4.4 Article

Evaluation of health-care utilization among adult patients with epilepsy in Germany

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 451-457

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.01.021

Keywords

Cost; Epilepsy; Seizure; Indirect cost; Work loss; Retirement; Economic burden; Resource use

Funding

  1. Desitin
  2. Janssen-Cilag
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. UCB Pharma
  5. Verein zur Erforschung der Epidemiologie der Epilepsien e.V.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the resource use of patients with epilepsy in the German district of Marburg-Biedenkopf. A cross-sectional cohort of consecutive adults with epilepsy, irrespective of seizure severity, duration of illness and epilepsy syndrome, was investigated in all health-care sectors. Costs of inpatient and outpatient treatment were derived from billing data of participating hospitals and office-based physicians. Data on socioeconomic status, course of epilepsy and further direct and indirect costs were recorded using patient questionnaires. We enrolled 366 patients from the district of Marburg-Biedenkopf and calculated annual epilepsy-specific costs of (sic)7738 per patient. Direct costs contributed 31.1% ((sic) 2406) and indirect costs 68.9% ((sic) 5332) of the total costs. Direct medical costs were mainly due to hospitalization (33.2% of total direct costs) and anticonvulsants (26.7%). Costs of admissions were due to status epilepticus (24.4%), video-EEG monitoring (14.8%), newly diagnosed patients (14.4%) and seizure-related injuries (8.8%). Indirect costs were mainly due to early retirement (38.0%), unemployment (35.9%) and days off due to seizures (26.2%). The mean costs of epilepsy found in our study were lower than those found in studies conducted at European epilepsy centers due to the inclusion of patients in all health-care sectors. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available