Dataset Information

Chronic pain and health care spending: an analysis of longitudinal data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To estimate average incremental health care expenditures associated with chronic pain by health care service category, expanding on prior research that focused on specific pain conditions instead of general pain, excluded low levels of pain, or did not incorporate pain duration.

Data source

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data (2008-2011; N = 26,671).

Study design

Differences in annual expenditures for adults at different levels of pain that interferes with normal work, as measured by the SF-12, were estimated using recycled predictions from two-part logit-generalized linear regression models.

Principal findings

"A little bit" of chronic pain-related interference was associated with a $2,498 increase in total adjusted expenditures over no pain interference (p < .0001) and a $1,008 increase over nonchronic pain interference (p = .0001). Moderate and severe chronic pain-related interference was associated with a $3,707 and $5,804 increase in expenditures over no pain interference and a $2,218 and $4,315 increase over nonchronic interference, respectively (p < .0001). Expenditure increases were most pronounced for inpatient and hospital outpatient expenditures compared to other types of health care expenditures.

Conclusions

Chronic pain limitations are associated with higher health care expenditures. Results underscore the substantial cost of pain to the health care system.

SUBMITTER: Stockbridge EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4450933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Project description:BackgroundCancer increases the risk of developing one or more chronic conditions, yet little research describes the associations between health care costs, utilization patterns, and chronic conditions in adults with cancer. The objective of this study was to examine the treated prevalence of chronic conditions and the association between chronic conditions and health care expenses in US adults with cancer.MethodsThis retrospective observational study used US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component (2010-2015) data sampling adults diagnosed with cancer and one or more of 18 select chronic conditions. The measures used were treated prevalence of chronic conditions, and total and chronic condition-specific health expenses (per-person, per-year). Generalized linear models assessed chronic condition-specific expenses in adults with cancer vs. without cancer and the association of chronic conditions on total health expenses in adults with cancer, respectively, by controlling for demographic and health characteristics. Accounting for the complex survey design in MEPS, all data analyses and statistical procedures applied longitudinal weights for national estimates.ResultsAmong 3657 eligible adults with cancer, 83.9% (n = 3040; representing 16 million US individuals per-year) had at least one chronic condition, and 29.7% reported four or more conditions. Among those with cancer, hypertension (59.7%), hyperlipidemia (53.6%), arthritis (25.6%), diabetes (22.2%), and coronary artery disease (18.2%) were the five most prevalent chronic conditions. Chronic conditions accounted for 30% of total health expenses. Total health expenses were $6388 higher for those with chronic conditions vs. those without (p < 0.001). Health expenses associated with chronic conditions increased by 34% in adults with cancer vs. those without cancer after adjustment.ConclusionsIn US adults with cancer, the treated prevalence of common chronic conditions was high and health expenses associated with chronic conditions were higher than those without cancer. A holistic treatment plan is needed to improve cost outcomes.