4.6 Article

Economic burden of patients with anemia in selected diseases

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 629-638

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00058.x

关键词

anemia; comorbid conditions; economics; indirect costs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the economic impact of patients with anemia in selected diseases. Methods: A retrospective cohort design was used to estimate the differences in costs between anemic and nonanemic patients. The analysis used administrative claims data (1999-2001) from a US population to assess direct costs and disability and productivity data (1997-2001) to estimate indirect costs. Adult patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), cancer, or congestive heart failure (CHF) were identified. Costs were estimated using a generalized linear model, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and disease severity. The adjustment variables for disease severity were based on ICD-9, HCPCS, or pharmacy codes. These costs were projected to a 1-million-member, similar population. Results: The percentage of anemia patients varied among conditions (6.9-26.1%); the CKD population had the highest prevalence. CKD anemic patients incurred the greatest average annual direct costs ($78,209), followed by CHF ($72,078) and cancer ($60,447). After adjusting for baseline characteristics including severity, the difference in direct costs between anemic and nonanemic patients decreased for all diseases; CHF patients incurred the greatest adjusted cost difference between anemic and nonanemic ($29,511), followed by CKD ($20,529) and cancer ($18,418). Unmeasured severity and coding bias may account for a portion of the differences in the adjusted cost. Conclusion: Anemia may substantially increase health-care costs at a level that is economically very relevant, despite the fact that these patients may comprise only one tenth of the overall anemic population.

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

4.6
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