Martin Cloutier1, Mallik Greene2, Annie Guerin1, Maelys Touya3, Eric Wu4. 1. Analysis Group, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA. Electronic address: mallik.greene@otsuka-us.com. 3. Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR)-US, Lundbeck, Deerfield, IL, USA. 4. Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current societal costs of bipolar I disorder (BDI) have not been comprehensively characterized in the United States, as previous studies are based on data from two decades ago. METHODS: The costs of BDI were estimated for 2015 and comprised direct healthcare costs, non-healthcare costs, and indirect costs, calculated based on a BDI prevalence of 1%. The excess costs of BDI were estimated as the difference between the costs incurred by individuals with BDI and those incurred by individuals without BD or individuals from the general population. Direct healthcare costs were assessed using three large US claims databases for insured individuals and the literature for uninsured individuals. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on the literature and governmental publications. RESULTS: The total costs of BDI were estimated at $202.1 billion in 2015, corresponding to an average of $81,559 per individual, while the excess costs of BDI were estimated at $119.8 billion, corresponding to an average of $48,333 per individual. The largest contributors to excess costs were caregiving (36%), direct healthcare costs (21%), and unemployment (20%). In sensitivity analyses, excess costs ranged from $101.2 to $124.3 billion. LIMITATIONS: Direct healthcare costs were calculated based on a BDI diagnosis, thus excluding undiagnosed patients. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on combined estimates from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Besides direct healthcare costs, BDI was associated with substantial direct non-healthcare and indirect costs. More effective treatments and practices are needed to optimize therapeutic strategies and contain direct and indirect costs.
BACKGROUND: The current societal costs of bipolar I disorder (BDI) have not been comprehensively characterized in the United States, as previous studies are based on data from two decades ago. METHODS: The costs of BDI were estimated for 2015 and comprised direct healthcare costs, non-healthcare costs, and indirect costs, calculated based on a BDI prevalence of 1%. The excess costs of BDI were estimated as the difference between the costs incurred by individuals with BDI and those incurred by individuals without BD or individuals from the general population. Direct healthcare costs were assessed using three large US claims databases for insured individuals and the literature for uninsured individuals. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on the literature and governmental publications. RESULTS: The total costs of BDI were estimated at $202.1 billion in 2015, corresponding to an average of $81,559 per individual, while the excess costs of BDI were estimated at $119.8 billion, corresponding to an average of $48,333 per individual. The largest contributors to excess costs were caregiving (36%), direct healthcare costs (21%), and unemployment (20%). In sensitivity analyses, excess costs ranged from $101.2 to $124.3 billion. LIMITATIONS: Direct healthcare costs were calculated based on a BDI diagnosis, thus excluding undiagnosed patients. Direct non-healthcare and indirect costs were based on combined estimates from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Besides direct healthcare costs, BDI was associated with substantial direct non-healthcare and indirect costs. More effective treatments and practices are needed to optimize therapeutic strategies and contain direct and indirect costs.
Authors: Molly Patapoff; Marina Ramsey; Madison Titone; Christopher N Kaufmann; Atul Malhotra; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; David Wing; Ellen Lee; Lisa T Eyler Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2022-04-03 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Nicholas Massa; Andrew V Owens; Wesley Harmon; Arpita Bhattacharya; Elena I Ivleva; Sarah Keedy; John A Sweeney; Godfrey D Pearlson; Matcheri S Keshavan; Carol A Tamminga; Brett A Clementz; Erica Duncan Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Tim B Bigdeli; Ayman H Fanous; Yuli Li; Nallakkandi Rajeevan; Frederick Sayward; Giulio Genovese; Rishab Gupta; Krishnan Radhakrishnan; Anil K Malhotra; Ning Sun; Qiongshi Lu; Yiming Hu; Boyang Li; Quan Chen; Shrikant Mane; Perry Miller; Kei-Hoi Cheung; Raquel E Gur; Tiffany A Greenwood; David L Braff; Eric D Achtyes; Peter F Buckley; Michael A Escamilla; Douglas Lehrer; Dolores P Malaspina; Steven A McCarroll; Mark H Rapaport; Marquis P Vawter; Michele T Pato; Carlos N Pato; Hongyu Zhao; Thomas R Kosten; Mary Brophy; Saiju Pyarajan; Yunling Shi; Timothy J O'Leary; Theresa Gleason; Ronald Przygodzki; Sumitra Muralidhar; J Michael Gaziano; Grant D Huang; John Concato; Larry J Siever; Mihaela Aslan; Philip D Harvey Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Charles L Bowden; Richard Priesmeyer; Mauricio Tohen; Vivek Singh; Joseph R Calabrese; Terry Ketter; Andrew Nierenberg; Michael E Thase; Gregg Siegel; Leslie H Siegel; Jim Mintz; Rif S El-Mallakh; Susan L McElroy; Melissa Martinez Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 2021-03-16