scholarly journals PHP77 Exploring Different HRQOL Measures as Predictors of Future Health Care Expenditures

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. A347
Author(s):  
J. Gatwood ◽  
S. Erickson
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 1718-1728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E Targownik ◽  
Eric I Benchimol ◽  
Julia Witt ◽  
Charles N Bernstein ◽  
Harminder Singh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are highly effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), but they are very costly. Due to their effectiveness, they could potentially reduce future health care spending on other medical therapies, hospitalization, and surgery. The impact of downstream costs has not previously been quantified in a real-world population-based setting. Methods We used the University of Manitoba IBD Database to identify all persons in a Canadian province with CD or UC who received anti-TNF therapy between 2004 and 2016. All inpatient, outpatient, and drug costs were enumerated both in the year before anti-TNF initiation and for up to 5 years after anti-TNF initiation. Costs before and after anti-TNF initiation were compared, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to look for predictors of higher costs after anti-TNF initiation. Results A total of 928 people with IBD (676 CD, 252 UC) were included for analyses. The median cost of health care in the year before anti-TNF therapy was $4698 for CD vs $6364 for UC. The median cost rose to $39,749 and $49,327, respectively, in the year after anti-TNF initiation, and to $210,956 and $245,260 in the 5 years after initiation for continuous anti-TNF users. Inpatient and outpatient costs decreased in the year after anti-TNF initiation by 12% and 7%, respectively, when excluding the cost of anti-TNFs. Conclusions Direct health care expenditures markedly increase after anti-TNF initiation and continue to stay elevated over pre-initiation costs for up to 5 years, with only small reductions in the direct costs of non-drug-related health care.


Medical Care ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 44 (suppl) ◽  
pp. I-45-I-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven B. Cohen ◽  
Trena Ezzati-Rice ◽  
William Yu

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Anonymous

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunju Suh ◽  
Mahdi Alhaery

PurposeWhile United States is among countries with the world’s highest coronavirus infections, its approaches and policies to reopen the economy vary by state. A lack of objective criteria and monitoring toward satisfying the criteria can lead to another COVID-19 outbreak and business closures. Considering the pressing need to return to normalcy without a rebound of COVID-19 infections and deaths, an index that provides a data-driven and objective insight is urgently needed. Hence, a method was devised to assess the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the degree of progress any state has made in containing the spread of COVID-19.Design/methodology/approachUsing measures such as the weekly averages of daily new deaths, ICU bed occupancy rates, positive cases and test positivity rates, two indexes were developed: COVID-19 reopening readiness and severity.FindingsA clear difference in the pandemic severity trends can be observed between states, which is possibly due to the disparity in the state’s response to coronavirus. A sharp upward trend in index values requires caution prior to moving to the next phase of reopening.Originality/valueThe composite indexes advanced in this study will provide a universal, standardized and unbiased view of each state’s readiness to reopen and allow comparisons between states. This in turn can help governments and health-care agencies take counter measures if needed as to the anticipated demand for future health-care services and minimize adverse consequences of opening.


2017 ◽  
Vol 206 (9) ◽  
pp. 378-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith N Hudson ◽  
Kathryn M Weston ◽  
Elizabeth A Farmer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document