Health care utilization and costs by metabolic syndrome risk factors.

BACKGROUND: This study compared prevalent health utilization and costs for persons with and without metabolic syndrome and investigated the independent associations of the various factors that make up metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Subjects were enrollees of three health plans who had all clinical measurements (blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) necessary to determine metabolic syndrome risk factors over the 2-year study period (n = 170,648). We used clinical values, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnoses, and medication dispensings to identify risk factors. We report unadjusted mean annual utilization and modeled mean annual costs adjusting for age, sex, and co-morbidity. RESULTS: Subjects with metabolic syndrome (n = 98,091) had higher utilization and costs compared to subjects with no metabolic syndrome (n = 72,557) overall, and when stratified by diabetes (P < 0.001). Average annual total costs between subjects with metabolic syndrome versus no metabolic syndrome differed by a magnitude of 1.6 overall ($5,732 vs. $3,581), and a magnitude of 1.3 when stratified by diabetes (diabetes, $7,896 vs. $6,038; no diabetes, $4,476 vs. $3,422). Overall, total costs increased by an average of 24% per additional risk factor (P < 0.001). Costs and utilization differed by risk factor clusters, but the more prevalent clusters were not necessarily the most costly. Costs for subjects with diabetes plus weight risk, dyslipidemia, and hypertension were almost double the costs for subjects with prediabetes plus similar risk factors ($8,067 vs. $4,638). CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic syndrome, number of risk factors, and specific combinations of risk factors are markers for high utilization and costs among patients receiving medical care. Diabetes and certain risk clusters are major drivers of utilization and costs.

Cost of treating influenza in emergency department and hospital settings.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an estimate of the costs of treating influenza in emergency department and hospital settings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive study using patient-level data from the Perspective Comparative Database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed clinical and cost data obtained from 75 of the 169 hospitals in the database. These hospitals were located throughout the United States. Patients were included in the study if they visited the emergency department between January 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998, and had a primary diagnosis of influenza. RESULTS: A total of 1362 patients with influenza visited the emergency department during the study period. Of these, 333 (24.4%) required hospitalization. The mean cost of treatment for patients discharged directly from the emergency department was $141.89; the mean cost of treatment for hospitalized patients was $3251.04. The mean length of stay for hospitalized patients was 4.3 days. Compared with younger patients, elderly patients were more likely to be hospitalized and incur higher costs. Thirty-eight percent of hospitalized patients for whom drug data were available received either amantadine or rimantadine during their stay. CONCLUSIONS: Few data are available documenting resource utilization and associated costs for patients with influenza treated in the emergency department or hospital. Our results represent a significant addition to the identification of the costs associated with the treatment of influenza. This suggests early intervention care aimed at minimizing the impact of influenza, especially in the elderly, could result in decreased hospitalizations and substantial cost savings to managed care.

The cost of asthma in the emergency department and hospital.

Treatment of asthma in the emergency department (ED) or hospital accounts for a significant portion of total treatment costs; however, little is known about the specific resources consumed. The purpose of this study was to estimate the type and amount of resources consumed for an asthma event requiring ED visit and/or hospitalization. Between October 1, 1996 and September 30, 1997, occurrences of asthma as a primary diagnosis were identified at 27 hospitals' emergency departments within Premier's Perspective Comparative Database. Patients visiting the ED could either be treated and released or admitted to the hospital. A total of 3,223 patients (age >/= 18 yr) were identified, with 1,074 (33.3%) requiring hospitalization. For the 2,149 patients who visited the ED only, the average visit cost was $234.48. For hospitalized patients, the average length of stay was 3.8 d, and the cost was $3,102.53. Nursing care was the source of the majority of hospital costs for asthma (43.6%), respiratory therapy (13.6%), and medications (10.4%). For adult asthma patients requiring hospitalization, the total cost is high and resources consumed are unavoidable. Thus, a continuum of care aimed at appropriate asthma management, especially in the elderly, could result in substantial cost savings over those aimed at reducing inpatient utilization of care.

