Sickle Cell Disease is Associated with Increased Morbidity, Resource Utilization, and Readmissions after Common Abdominal Surgeries: A Multistate Analysis, 2007–2014

2020 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-208
Author(s):  
John Brumm ◽  
Robert S. White ◽  
Noelle S. Arroyo ◽  
Licia K. Gaber-Baylis ◽  
Soham Gupta ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 958-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham G. Hartzema ◽  
Teresa L. Kauf ◽  
Thomas D. Coates ◽  
Liu Huazhi ◽  
Nakita Mody-Patel

Abstract Background: The economic burden of sickle cell disease (SCD) has not been determined. Cost-of-care estimates improve health care planning, inform research priorities, and contribute to an understanding of the cost-effectiveness of new SCD treatments. The objectives of this study were examine resource utilization in the Florida Medicaid population; to estimate the cost of medical care for SCD patients; and to examine the proportion of medical care costs attributable to SCD versus other morbidities. Methods: Pediatric (0 – 19 years; y) and adult (> 20 y) patients with a diagnosis of SCD between 1/2001–12/2005 were identified from Florida Medicaid claims. Patients with at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient SCD claims at least 30 days apart and ≥6 Medicaid-eligible months, not necessarily consecutive, were included in the analysis. Medicaid administrative data consist of medical and pharmacy utilization and reimbursement claims for medically-needy and low-income recipients. Resource utilization and costs were estimated using paid claims for hospitalizations, emergency room visits, outpatient visits, pharmacy claims, and other care (blood transfusions, hydroxyurea, iron chelation, serum ferritin tests). Claims containing a primary or secondary ICD-9 code indicating SCD were considered “SCD-related”; all other claims were classified as “non-SCD-related”. Individuals aged >65 y and/or dually eligible for Medicare or other health insurance were excluded. Annualized costs were estimated by multiplying mean cost per patient-month by 12. All costs were inflated to 2005 US$ using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index. Results: A total of 4,294 individuals met study inclusion criteria. Mean age at first claim was 14.5 y (range: 0–64 y; SD 13.2); 55.8% were female; 79.1% African-American. Mean SCD-related costs for pediatric (0–9 y) and adolescent (10–19 y) patients were estimated at $5,292 and $11,508 per year, respectively. Overall, 66% of total medical costs were related to SCD. The distribution of SCD-related costs was bimodal, with the youngest (0–9 y) and oldest (50–64 y) having the lowest proportion of SCD-related costs (53.7% and 35.3%, respectively). Non-SCD-related costs increased with age, ranging from $4,548 annually for ages 0–9 to $16,656 for ages 50–64. While SCD accounted for the largest proportion of total medical costs for patients 10–19 y (77.27%; $11,508), absolute SCD costs were highest for patients 30–39 y (67.1%; $21,792). Cost distributions were similar for males and females. Hospitalizations accounted for 80.5% of all SCD-related costs; emergency room visits, 3.2%; office visits, 0.9%; outpatient drugs, 3.6%; other medical care, 11.7%. Total discounted medical costs (3%) for a SCD patient from birth through age 45 were estimated at $448,460, with 67% of costs related to SCD. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the burden of SCD is substantial. Moreover, non-SCD-related medical costs for SCD patients are considerably higher than expenditures reported for the general US population. While our results reflect the payer’s perspective, the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of care on individual patients also is likely high. Interventions designed to prevent SCD complications and keep patients out of the hospital may reduce the significant economic burden of the disease.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2177-2177
Author(s):  
Francis Vekeman ◽  
Medha Sasane ◽  
Wendy Y Cheng ◽  
Agnihotram V Ramanakumar ◽  
