4.2 Article

Healthcare utilization and costs following newly diagnosed type-2 diabetes in Sweden: A follow-up of 38,956 patients in a clinical practice setting

Journal

PRIMARY CARE DIABETES
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 330-337

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2015.01.001

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Healthcare utilization; Healthcare costs; Retrospective observational study

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To describe healthcare resource use patterns and estimate healthcare costs of newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Sweden. Methods: Patients with a newly diagnosed T2DM between 1999 and 2009 were identified from 84 Swedish primary care centres. Healthcare resource use data, excluding pharmaceuticals, were extracted from electronic patient records and a national patient register, and reported as per patient mean number of primary care contacts, laboratory tests and hospitalizations. Per patient mean healthcare costs are reported as annual and cumulative costs. Results: During a median (maximum) of 4.6 (9.0) years follow-up; 38,956 patients (183,513 patient years) on average made 81 primary care contacts, was hospitalized 2.14 times, and took 31 laboratory tests. Mean per patient annual healthcare costs were (sic)4128 (95% CI, 4054-4199) the first year after diagnosis, (sic)2708 (95% CI, 2641-2776) the second year, and (sic)3030 (95% CI, 2854-3204) in year 9 (2012 values). Mean per patient cumulative healthcare costs were (sic)26,503 (95% CI, 26,025-26,970) at 9 years of follow-up. Hospitalizations accounted for the majority of healthcare costs. Conclusions: Although newly diagnosed T2DM patients require a substantial amount of healthcare services in primary care, hospitalizations account for the majority of healthcare costs. (C) 2015 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available