A national estimate of the economic costs of asthma.

This cost of illness analysis examines national cost and resource utilization by persons with asthma using a single, comprehensive data source, the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey. Direct medical expenditures included payments for ambulatory care visits, hospital outpatient services, hospital inpatient stays, emergency department visits, physician and facility payments, and prescribed medicines. Indirect medical costs included costs resulting from missed work or school and days with restricted activity at work. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and inflated to 1994 dollars. The total estimated cost was $5.8 billion (95% CI, $3.6 to $8 billion). The estimated direct expenditures were $5.1 billion (95% CI, $3.3 to $7.0 billion), and indirect expenditures were valued at $673 million (95% CI, $271 to $1,076 million). Hospitalization accounted for more than half of all expenditures. More than 80% of resources were used by 20% of the population (defined as 'high-cost patients'). The estimated annual per patient cost for those high-cost patients was $2,584, in contrast with $140 for the rest of the sample. Findings from this study indicate that future asthma research and intervention efforts directed at hospitalizations and high-cost patients could help to decrease health care resource use and provide cost savings.

Impact of fluticasone propionate powder on health-related quality of life in patients with moderate asthma.

Because biological indicators alone do not adequately represent the comprehensive health status of a patient with asthma, we also assessed patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP). A total of 342 patients with moderate asthma were treated twice daily for 12 weeks with FP powder (50, 100, or 250 micrograms) or placebo. At regular intervals, patients completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, acute version (SF-36A), a general health status questionnaire measuring eight dimensions of HRQOL; the 20-item Living with Asthma (LWA-20) questionnaire, a disease-specific instrument measuring HRQOL; and three additional questions related to sleep loss and number of nighttime awakenings. Each of the three FP groups compared with placebo had significantly higher scores at study endpoint on the Physical Functioning (p < 0.001) and Role-Physical (p < or = 0.0001) dimensions of the SF-36A; the FP 100- or 250-micrograms groups compared with placebo also had significantly higher scores on General Health Perceptions (p < 0.03), Vitality (p < 0.007), and Mental Health (p < 0.02). At endpoint, all three FP groups compared with placebo had significantly better scores on the LWA questionnaire (p < 0.05) and on the sleep-related items (p < 0.0001). These data, collected using both a general health status questionnaire and an asthma-specific questionnaire, demonstrate that fluticasone propionate powder can improve HRQOL in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

Fluticasone propionate improves quality of life in patients with asthma requiring oral corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone propionate is a potent inhaled corticosteroid that is effective in improving pulmonary function and symptoms in patients with asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of fluticasone propionate on quality of life in patients with severe asthma requiring oral corticosteroids. METHODS: A total of 96 patients with severe asthma participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, oral steroid-sparing study. Patients received fluticasone propionate aerosol, 750 or 1000 micrograms bid, or placebo for 16 weeks; 91 of these patients continued in a 1-year open-label study, in which everyone initially received fluticasone propionate, 1000 micrograms bid. At regular intervals, patients completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), a general health status questionnaire measuring eight dimensions of quality of life, plus one question on change in health from the previous year. RESULTS: Compared with the US population, patients scored significantly lower at baseline for five of eight SF-36 dimensions (P < .01). After 16 weeks, patients receiving fluticasone propionate, 1000 micrograms, improved significantly (P < or = .02) in physical functioning, role-physical, general health, and change in health, compared with the placebo group. After 1 year of open-label treatment with fluticasone propionate, these improvements were maintained. SF-36 scores in the placebo group during the double-blind period either worsened or remained unchanged; however, when these patients were switched to fluticasone propionate during the open-label period, their SF-36 scores also improved. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at the end of the double-blind period was positively correlated with mean quality of life scores on physical functioning, role-physical, vitality, social functioning, and change-in-health status. CONCLUSION: Health-related quality of life improved in patients with severe asthma following 16 weeks of treatment with fluticasone propionate, 1000 micrograms bid. These improvements were maintained during subsequent fluticasone propionate treatment over a 1-year period.