Jonathan Fortier ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: While adherence to iron chelation therapy (ICT) is critical for successful iron overload (IO) treatment among patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), published data indicate it is often suboptimal. Deferoxamine (DFO) and Deferasirox (DFX) are ICTs indicated for the treatment of chronic IO in patients with SCD. Lack of patient adherence may impact patient outcomes and increase cost of care. This study evaluated the economic burden of ICT non-adherence in patients with SCD from the state Medicaid program’s perspective. Methods: Patients with SCD were identified from Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Jersey (1997-2013) state Medicaid programs. Patients were required to have ≥1 ICD-9 diagnosis code for SCD (282.6), ≥1 prescription for DFO or DFX, and ≥6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the 1st DFO/DFX prescription (index date), which was defined as the baseline period. Adherence was estimated using the medication possession ratio (MPR), defined as the sum of the days of medication supply divided by the number of days between 1st and last prescription fill plus the days of supply of the last fill; a threshold of ≥0.80 was used to define optimal adherence. All-cause and SCD-specific resource utilization per-patient-per-month (PPPM) was assessed using cumulative rates, accounting for all visits observed, and compared between adherent and non-adherent patients using cumulative rate ratios (CRR). All-cause and SCD-specific healthcare costs were computed using mean cost PPPM. Regression models adjusting for baseline characteristics were used to assess resource utilization and cost differences between adherent and non-adherent patients. Results: A total of 846 eligible patients with SCD were included with 77 in DFO-only, 686 in DFX-only), and 83 in DFO/DFX switch cohort. Mean (SD) MPR was 0.68 (0.27) for DFO-only patients and 0.75 (0.26) for DFX-only patients (p<0.05). Among all users of ICT, 409 (48.3%) were considered adherent. Adherent patients were slightly younger (19 vs. 21 years, p=0.003) than non-adherent patients. Rates of transfusions were comparable between the two groups (mean [SD] transfusions PPPM, adherent: 0.41 [0.47]; non-adherent: 0.40 [0.54], p=0.456) at baseline. The adjusted rate of all-cause IP visits PPPM was lower in adherent versus non-adherent patients (CRR=0.87 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.91]; p<0.001). The adjusted rates of all-cause outpatient (OP) visits (1.10 [1.08, 1.13], p<0.001) and ER visits (1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p=0.010) PPPM of adherent patients were higher in adherent patients than those in non-adherent patients. A similar trend was observed in SCD-specific resource utilization except for rates of ER visits, which were similar between cohorts. From cost perspective, total all-cause and SCD-specific costs were lower in adherent versus non-adherent patients primarily due to lower IP costs (Table 1). SCD-specific ER and OP costs were similar in both cohorts. All-cause pharmacy costs were higher in adherent versus non-adherent patients. Conclusion: Published studies have reported low adherence to ICT, and a similar trend was found in this study. Adherent patients were observed to have less frequent hospitalizations and lower overall and SCD-specific IP costs compared to non-adherent patients. It should be noted that the rate of OP visits was higher in the adherent patients compared to non-adherent patients suggesting that adherent patients may be more closely monitored potentially resulting in better overall patient management and fewer hospitalizations. Additional analyses are needed to explore differences between adherent and non-adherent patients. Table 1 Costs PPPM Adherent patients (N=409) [A] Non-adherent patients (N=437) [B] Adjusted cost difference[A] – [B] P -value All-cause, mean [SD] $4,766 [$4,388] $5,304 [$4,725] -$724 0.072 Inpatient $1,911 [$3,647] $2,996 [$4,439] -$947 0.016 Emergency room $27 [$87] $40 [$88] -$203 0.104 Outpatient $580 [$697] $485 [$617] $49 0.500 Pharmacy $2,248 [$1,949] $1,783 [$1,449] $432 0.004 Pharmacy without ICT $215 [$482] $274 [$544] -$50 0.192 SCD-specific, mean [SD] $2,237 [$3,679] $3,116 [$4,301] -$952 0.0160 Inpatient $1,776 [$3,546] $2,782 [$4,268] -$855 0.0160 Emergency room $18 [$63] $28 [$69] -$199 0.1200 Outpatient $443 [$658] $306 [$548] $105 0.1120 Disclosures Vekeman: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Sasane:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Cheng:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Ramanakumar:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fortier:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Duh:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Paley:Novartis Pharma: Employment. Adams-Graves:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Mayer ◽  
Thomas R. Konrad ◽  
Christopher C. Dvorak

2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-565
Author(s):  
Meghan McCormick ◽  
Troy Richardson ◽  
Bradley A. Warady ◽  
Enrico M. Novelli ◽  
Ramasubramanian Kalpatthi

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Mayer ◽  
Thomas R. Konrad ◽  
Christopher C. Dvorak

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. e0214355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nirmish Shah ◽  
Menaka Bhor ◽  
Lin Xie ◽  
Jincy Paulose ◽  
Huseyin Yuce

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document