vallow, Schein, and Katz. Analysis and interpretation of data were contributed by all authors. Drafting of the manuscript was primarily the work of White, and its critical revision was the work of White and Vallow. Statistical expertise was contributed by White, Birnbaum, and Daher, and administrative, technical, and/or material support was provided by Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment for U.S. patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment in management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Two hundred thirty-three patients with DPNP who completed a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter duloxetine trial were re-randomized into a 52-week, open-label trial of duloxetine 60 mg twice daily versus routine treatment. Routine treatment included pain management therapies. Effectiveness was measured by using the bodily pain domain (BP) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36). Costs were analyzed from 3 perspectives: third party payer (direct medical costs), employer (direct and indirect medical costs), and societal (patient's out-of-pocket costs and total medical costs). Costs of study medications were not included because of limited data. Bootstrap method was applied to calculate statistical inference of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Routine treatment most frequently used included gabapentin (56%), venlafaxine (36%), and amitripytline (15%). From employer and societal perspectives, duloxetine was cost-effective (ICER= -342 dollars and -429 dollars, respectively, per unit of SF-36 BP; both P

Interstitial Cystitis: Cost, treatment and co-morbidities in an employed population.

INTRODUCTION: Recent literature indicates that interstitial cystitis (IC) may affect 20% of women and a smaller proportion of men, although many individuals with IC may be misdiagnosed or remain undiagnosed. Factors that can contribute to the cost of IC include medical and drug utilisation related to treatment and diagnosis of IC and associated conditions (e.g. depression), as well as employee work loss. This study assesses the direct medical cost and indirect cost of work loss for IC patients in the first year after diagnosis, and evaluates IC treatment patterns and prevalence of co-morbidities. METHODS: Data for patients under the age of 65 years with at least one diagnosis of IC (n = 749) were drawn from a de-identified, administrative database of approximately 2 million beneficiaries that included medical, drug and disability claims for 1999-2002. A 2 : 1 matched control sample of patients without an IC diagnosis (non-IC sample) was randomly selected based on patient characteristics. Indirect costs were calculated from a subgroup of 152 IC patients (plus their matched controls) who had disability information available. Costs incurred in the first year after IC diagnosis and co-morbidities were compared between IC patients and the non-IC sample, with the difference in costs defined as 'excess costs' of IC patients. Treatment patterns were profiled in the 2 months following initial diagnosis of IC. Descriptive statistics are presented. A multivariate two-part model was applied to estimate the IC direct medical cost, indirect cost and total cost to adjust for observed patient demographics and co-morbidities. Statistical significance was evaluated by the bootstrap method. RESULTS: The average IC patient had 130% higher direct costs (p < 0.05) and the average IC employee patient had 84% higher indirect costs than the average non-IC control individual. IC patients also had a higher diagnostic prevalence of prostatitis (relative risk [RR] = 40.0), endometriosis (RR = 7.4), vulvodynia (RR = 6.9), chronic pelvic pain (RR = 5.8) and urinary tract infections (RR = 5.1) [all p < 0.05]. IC patients were also more likely to report depression (RR = 2.8) and anxiety (RR = 4.5 ) than non-IC controls (all p < 0.05). Seventeen percent of IC patients received pentosan polysulfate therapy, the only US FDA-approved oral drug therapy indicated for treating IC, within the first 2 months after diagnosis. Of these patients, 69% received at least one 'other' drug from the non-approved oral medications studied. Approximately one-third of IC patients received only 'other' drug therapies, and almost half of IC patients received no drug treatment within the first 2 months after the initial diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: IC is a costly disease associated with co-morbidities. Following diagnosis, patients with IC are commonly untreated or treated with non-approved drug therapies. It is possible that more accurate diagnosis and earlier and more appropriate treatment of IC would lead to better management (or even prevention) of co-morbidities and reduce healthcare costs, and this should be investigated in future studies.

Economic burden and co-morbidities of atrial fibrillation in a privately insured population.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the direct (medical and drugs) and indirect (work loss) annual costs associated with Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in a privately insured population. BACKGROUND: AFIB is the most common sustained rhythm disturbance, affecting 2.3 million people in the United States. METHODS: Cost and co-morbidity measures for AFIB patients were compared to matched controls using a privately insured administrative database (including medical, drug, and disability claims) for 2 million enrollees, 1999-2002 from 16 employers across the United States. Patients with an AFIB diagnosis on at least two occasions were included in the co-morbidity analysis (n = 3944). A non-AFIB control sample was randomly selected with a 1:1 ratio, with characteristics (i.e., age, gender, health plan) matched to AFIB patients. Excess medical costs (i.e., employer payments) were estimated for AFIB patients, defined as the difference in average annual costs between AFIB and control patients (n = 3944); excess work-loss costs were defined similarly for employees with available work-loss data (n = 603). Statistical significance in the descriptive analysis was measured by paired t-tests for cost, or Chi-square tests for co-morbidity comparisons. A two-part multivariate model of excess cost was further estimated to control for co-existing conditions and other patient characteristics. The excess costs of AFIB patients were estimated as the difference between the observed costs of AFIB patients and their estimated costs, assuming they did not have AFIB. RESULTS: The multivariate analysis found that the excess annual direct cost of AFIB was $12,349 (p < 0.01), with AFIB patients approximately 5 times as costly as non-AFIB individuals ($15,553 versus $3204, respectively). The excess annual total cost was $14,875 (p < 0.01), with AFIB patients again approximately 5 times as costly as non-AFIB individuals ($18,454 versus $3,579, respectively). AFIB was associated with increased incidence of atrial flutter (p < 0.01), heart failure (Relative Risk (RR) = 29, p < 0.01), other arrhythmias/conduction disorders (RR = 16, p < 0.01), heart attack (RR = 8, p < 0.01), and stroke (RR = 6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AFIB is a costly disease and one for which more definitive therapies might offer some potential for reducing, not only the clinical impact, but also the economic burden of the disease.

