Literature DB >> 16460138

Evaluation of non-medical costs associated with visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK.

Antoine Lafuma1, Antoine Brézin, Stefania Lopatriello, Klaus Hieke, Julia Hutchinson, Viviane Mimaud, Gilles Berdeaux.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Visual impairment is a severe disability that puts a heavy burden on individuals, families and society. In developed countries, the two major diseases leading to irreversible visual impairment are glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration. Their prevalence will increase dramatically with population aging. The economic consequences of visual impairment are considerable, but have rarely been documented, apart from some 'top-down' estimates based on national statistics. We estimated the non-medical costs related to visual impairment in four European countries: France, Italy, Germany and the UK.
METHODS: Prevalence rates of visual impairment, defined according to local regulations, were taken from national registers and, for France, from two recent nationwide surveys conducted by the French Institute for National Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques [INSEE]). Estimates of the number of non-registered persons were obtained from the literature and expert opinion. Estimates of non-medical costs included institutional care, non-medical devices, residential adaptations, burden on carer, paid home help, loss of income and social allowances related to visual impairment. Unit costs (year 2004) were extracted from national databases and manufacturers. Healthcare professionals were interviewed to estimate the duration of assistance required by visually impaired persons. These durations were used to evaluate the cost of paid assistance at home in the four countries.
RESULTS: The numbers of visually impaired persons were 1.27 million in France, 0.73 million in Germany, 1.03 million in Italy and 1.11 million in the UK, including, respectively, 56%, 11%, 80% and 72% non-registered persons. The frequency of institutionalisation for visually impaired persons were, respectively, 7.8%, 9.6%, 10.9% and 10%. Total annual costs for visually impaired persons were estimated at euro 10,749 million in France, euro 9214 million in Germany, euro 12,069 million in Italy and euro 15,180 million in the UK. This translated into average annual costs per affected individual of euro 8434, euro 12,662, euro 11,701 and euro 13,674, respectively. The main cost components of visual impairment in the community were 'loss of income' (23-43% of community costs), 'burden on carer' (24-39%) and 'paid assistance' (13-29%).
CONCLUSION: Total non-medical costs associated with visual impairment are considerable. The present analysis demonstrates that the preponderant economic consequences of visual impairment lie beyond healthcare systems, and that visual impairment has a considerable negative impact on productivity. Considering the non-medical social dimensions of visual impairment related to the consequent incapacity and dependency should encourage payers to finance health innovations that aim to preserve vision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16460138     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624020-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  22 in total

1.  The epidemiology, economics and quality of life burden of age-related macular degeneration in France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  J Bonastre; C Le Pen; P Anderson; A Ganz; P Berto; G Berdeaux
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2002

2.  Federal budgetary costs of blindness.

Authors:  Y P Chiang; L J Bassi; J C Javitt
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  The economic burden of global blindness: a price too high!

Authors:  A F Smith; J G Smith
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: the Rotterdam Study.

Authors:  C C Klaver; R C Wolfs; J R Vingerling; A Hofman; P T de Jong
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-05

5.  Available data on blindness (update 1994)

Authors:  B Thylefors; A D Négrel; R Pararajasegaram; K Y Dadzie
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 1.648

6.  Registration of blind and partially sighted people.

Authors:  R Wormald; J Evans
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.638

7.  Prevalence of glaucoma in the west of Ireland.

Authors:  M Coffey; A Reidy; R Wormald; W X Xian; L Wright; P Courtney
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  The burden of age-related macular degeneration: results of a cohort study in two French referral centres.

Authors:  Julia Bonastre; Claude Le Pen; Gisèle Soubrane; Gabriel Quentel
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Blindness, low vision, and other handicaps as risk factors attached to institutional residence.

Authors:  A P Brézin; A Lafuma; F Fagnani; M Mesbah; G Berdeaux
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Prevalence and burden of self-reported blindness and low vision for individuals living in institutions: a nationwide survey.

Authors:  Antoine Pierre Brézin; Antoine Lafuma; Francis Fagnani; Mounir Mesbah; Gilles Berdeaux
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-04-25       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  24 in total

1.  How much is the cost of visual impairment: caveat emptor.

Authors:  Catherine Meads; Chris Hyde
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Visual Impairment Screening at the Geriatric Frailty Clinic for Assessment of Frailty and Prevention of Disability at the Gérontopôle.

Authors:  V Soler; S Sourdet; L Balardy; G Abellan van Kan; D Brechemier; M E Rougé-Bugat; N Tavassoli; M Cassagne; F Malecaze; F Nourhashémi; B Vellas
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 4.075

3.  Television, computer and portable display device use by people with central vision impairment.

Authors:  Russell L Woods; Premnandhini Satgunam
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 4.  The economic implications of glaucoma: a literature review.

Authors:  Jordana K Schmier; Michael T Halpern; Mechelle L Jones
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  [Blindness in Germany--today and in 2030].

Authors:  C Knauer; N Pfeiffer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 6.  Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Paul Mitchell; Lieven Annemans; Richard White; Meghan Gallagher; Simu Thomas
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Association between visual acuity and medical and non-medical costs in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration in France, Germany and Italy.

Authors:  Francesco Bandello; Albert Augustin; José-Alain Sahel; Hicham Benhaddi; Cristina Negrini; Klaus Hieke; Gilles H Berdeaux
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.923

8.  [Blindness in Germany: dimensions and perspectives].

Authors:  R P Finger
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.059

9.  The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the United States population younger than 40 years.

Authors:  John S Wittenborn; Xinzhi Zhang; Charles W Feagan; Wesley L Crouse; Sundar Shrestha; Alex R Kemper; Thomas J Hoerger; Jinan B Saaddine
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 10.  A systematic review of the unit costs of allied health and community services used by older people in Australia.

Authors:  Inez Farag; Cathie Sherrington; Manuela Ferreira; Kirsten Howard
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.