4.2 Article

Estimating costs of care for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer

期刊

CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 52-58

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.3816/CCC.2006.n.021

关键词

case-control design; health-care costs; oncology; retrospective data

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study examines the resource use patterns and costs of care for patients with incident metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on analyses of retrospective claims data from selected health plans in the United States. Patients and Methods: A case-control analysis was performed using claims from years 1998-2004. Incident mCRC cases were identified based on evidence of a colorectal cancer diagnosis and a metastatic disease diagnosis. Incident mCRC cases could have no other evidence of cancer in the I-year period before the date of their first mCRC diagnosis. Cases were matched to non-mCRC controls based on age, sex, geographic region, and duration of plan enrollment. Costs were evaluated by phase of disease: diagnosis, treatment, or death phases. Ordinary least squares regressions were performed to evaluate impact of covariates in each phase. Results: Total costs in the follow-up period averaged $97,031 more for mCRC cases than for controls. The main cost drivers for mCRC were hospitalizations ($37,369) and specialist visits ($34,582), which included chemotherapy administration. Approximately 40% of the 672 patients with mCRC who qualified for the phase analysis were identified with a fatal event during follow-up. Monthly costs were similar in the diagnostic phase ($12,205) and death phase ($12,328), but were significantly lower in the treatment phase ($4722). Both mean/median monthly costs increased over time during the study period, regardless of disease phase. Conclusion: The economic burden of mCRC is substantial for patients with commercial health plans in the United States, and costs of care have increased substantially in recent years.

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

4.2
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