Chloe E Hill1, Chun Chieh Lin2, James F Burke2, Kevin A Kerber2, Lesli E Skolarus2, Gregory J Esper2, Brandon Magliocco2, Brian C Callaghan2. 1. From the Health Services Research Program (C.E.H., C.C.L., J.F.B., K.A.K., L.E.S., B.C.C.), Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (G.J.E.), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and American Academy of Neurology (B.M.), Minneapolis, MN. chloehi@med.umich.edu. 2. From the Health Services Research Program (C.E.H., C.C.L., J.F.B., K.A.K., L.E.S., B.C.C.), Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (G.J.E.), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and American Academy of Neurology (B.M.), Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of a neurologist visit with health care use and cost outcomes for patients with incident epilepsy. METHODS: Using health care claims data for individuals insured by United Healthcare from 2001 to 2016, we identified patients with incident epilepsy. The population was defined by an epilepsy/convulsion diagnosis code (ICD codes 345.xx/780.3x, G40.xx/R56.xx), an antiepileptic prescription filled within the succeeding 2 years, and neither criterion met in the 2 preceding years. Cases were defined as patients who had a neurologist encounter for epilepsy within 1 year after an incident diagnosis; a control cohort was constructed with propensity score matching. Primary outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations for epilepsy. Secondary outcomes included measures of cost (epilepsy related, not epilepsy related, and antiepileptic drugs) and care escalation (including EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery). RESULTS: After participant identification and propensity score matching, there were 3,400 cases and 3,400 controls. Epilepsy-related ER visits were more likely for cases than controls (year 1: 5.9% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001), as were hospitalizations (year 1: 2.1% vs 0.7%, p < 0.001). Total medical costs for epilepsy care, nonepilepsy care, and antiepileptic drugs were greater for cases (p ≤ 0.001). EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery occurred more commonly for cases (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with epilepsy who visited a neurologist had greater subsequent health care use, medical costs, and care escalation than controls. This comparison using administrative claims is plausibly confounded by case disease severity, as suggested by higher nonepilepsy care costs. Linking patient-centered outcomes to claims data may provide the clinical resolution to assess care value within a heterogeneous population.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of a neurologist visit with health care use and cost outcomes for patients with incident epilepsy. METHODS: Using health care claims data for individuals insured by United Healthcare from 2001 to 2016, we identified patients with incident epilepsy. The population was defined by an epilepsy/convulsion diagnosis code (ICD codes 345.xx/780.3x, G40.xx/R56.xx), an antiepileptic prescription filled within the succeeding 2 years, and neither criterion met in the 2 preceding years. Cases were defined as patients who had a neurologist encounter for epilepsy within 1 year after an incident diagnosis; a control cohort was constructed with propensity score matching. Primary outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations for epilepsy. Secondary outcomes included measures of cost (epilepsy related, not epilepsy related, and antiepileptic drugs) and care escalation (including EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery). RESULTS: After participant identification and propensity score matching, there were 3,400 cases and 3,400 controls. Epilepsy-related ER visits were more likely for cases than controls (year 1: 5.9% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001), as were hospitalizations (year 1: 2.1% vs 0.7%, p < 0.001). Total medical costs for epilepsy care, nonepilepsy care, and antiepileptic drugs were greater for cases (p ≤ 0.001). EEG evaluation and epilepsy surgery occurred more commonly for cases (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with epilepsy who visited a neurologist had greater subsequent health care use, medical costs, and care escalation than controls. This comparison using administrative claims is plausibly confounded by case disease severity, as suggested by higher nonepilepsy care costs. Linking patient-centered outcomes to claims data may provide the clinical resolution to assess care value within a heterogeneous population.
Authors: Hiba Arif; Richard Buchsbaum; Joanna Pierro; Michael Whalen; Jessica Sims; Stanley R Resor; Carl W Bazil; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2010-04
Authors: John P Ney; Jason J Sico; Brad C Klein; Brandon Magliocco; Brian C Callaghan; Gregory J Esper Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2018-03-04 Impact factor: 6.292
Authors: David M Labiner; Anto I Bagic; Susan T Herman; Nathan B Fountain; Thaddeus S Walczak; Robert J Gumnit Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Jorge G Burneo; Salimah Z Shariff; Kuan Liu; Sean Leonard; Gustavo Saposnik; Amit X Garg Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jason R Smith; Felipe J S Jones; Brandy E Fureman; Jeffrey R Buchhalter; Susan T Herman; Neishay Ayub; Christopher McGraw; Sydney S Cash; Daniel B Hoch; Lidia M V R Moura Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Anup D Patel; Andrea Debs; Debbie Terry; William Parker; Mary Burch; Debra Luciano; Lauren Patton; Jena Brubaker; Julie Chrisman; Kathy Moellman; James Herbst; Daniel M Cohen Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-10
Authors: Wyatt P Bensken; Suparna M Navale; Angeline S Andrew; Barbara C Jobst; Martha Sajatovic; Siran M Koroukian Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Chun Chieh Lin; Brian C Callaghan; James F Burke; Lesli E Skolarus; Chloe E Hill; Brandon Magliocco; Gregory J Esper; Kevin A Kerber Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 9.910