Cora Peterson1, Megan C Kearns2, Wendy LiKamWa McIntosh2, Lianne Fuino Estefan2, Christina Nicolaidis3, Kathryn E McCollister4, Amy Gordon3, Curtis Florence2. 1. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: cora.peterson@cdc.hhs.gov. 2. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. School of Social Work, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon; and. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the U.S. lifetime per-victim cost and economic burden of intimate partner violence. METHODS: Data from previous studies were combined with 2012 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data in a mathematical model. Intimate partner violence was defined as contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking victimization with related impact (e.g., missed work days). Costs included attributable impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs from the societal perspective. Mean age at first victimization was assessed as 25 years. Future costs were discounted by 3%. The main outcome measures were the mean per-victim (female and male) and total population (or economic burden) lifetime cost of intimate partner violence. Secondary outcome measures were marginal outcome probabilities among victims (e.g., anxiety disorder) and associated costs. Analysis was conducted in 2017. RESULTS: The estimated intimate partner violence lifetime cost was $103,767 per female victim and $23,414 per male victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.6 trillion (2014 US$) over victims' lifetimes, based on 43 million U.S. adults with victimization history. This estimate included $2.1 trillion (59% of total) in medical costs, $1.3 trillion (37%) in lost productivity among victims and perpetrators, $73 billion (2%) in criminal justice activities, and $62 billion (2%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1.3 trillion (37%) of the lifetime economic burden. CONCLUSIONS: Preventing intimate partner violence is possible and could avoid substantial costs. These findings can inform the potential benefit of prioritizing prevention, as well as evaluation of implemented prevention strategies. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the U.S. lifetime per-victim cost and economic burden of intimate partner violence. METHODS: Data from previous studies were combined with 2012 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data in a mathematical model. Intimate partner violence was defined as contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking victimization with related impact (e.g., missed work days). Costs included attributable impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs from the societal perspective. Mean age at first victimization was assessed as 25 years. Future costs were discounted by 3%. The main outcome measures were the mean per-victim (female and male) and total population (or economic burden) lifetime cost of intimate partner violence. Secondary outcome measures were marginal outcome probabilities among victims (e.g., anxiety disorder) and associated costs. Analysis was conducted in 2017. RESULTS: The estimated intimate partner violence lifetime cost was $103,767 per female victim and $23,414 per male victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.6 trillion (2014 US$) over victims' lifetimes, based on 43 million U.S. adults with victimization history. This estimate included $2.1 trillion (59% of total) in medical costs, $1.3 trillion (37%) in lost productivity among victims and perpetrators, $73 billion (2%) in criminal justice activities, and $62 billion (2%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1.3 trillion (37%) of the lifetime economic burden. CONCLUSIONS: Preventing intimate partner violence is possible and could avoid substantial costs. These findings can inform the potential benefit of prioritizing prevention, as well as evaluation of implemented prevention strategies. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Robert S Sandler; James E Everhart; Mark Donowitz; Elizabeth Adams; Kelly Cronin; Clifford Goodman; Eric Gemmen; Shefali Shah; Aida Avdic; Robert Rubin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Kwame Owusu-Edusei; Harrell W Chesson; Thomas L Gift; Guoyu Tao; Reena Mahajan; Marie Cheryl Bañez Ocfemia; Charlotte K Kent Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Cora Peterson; Yang Liu; Marcie-Jo Kresnow; Curtis Florence; Melissa T Merrick; Sarah DeGue; Colby N Lokey Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Harrell W Chesson; Donatus U Ekwueme; Mona Saraiya; Meg Watson; Douglas R Lowy; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Avanti Adhia; Bizu Gelaye; Lauren E Friedman; L Y Marlow; James A Mercy; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Workplace Behav Health Date: 2019-05-30
Authors: Christina Lachance; Sabrina Matoff-Stepp; Jane Segebrecht; Nancy Mautone-Smith Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Avanti Adhia; Mary A Kernic; David Hemenway; Monica S Vavilala; Frederick P Rivara Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Dawn M Johnson; Patrick A Palmieri; Caron Zlotnick; Nicole L Johnson; Lesa Hoffman; Samantha C Holmes; Taylor L Ceroni Journal: Psychol Women Q Date: 2020-09-17