Kristine E Ensrud1,2,3, Allyson M Kats2, John T Schousboe4,5, Brent C Taylor1,2,3, Tien N Vo2, Peggy M Cawthon6,7, Andrew R Hoffman8, Lisa Langsetmo2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 3. Center for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 4. HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. 5. Division of Health Policy & Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 6. California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 8. Department of Medicine (Endocrinology), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of the frailty phenotype with subsequent healthcare costs and utilization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (Osteoporotic Fracture in Men [MrOS]). SETTING: Six US sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,514 community-dwelling men (mean age = 79.3 years) participating in the MrOS Year 7 (Y7) examination linked with their Medicare claims data. MEASUREMENTS: At Y7, the frailty phenotype was operationalized using five components and categorized as robust, pre-frail, or frail. Multimorbidity and a frailty indicator (approximating the deficit accumulation index) were derived from claims data. Functional limitations were assessed by asking about difficulty performing instrumental activities of daily living. Total direct healthcare costs and utilization were ascertained during 36 months following Y7. RESULTS: Mean of total annualized costs (2018 dollars) was $5,707 (standard deviation [SD] = 8,800) among robust, $8,964 (SD = 18,156) among pre-frail, and $20,027 (SD = 27,419) among frail men. Compared with robust men, frail men (cost ratio [CR] = 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88-2.93) and pre-frail men (CR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.11-1.48) incurred greater total costs after adjustment for demographics, multimorbidity, and cognitive function. Associations of phenotypic pre-frailty and frailty with higher total costs were somewhat attenuated but persisted after further consideration of functional limitations and a claims-based frailty indicator. Each individual frailty component was also associated with higher total costs. Frail vs robust men had higher odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = 2.62; 95% CI = 1.75-3.91) and skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.83-6.20). A smaller but significant effect of the pre-frail category on SNF stay was present. CONCLUSION: Phenotypic pre-frailty and frailty were associated with higher subsequent total healthcare costs in older community-dwelling men after accounting for a claims-based frailty indicator, functional limitations, multimorbidity, cognitive impairment, and demographics. Assessment of the frailty phenotype or individual components such as slowness may improve identification of older community-dwelling adults at risk for costly extensive care. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of the frailty phenotype with subsequent healthcare costs and utilization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (Osteoporotic Fracture in Men [MrOS]). SETTING: Six US sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,514 community-dwelling men (mean age = 79.3 years) participating in the MrOS Year 7 (Y7) examination linked with their Medicare claims data. MEASUREMENTS: At Y7, the frailty phenotype was operationalized using five components and categorized as robust, pre-frail, or frail. Multimorbidity and a frailty indicator (approximating the deficit accumulation index) were derived from claims data. Functional limitations were assessed by asking about difficulty performing instrumental activities of daily living. Total direct healthcare costs and utilization were ascertained during 36 months following Y7. RESULTS: Mean of total annualized costs (2018 dollars) was $5,707 (standard deviation [SD] = 8,800) among robust, $8,964 (SD = 18,156) among pre-frail, and $20,027 (SD = 27,419) among frail men. Compared with robust men, frail men (cost ratio [CR] = 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88-2.93) and pre-frail men (CR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.11-1.48) incurred greater total costs after adjustment for demographics, multimorbidity, and cognitive function. Associations of phenotypic pre-frailty and frailty with higher total costs were somewhat attenuated but persisted after further consideration of functional limitations and a claims-based frailty indicator. Each individual frailty component was also associated with higher total costs. Frail vs robust men had higher odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = 2.62; 95% CI = 1.75-3.91) and skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.83-6.20). A smaller but significant effect of the pre-frail category on SNF stay was present. CONCLUSION: Phenotypic pre-frailty and frailty were associated with higher subsequent total healthcare costs in older community-dwelling men after accounting for a claims-based frailty indicator, functional limitations, multimorbidity, cognitive impairment, and demographics. Assessment of the frailty phenotype or individual components such as slowness may improve identification of older community-dwelling adults at risk for costly extensive care. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Keturah R Faurot; Michele Jonsson Funk; Virginia Pate; M Alan Brookhart; Amanda Patrick; Laura C Hanson; Wendy Camelo Castillo; Til Stürmer Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth Rockwood; Ajinkya Pawar; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth Rockwood; Jerry Avorn Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: I García-Nogueras; I Aranda-Reneo; L M Peña-Longobardo; J Oliva-Moreno; P Abizanda Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Lisa Nussbaum; Yuk-Lam Ho; David Gagnon; Lien Quach; Rachel Ward; Rachel Quaden; Enzo Yaksic; Kelly Harrington; Julie M Paik; Dae H Kim; Peter W Wilson; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djousse; Kelly Cho; Jane A Driver Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kerry M Sheets; Allyson M Kats; Lisa Langsetmo; Dawn Mackey; Howard A Fink; Susan J Diem; Wei Duan-Porter; Peggy M Cawthon; John T Schousboe; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Brian Buta; Ari B Friedman; Shang-En Chung; Orla C Sheehan; Marcela D Blinka; Susan L Gearhart; Qian-Li Xue Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.070