Dataset Information

Healthcare Utilization and Cost Burden of Porphyria in Commercially Insured Adults in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The healthcare burden associated with porphyria remains unevaluated despite the associated increased risks of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess the healthcare utilization and cost burdens of porphyria in the United States (US) using real-world claims data.

Methods

We performed a case-control analysis of adults in the Truven Health MarketScan^® Commercial Claims database (2010-2015). Using propensity scores, 2788 porphyria cases were matched 1:1 to porphyria-free controls with chronic liver disease. Total and service-specific parameters were quantified for the 12 months before porphyria diagnosis versus the 12 months after diagnosis and over the 12 months following a randomly selected date for controls. Wilcoxon signed rank tests and McNemar tests were used to examine incremental differences in burden between cases and controls. Adjusted multivariable generalized linear regression models were used to compare healthcare burdens for cases versus controls.

Results

Relative to the 12 months before porphyria diagnosis, the following 12 months had more claims per patient (35.94 vs 39.67; p?ConclusionPorphyria is associated with significant healthcare costs and utilization burdens driven by increased inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, and pharmaceutical claims.

SUBMITTER: Elsaid MI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7895889 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare Utilization and Cost Burden of Porphyria in Commercially Insured Adults in the United States.

Elsaid Mohamed I MI Li You Y Catalano Carolyn C Minacapelli Carlos D CD Gupta Kapil K Rustgi Vinod K VK

PharmacoEconomics - open 20210301 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>The healthcare burden associated with porphyria remains unevaluated despite the associated increased risks of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess the healthcare utilization and cost burdens of porphyria in the United States (US) using real-world claims data.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a case-control analysis of adults in the Truven Health MarketScan<sup>®</sup> Commercial Claims database (2010-2015). Using propensity scores, 2788 porphyria cases were matched 1:1 to po ...[more]

PMID: 32897528

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the economic burden of systematic lupus erythematous (SLE), stratified by disease severity, in commercially- and Medicaid-insured US populations.MethodsAdults (≥18 years) with SLE treated with antimalarials, selected biologics, immunosuppressants, and systemic glucocorticoids (2010-2014) were identified within the commercial and Medicaid insurance IBM MarketScan® databases (index date = first SLE medication claim). Both cohorts were stratified into mild (receiving antimalarial or glucocorticoid monotherapy ≤5 mg/day) versus moderate/severe SLE (receiving glucocorticoids >5 mg/day, biologic, immunosuppressant, or combination therapy) during a 6-month exposure period. All-cause healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated during the 12 months following the exposure period.ResultsAmong 8231 commercially-insured patients, 32.6% had mild and 67.4% had moderate/severe SLE by our definition. Among 802 Medicaid-insured patients, 25.2% had mild and 74.8% had moderate/severe SLE. Adjusted mean total healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, for moderate/severe SLE patients were higher than for mild SLE patients in the commercially-insured ($39,021 versus $23,519; p < 0.0001) and Medicaid-insured populations ($56,050 versus $44,932; p = 0.06). In both SLE severity populations total unadjusted costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients.ConclusionCommercially-insured patients with treatment suggesting moderate/severe SLE incurred significantly higher adjusted mean healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, compared with mild SLE patients. While not reaching statistical significance, moderate/severe Medicaid-insured patients had higher costs then mild SLE patients. Total unadjusted healthcare costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients. These differential costs are important to consider and monitor when implementing interventions to improve health and reduce healthcare spending for SLE.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Laparotomy followed by inpatient hospitalization has traditionally been the most common surgical care for hysterectomy. The financial implications of the increased use of laparoscopy and outpatient hysterectomy are unknown. OBJECTIVES:The objective of the study was to quantify the increasing use of laparoscopy and outpatient hysterectomy and to describe the financial implications among women with commercially based insurance in the United States. STUDY DESIGN:Hysterectomies between 2010 and 2013 were identified in the Health Care Cost Institute, a national data set with inpatient and outpatient private insurance claims for more than 25 million women. Surgical approach was categorized with procedure codes as abdominal, laparoscopic, laparoscopic assisted vaginal, or vaginal. Payments were adjusted to 2013 US dollars to account for change because of inflation. RESULTS:Between 2010 and 2013, there were 386,226 women who underwent hysterectomy. The rate of utilization decreased 12.4%, from 39.9 to 35.0 hysterectomies per 10,000 women. The largest absolute decreases were observed among women younger than 55 years and among those with uterine fibroids, abnormal uterine bleeding, and endometriosis. The proportion of laparoscopic hysterectomies increased from 26.1% to 43.4%, with concomitant decreases in abdominal (38.6% to 28.3%), laparoscopic assisted vaginal (20.2 to 16.7%), and vaginal (15.1% to 11.5%) hysterectomies. There was also a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery. In 2010, the inpatient and outpatient rates of hysterectomy were 26.6 and 13.3 per 10,000 women, respectively. By 2013, the rates were 15.4 and 19.6 per 10,000 women. In each year of analysis, the average reimbursement for outpatient procedures was 44-46% less than for similar inpatient procedures. Offsetting the lower utilization of hysterectomy and lower reimbursement for outpatient surgery were increases in average inpatient and outpatient hysterectomy reimbursement of 19.4% and 19.8%, respectively. Total payments for hysterectomy decreased 6.3%, from $823.4 million to $771.3 million. CONCLUSION:Between 2010 and 2013, laparoscopy emerged as the most common surgical approach for hysterectomy, and outpatient hysterectomy became more common than inpatient among women with commercially based insurance. While average reimbursement per case increased, overall payments for hysterectomy are decreasing because of decreased utilization and dramatic differences in how hysterectomy is performed.

Project description:ObjectiveThe economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database.MethodsPatients 18-63 years on antidepressant treatment between 1/1/13 and 9/30/13, who had no treatment claims for depression 6 months before the index date (first antidepressant dispensing), and who had a major depressive disorder or depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date, were included. Treatment-resistant depression was defined as receiving 3 antidepressant regimens during 1 major depressive disorder episode. Patients with treatment-resistant depression were matched with patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder at a 1:4 ratio using propensity score matching. The study consisted of 1-year baseline (pre-index) and 2-year follow-up (post index) periods. Cost outcomes were compared using a generalized linear model.Results2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US$3,846, 95% confidence interval = $2,855-$4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period.ConclusionTreatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

Dataset Information

Healthcare Utilization and Cost Burden of Porphyria in Commercially Insured Adults in the United States.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Publications

Healthcare Utilization and Cost Burden of Porphyria in Commercially Insured Adults in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets