Cost Outcomes
Recently Published Documents





2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Hongpeng Liu ◽  
Baoyun Song ◽  
Jingfen Jin ◽  
Yilan Liu ◽  
Xianxiu Wen ◽  

Purpose: Evidence of the impact of nutritional risk on health outcomes and hospital costs among Chinese older inpatients is limited. Relatively few studies have investigated the association between clinical and cost outcomes and nutritional risk in immobile older inpatients, particularly those with neoplasms, injury, digestive, cardiac, and respiratory conditions.Methods: This China-wide prospective observational cohort study comprised 5,386 immobile older inpatients hospitalized at 25 hospitals. All patients were screened for nutritional risk using the Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS 2002). A descriptive analysis of baseline variables was followed by multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear model) to compare the health and economic outcomes, namely, mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), and hospital costs associated with a positive NRS 2002 result.Results: The prevalence of a positive NRS 2002 result was 65.3% (n = 3,517). The prevalence of “at-risk” patients (NRS 2002 scores of 3+) was highest in patients with cardiac conditions (31.5%) and lowest in patients with diseases of the respiratory system (6.9%). Controlling for sex, age, education, type of insurance, smoking status, the main diagnosed disease, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), the multivariate analysis showed that the NRS 2002 score = 3 [hazard ratio (HR): 1.376, 95% CI: 1.031–1.836] were associated with approximately a 1.5-fold higher likelihood of death. NRS 2002 scores = 4 (HR: 1.982, 95% CI: 1.491–2.633) and NRS scores ≥ 5 (HR: 1.982, 95% CI: 1.498–2.622) were associated with a 2-fold higher likelihood of death, compared with NRS 2002 scores <3. An NRS 2002 score of 3 (percentage change: 16.4, 95% CI: 9.6–23.6), score of 4 (32.4, 95% CI: 24–41.4), and scores of ≥ 5 (36.8, 95% CI 28.3–45.8) were associated with a significantly (16.4, 32.4, and 36.8%, respectively) higher likelihood of increased LoS compared with an NRS 2002 scores <3. The NRS 2002 score = 3 group (17.8, 95% CI: 8.6–27.7) was associated with a 17.8%, the NRS 2002 score = 4 group (31.1, 95% CI: 19.8–43.5) a 31.1%, and the NRS 2002 score ≥ 5 group (44.3, 95% CI: 32.3–57.4) a 44.3%, higher likelihood of increased hospital costs compared with a NRS 2002 scores <3 group. Specifically, the most notable mortality-specific comorbidity and LoS-specific comorbidity was injury, while the most notable cost-specific comorbidity was diseases of the digestive system.Conclusions: This study demonstrated the high burden of undernutrition at the time of hospital admission on the health and hospital cost outcomes for older immobile inpatients. These findings underscore the need for nutritional risk screening in all Chinese hospitalized patients, and improved diagnosis, treatment, and nutritional support to improve immobile patient outcomes and to reduce healthcare costs.

2021 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. 107972
Emily R. Hudson ◽  
Alexandra Lesko ◽  
Lindsay Lucas ◽  
Elizabeth Baraban ◽  
Evan J. Fertig

2021 ◽  
Deirdre Weymann ◽  
Samantha Pollard ◽  
Brandon Chan ◽  
Emma Titmuss ◽  
Alexandra Bohm ◽  

Xavier Bosch ◽  
Elisabet Montori ◽  
Maria J Merino-Peñas ◽  
Yaroslau Compta ◽  
Andrea Ladino ◽  

Aim: To compare by micro-costing the costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of tertiary and second-level hospitals. Patients & methods: We included 407 patients from a tertiary and secondary hospital unit. A bottom-up approach was applied. Results: Cost per patient was €577.5 ± 219.6 in the tertiary versus €394.7 ± 92.58 in the secondary unit (p = 0.0559). Mean number of visits and ratio of successive/first visits were significantly higher in the former (3.098 and 2.07 vs 2.123 and 1.12, respectively). Personnel and indirect costs including their percent contribution to overall costs accounted for the main differences. Conclusion: A greater volume of appointments, number of staff and staff time and a greater complexity of patients from the tertiary hospital unit justified the differences in cost outcomes.

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e2037334
Ula Hwang ◽  
Scott M. Dresden ◽  
Carmen Vargas-Torres ◽  
Raymond Kang ◽  
Melissa M. Garrido ◽  

2021 ◽  
Fraence Hardtstock

Background: In order to evaluate unmet therapeutic need, this study sought to describe treatment patterns, as well as associated healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs incurred by migraine patients in Germany. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a German claims dataset from 2013-2017, including over three million publicly-insured patients. Adult patients were included if they received at least one inpatient and/or two confirmed outpatient claims for headache/migraine from 2013-2016. Using prescription data from 2017, patients were separated into four main cohorts: those receiving prescriptions for (1) acute agents only, (2) prophylactic agents only, (3) both acute and prophylactic agents, and (4) neither acute nor prophylactic agents. Baseline characteristics were observed from 2013-2016; treatment and HCRU/cost outcomes were assessed in 2017. Results: In total, 199,283 patients were included in this analysis (mean age, 49.49 years; 73.04%, female) and 9,005 prophylactic therapy starters were identified. Overall, 43.47% of migraine patients did not receive acute or prophylactic medication in 2017, while 33.81% received only acute treatment, 9.45% received only prophylactic medication and 13.28% received both. Only 28.90% of patients initiating a prophylactic treatment were persistent after two years. HCRU was elevated for all groups, while direct costs ranged from €2,288-7,246 per year, and indirect costs ranged from €868-1,859. Conclusions: Despite high levels of HCRU, few migraine patients were treated with prophylactic agents, and those who did were at an elevated risk of early discontinuation. Ultimately, these findings indicate a resounding need for safe, timely, and efficacious use of prophylaxis among migraine patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document