OBJECTIVE: To compare disease cost estimates from two commonly used approaches. DATA SOURCE: Pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data for 1998-2003. STUDY DESIGN: We compared regression-based (RB) and attributable fraction (AF) approaches for estimating disease-attributable costs with an application to diabetes. The RB approach used results from econometric models of disease costs, while the AF approach used epidemiologic formulas for diabetes-attributable fractions combined with the total costs for seven conditions that result from diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION: We used SAS version 9.1 to create a dataset that combined data from six consecutive years of MEPS. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The RB approach produced higher estimates of diabetes-attributable medical spending ($52.9 billion in 2004 dollars) than the AF approach ($37.1 billion in 2004 dollars). RB model estimates may in part be higher because of the challenges of implementing the two approaches in a similar manner, but may also be higher because they capture the costs of increased treatment intensity for those with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using the RB approach for estimating disease costs whenever individual-level data on health care spending are available and when the presence of the disease affects treatment costs for other conditions, as in the case of diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare disease cost estimates from two commonly used approaches. DATA SOURCE: Pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data for 1998-2003. STUDY DESIGN: We compared regression-based (RB) and attributable fraction (AF) approaches for estimating disease-attributable costs with an application to diabetes. The RB approach used results from econometric models of disease costs, while the AF approach used epidemiologic formulas for diabetes-attributable fractions combined with the total costs for seven conditions that result from diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION: We used SAS version 9.1 to create a dataset that combined data from six consecutive years of MEPS. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The RB approach produced higher estimates of diabetes-attributable medical spending ($52.9 billion in 2004 dollars) than the AF approach ($37.1 billion in 2004 dollars). RB model estimates may in part be higher because of the challenges of implementing the two approaches in a similar manner, but may also be higher because they capture the costs of increased treatment intensity for those with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using the RB approach for estimating disease costs whenever individual-level data on health care spending are available and when the presence of the disease affects treatment costs for other conditions, as in the case of diabetes.
Authors: Grégoire de Lagasnerie; Anne-Sophie Aguadé; Pierre Denis; Anne Fagot-Campagna; Christelle Gastaldi-Menager Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-02-11
Authors: Xuesong Han; Chun Chieh Lin; Chunyu Li; Janet S de Moor; Juan L Rodriguez; Erin E Kent; Laura P Forsythe Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amanda A Honeycutt; Joel E Segel; Xiaohui Zhuo; Thomas J Hoerger; Kumiko Imai; Desmond Williams Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Susan A Carlson; Janet E Fulton; Michael Pratt; Zhou Yang; E Kathleen Adams Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 8.194
Authors: Vincent J Willey; Sheldon Kong; Bingcao Wu; Amit Raval; Todd Hobbs; Andrea Windsheimer; Gaurav Deshpande; Ozgur Tunceli; Brian Sakurada; Jonathan R Bouchard Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2018-09
Authors: Justin G Trogdon; Louise B Murphy; Olga A Khavjou; Rui Li; Christopher M Maylahn; Florence K Tangka; Tursynbek A Nurmagambetov; Donatus U Ekwueme; Isaac Nwaise; Daniel P Chapman; Diane Orenstein Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 2.830