4.7 Article

The cost burden of diabetes mellitus:: the evidence from Germany -: the CoDiM Study

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 1498-1504

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-006-0277-5

关键词

complications; costs; diabetes mellitus; Germany; hypoglycaemic drugs; medical care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this study was to identify the health care costs of diabetic patients in Germany in 2001, focusing on the influence of age, sex, and type of treatment. Subjects and methods: Annual direct costs of medical care and indirect costs of inability to work and early retirement in diabetic subjects were compared with costs of age- and sex-matched non-diabetic control subjects. The analysis was based on routine health care data from a random sample (18.75%) taken from a database of 1.9 million insured persons. Incremental differences in medical and national expenditure between subjects with and without diabetes were calculated. Results: Annual direct mean costs per diabetic patient were euro 5,262, and indirect costs were euro 5,019. In the control group, mean direct and indirect costs were euro 2,755 and euro 3,691, respectively. Analysis of cost components revealed that the high costs associated with the care of diabetic patients could be largely attributed to inpatient care and overall medication costs. Hypoglycaemic drugs amounted to only one-quarter of the medication costs. The total health care costs were correlated with the type of treatment. Direct excess costs increased with increasing age in insulin-treated patients, but were unaffected by age in patients receiving other types of treatment. Conclusions/interpretation: The Costs of Diabetes Mellitus (CoDiM) study is the first comprehensive study to provide estimates of costs associated with diabetes care in Germany. Direct costs of diabetic patients account for 14.2% of total health care costs, which includes the proportion that specifically accounts for diabetes-related costs (6.8%).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据