Economic burden of illness for employees with painful conditions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the medical services utilization and average annual direct (ie, medical and medication) and indirect (ie, work-loss) costs for employees with painful conditions to a random sample ("average employee"). METHODS: An employer administrative claims database (approximately 600,000 insured lives) was used to identify patients with ICD-9 codes for painful conditions. Direct costs were total employer medical and medication costs and indirect costs were associated with medically related absenteeism days and disability claims. RESULTS: Among employees with painful conditions, total costs were 1.5 to 3.5 times as high (P < 0.01) as those of the average employee (ie, 7088 US dollars to 16,874 US dollars compared with 4,849 US dollars) depending on the painful condition. CONCLUSIONS: Painful conditions are costly to employers, and better management/treatment of such conditions may help reduce the associated employer economic burden.

Direct costs of opioid abuse in an insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) describe the demographics of opioid abusers; (b) compare the prevalence rates of selected comorbidities and the medical and drug utilization patterns of opioid abusers with patients from a control group, for the period from 1998 to 2002; and (c) calculate the mean annual per-patient total health care costs (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, drug, other) from the perspective of a private payer. METHODS: An administrative database of medical and pharmacy claims from 1998 to 2002 of 16 self-insured employer health plans with approximately 2 million lives was used to identify "opioid abusers"--patients with claims associated with ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) codes for opioid abuse (304.0, 304.7, 305.5, and 965.0 [excluding 965.01]). A control group of nonabusers was selected using a matched sample (by age, gender, employment status, and census region) in a 3:1 ratio. Per-patient annual health care costs (mean total medical and drug costs) were measured in 2003 U.S. dollars. Multivariate regression techniques were also used to control for comorbidities and to compare costs with a benchmark of depressed patients. RESULTS: 740 patients were identified as opioid abusers, a prevalence of 8 in 10,000 persons aged 12 to 64 years continuously enrolled in health care plans for whom 12 months of data were available for calculating costs. Opioid abusers, compared with nonabusers, had significantly higher prevalence rates for a number of specific comorbidities, including nonopioid poisoning, hepatitis (A, B, or C), psychiatric illnesses, and pancreatitis, which were approximately 78, 36, 9, and 21 (P<0.01) times higher, respectively, compared with nonabusers. Opioid abusers also had higher levels of medical and prescription drug utilization. Almost 60% of opioid abusers had prescription drug claims for opioids compared with approximately 20% for nonabusers. Prevalence rates for hospital inpatient visits for opioid abusers were more than 12 times higher compared with nonabusers (P<0.01). Mean annual direct health care costs for opioid abusers were more than 8 times higher than for nonabusers ($15,884 versus $1,830, respectively, P < 0.01). Hospital inpatient and physician-outpatient costs accounted for 46% ($7,239) and 31% ($5,000) of opioid abusers. health care costs, compared with 17% ($310) and 50% ($906), respectively, for nonabusers. Mean drug costs for opioid abusers were more than 5 times higher than costs for nonabusers ($2,034 vs. $386, respectively, P<0.01), driven by higher drug utilization (including opioids) for opioid abusers. Even when controlling for comorbidities using a multivariate regression model of a matched control of depressed patients, the average health care costs of opioid abusers were 1.8 times higher than the average health care costs of depressed patients. CONCLUSION: The high costs of opioid abuse were driven primarily by high prevalence rates of costly comorbidites and high utilization rates of medical services and prescription drugs.

Employees with overactive bladder: work loss burden.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the indirect work loss costs to employers as the result of employees with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: Study samples were drawn from an administrative database of 1.2 million beneficiaries, including medical and disability claims (1999-2002). OAB employees were compared with matched employees without OAB. RESULTS: OAB was associated with higher annual occurrences of work loss (P < 0.01). Employees with OAB had 2.2 excess work loss days as the result of medically related absenteeism and 3.4 excess days as the result of disability compared with employees without OAB (P < 0.01 for both comparisons). Employees with OAB had increased risk of disability (P < 0.01), and female employees with OAB had a higher risk of disability than male employees (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that OAB was associated with work loss costs to employers resulting from increased number of employee sick days and increased risk of employee disability.