Search

Background: Patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome (ACOS) have more rapid disease progression and more exacerbations than do those with either condition alone. Little research has been performed, however, in these patients.Objective: The objective was to summarize the health care utilization, costs, and comorbidities of patients with uncontrolled asthma and patients with ACOS.Methods: This retrospective analysis used medical and pharmacy claims from large commercial health plans. The study included patients 6 years or older with a diagnosis of asthma and one or more asthma exacerbation (index event). Patients were classified as having asthma alone or ACOS, and the two groups were matched for age, sex, region, index year, index month, and health plan type. Outcomes included rates of comorbid disease, health care utilization, and costs during the 12 months before and after the index exacerbation.Results: Among the matched patients with asthma (6,505 ACOS; 26,060 without COPD), mean annual all-cause health care costs were twice as high as for patients with ACOS ($22,393 vs. $11,716; P < 0.0001). Asthma-related costs, representing 29% of total costs, were nearly twice as high among patients with ACOS ($6,319 vs. 3,356; P < 0.0001). Cost differences were driven by large differences in the proportions of patients with an inpatient hospitalization (34.0% vs. 14.6%; P < 0.0001) or emergency department visit (29.6% vs. 19.9%; P < 0.0001). Nearly all prespecified comorbid conditions were more prevalent in the ACOS group.Conclusions: Patients with asthma and COPD had nearly double the health care costs as did patients with asthma without COPD. The overall disease profile of patients with asthma should be considered when managing patients, rather than treating asthma as a solitary condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine resource use (costs) by women presenting for infertility evaluation and treatment over 18 months, regardless of treatment pursued.Design: Prospective cohort study in which women were followed for 18 months.Setting: Eight infertility practices.Patient(s): Three hundred ninety-eight women recruited from infertility practices.Intervention(s): Women completed interviews and questionnaires at baseline and after 4, 10, and 18 months of follow-up. Medical records were abstracted after 18 months to obtain details of services used.Main Outcome Measure(s): Per-person and per-successful-outcome costs.Result(s): Treatment groups were defined as highest intensity treatment use. Twenty percent of women did not pursue cycle-based treatment; approximately half pursued IVF. Median per-person costs ranged from $1,182 for medications only to $24,373 and $38,015 for IVF and IVF-donor egg groups, respectively. Estimates of costs of successful outcomes (delivery or ongoing pregnancy by 18 months) were higher--$61,377 for IVF, for example--reflecting treatment success rates. Within the time frame of the study, costs were not significantly different for women whose outcomes were successful and women whose outcomes were not.Conclusion(s): Although individual patient costs vary, these cost estimates developed from actual patient treatment experiences may provide patients with realistic estimates to consider when initiating infertility treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare providers continue to seek improved methods for preventing, detecting and treating diseases that affect human survival and quality of life. At the same time, there will always be financial constraints because of limited societal resources. Many of the discussions on how to provide economically sound solutions to this challenge have not fully engaged the input of clinicians in the field. The purpose of this review is to increase economic knowledge for clinicians. We cover healthcare cost elements and methods used to assign value to a health outcome. We outline the challenges in conducting economic studies in the field of infectious diseases. Finally, we discuss the meaning of efficiency from multiple perspectives, and how the concept of economic externalities applies to infectious diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]