Stephanie A. Leong

Costs of attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US: excess costs of persons with ADHD and their family members in 2000

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimate of the cost of ADHD by considering the healthcare and work loss costs of persons with ADHD, as well as those costs imposed on their family members. Methods: Excess per capita healthcare (medical and prescription drug) and work loss (disability and work absence) costs of treated ADHD patients (ages 7 years–44 years) and their family members (under 65 years of age) were calculated using administrative claims data from a single large company; work loss costs are from disability data or imputed for medically related work loss days. Excess costs are the additional costs of patients and their family members over and above those of comparable control individuals. The excess costs of untreated individuals with ADHD and their family members were also estimated. All per capita costs were extrapolated using published prevalence and treatment rates and population data; the prevalence of persons with ADHD was based upon the literature. Results: The total excess cost of ADHD in the US in 2000 was

Cost of stress urinary incontinence: a claims data analysis.

31.6 billion. Of this total,

The economics of women and depression: an employer's perspective.

1.6 billion was for the ADHD treatment of patients,

Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: Impact on the Workplace

12.1 billion was for all other healthcare costs of persons with ADHD,

Pharmaceutical spending and health outcomes in the united states

14.2 billion was for all other healthcare costs of family members of persons with ADHD, and

Assessing the economic impact of psychiatric disorders: where to begin?

3.7 billion was for the work loss cost of adults with ADHD and adult family members of persons with ADHD. Conclusion: The annual cost of ADHD in the US is substantial. Both treated and untreated persons with ADHD, as well as their family members, impose considerable economic burdens on the healthcare system as a result of this condition. While these first estimates of the cost of ADHD to the nation are suggestive of its substantial economic burden, future research needs to refine and build on this analysis, particularly in the context of a model to control for related co-morbidities. Similarly, since these results are based on data from a single company for the period 1996–1998, the analysis should be validated with more representative, current data.

The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000?

AbstractObjectives: The primary objectives of this research were to: (i) identify and present methodologies for estimating three types of ‘cost-of-illness’ measures using healthcare and disability claims data — specifically ‘cost of treatment’, ‘incremental cost of patient’, and ‘incremental cost of illness’; and (ii) perform a case-study analysis of these cost measures for women treated for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Study Design and Methods: In this paper, we discuss aspects of cost-of-illness methodologies in the context of SUI. We first distinguish between ‘cost of treatment’ (i.e. the costs of treating a specific condition), ‘incremental cost of patient’ (i.e. the additional costs associated with patients with a particular condition, irrespective of any comorbid conditions they may also have), and ‘incremental cost of illness’ (i.e. the additional costs resulting from a particular illness, as distinct from the costs of other conditions that the patient might have, including conditions which might have caused the illness in question). The latter case is in many ways the most complex to model, requiring controls for related causal conditions. We then applied these three methodologies by analysing the costs associated with SUI. Using data from a large employer claims database (n >100 000), we estimated a series of regression models that reflected cost of treatment, incremental cost of patient, and incremental cost of illness for SUI. Results: The three approaches yielded substantially different results. For many purposes the incremental cost-of-illness model provides the most appropriate results, as it controls for comorbid conditions, as well as patient demographics. On a per capita basis using the incremental cost-of-illness model, patients with SUI had direct costs that were 134% more than those for their controls and indirect costs that were 163% more than those for controls. Estimating costs for the average (i.e. mean) person results in dollar-termed estimates of the costs of SUI. In particular, we found that in 1998, the average direct medical cost of SUI was

The Economic Consequences of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A US Employer Perspective

US5642 and the indirect workplace cost of SUI was

The economic burden of depression with painful symptoms.

US4208. Conclusions: Since the various methods yield substantially different results, it is important that the end user of cost-of-illness analyses of claims data have a clear purpose in mind when reporting the cost of the condition of concern. The incremental cost-of-illness measure for claims data has substantial advantages in terms of enhancing our understanding of the specific cost impact of SUI.

Productivity and medical costs of diabetes in a large employer population.

BACKGROUND While there is a growing literature on various aspects of depression in women, there is little research about the economic cost of depression in women. This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect cost to employers of female compared to male employees treated for depression, and their service utilization patterns. METHODS We used a claims database from a national, Fortune 100 company to analyze the direct (medical and prescription drug) and indirect (disability and illness-related work absence) costs to an employer for female and male beneficiaries with depression. RESULTS In 1998, the average female employee with depression cost this company