Economic Burden of Commercially Insured Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and Acute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior in the United States.

Objective: Suicidal ideation or behavior (SIB) is a symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD). This study evaluated health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs of commercially insured adults who had diagnosed MDD with acute SIB (MDSI).Methods: Adults with MDSI (index date: first SIB claim) and controls without MDD or suicide-related claims (random index date) were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, 10th Revision codes in the OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc. database (October 2014 to March 2017). Adults with < 12 months of plan enrollment pre-index and/or selected psychiatric comorbidities were excluded. MDSI and control cohorts were matched 1:1 on demographics and comorbidities. HRU and costs were compared between matched cohorts during up to 1 and 12 months post-index (inclusive) using regressions adjusted for baseline costs.Results: Among patients with MDSI (n = 1,576, mean age = 34 years, 55.6% female), most index events occurred in emergency department (ED; 50.7%) and inpatient (45.2%) settings. The MDSI cohort, compared with the control cohort within 1 and 12 months post-index, respectively, had 157.7 and 28.0 times more inpatient admissions, 16.4 and 5.4 times more ED visits, and 4.9 and 3.2 times more outpatient visits (all P < .01). Incremental health care costs per patient per month in the MDSI compared with the control cohort within 1 and 12 months were $7,839 and $2,757, respectively (both P values < .01). Inpatient and ED costs constituted 70.6% and 16.5% of the total incremental costs, respectively, within the first month of follow-up.Conclusions: Among commercially insured adults, MDSI was associated with significant economic burden; inpatient and ED services drove incremental costs of the condition. Further assessment of treatment options for this vulnerable patient population is warranted.

The Economic Burden of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder in the United States (2010 and 2018).

BACKGROUND: The incremental economic burden of US adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) was estimated at $US210.5 billion in 2010 (year 2012 values). OBJECTIVE: Following a similar methodology, this study updates the previous findings with more recent data to report the economic burden of adults with MDD in 2018. METHOD: This study used a framework for evaluating the incremental economic burden of adults with MDD in the USA that combined original and literature-based estimates, focusing on key changes between 2010 and 2018. The prevalence rates of MDD by sex, age, employment, and treatment status over time were estimated based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The incremental direct and workplace costs per individual with MDD were primarily derived from administrative claims data and NSDUH data using comparative analyses of individuals with and without MDD. Societal direct and workplace costs were extrapolated by multiplying NSDUH estimates of the number of people with MDD by the direct and workplace cost estimates per patient. The suicide-related costs were estimated using a human capital method. RESULTS: The number of US adults with MDD increased by 12.9%, from 15.5 to 17.5 million, between 2010 and 2018, whereas the proportion of adults with MDD aged 18-34 years increased from 34.6 to 47.5%. Over this period, the incremental economic burden of adults with MDD increased by 37.9% from $US236.6 billion to 326.2 billion (year 2020 values). All components of the incremental economic burden increased (i.e., direct costs, suicide-related costs, and workplace costs), with the largest growth observed in workplace costs, at 73.2%. Consequently, the composition of 2018 costs changed meaningfully, with 35% attributable to direct costs (47% in 2010), 4% to suicide-related costs (5% in 2010), and 61% to workplace costs (48% in 2010). This increase in the workplace cost share was consistent with more favorable employment conditions for those with MDD. Finally, the proportion of total costs attributable to MDD itself as opposed to comorbid conditions remained stable at 37% (38% in 2010). CONCLUSION: Workplace costs accounted for the largest portion of the growing economic burden of MDD as this population trended younger and was increasingly likely to be employed. Although the total number of adults with MDD increased from 2010 to 2018, the incremental direct cost per individual declined. At the same time, the proportion of adults with MDD who received treatment remained stable over the past decade, suggesting that substantial unmet treatment needs remain in this population. Further research is warranted into the availability, composition, and quality of MDD treatment services.

Correction: Burden of treatment-resistant depression in Medicare: A retrospective claims database analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223255.].

Employer burden of mild, moderate, and severe major depressive disorder: mental health services utilization and costs, and work performance.

BACKGROUND: Treatment utilization/costs and work performance for persons with major depressive disorder (MDD) by severity of illness is not well documented. METHODS: Using National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (2001-2002) data, US workforce respondents (n=4,465) were classified by clinical severity (not clinically depressed, mild, moderate, severe) using a standard self-rating scale [Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR)]. Outcomes included 12-month prevalence of medical services/medications use/costs and workplace performance. Treatment costs (employer's perspective) were estimated by weighing utilization measures by unit costs obtained for similar services used by MDD patients in claims data. Descriptive analysis across three severity groups generated chi(2) results. RESULTS: Using a sample of 539 US workforce respondents with MDD, 13.8% were classified mild, 38.5% moderate, and 47.7% severe cases. Mental health services usage, including antidepressants, increased significantly with severity, with average treatment costs substantially higher for severe than for mild cases both regarding mental health services ($697 vs. $388, chi(2)=4.4, P=.019) and antidepressants ($256 vs. $88, chi(2)=9.0, P=.001). Prevalence rates of unemployment/disability increased significantly (chi(2)=11.7, P=.003) with MDD severity (15.7, 23.3, and 31.3% for mild, moderate, and severe cases). Severely and moderately depressed workers missed more work than nondepressed workers; the monthly salary-equivalent lost performance of $199 (severely depressed) and $188 (moderately depressed) was significantly higher than for nondepressed workers (chi(2)=10.3, P<.001). Projected to the US workforce, monthly depression-related worker productivity losses had human capital costs of nearly $2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: MDD severity is significantly associated with increased treatment usage/costs, treatment adequacy, unemployment, and disability and with reduced work performance.

Risk of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations among patients treated with opioid/acetaminophen combination prescription pain medications.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the risk of serious hepatotoxicity resulting in hospitalizations among patients prescribed opioid/acetaminophen combinations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using an insurance claims database was conducted. Adult patients with ≥1 claim for oxycodone/acetaminophen or hydrocodone/acetaminophen combinations were included (N = 1,228,356). A pre-post design was employed to compare serious hepatotoxicity risk before versus after initiation of opioid/acetaminophen combination. Serious hepatotoxicity risk between the opioid/acetaminophen group and a control group of opioid-alone users (N = 11,809) was also examined. Within the opioid/acetaminophen group, risk of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations pre- versus post-opioid/acetaminophen treatment was compared using the normal approximation with the binomial distribution. The incidence rate of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations for the opioid/acetaminophen group was compared with the opioid-alone group using multivariate Poisson regression adjusting for baseline differences between groups. RESULTS: Of the opioid/acetaminophen cohort, hepatotoxicity-related hospitalization risk in the 6-month post-opioid/acetaminophen period was lower than that in the pre-period with a risk reduction of 1.2 per 10,000 (pre-period = 0.12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.13; post-period = 0.11%; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.12). In the 12-month period, risk increased in the post-period by 2.4 per 10,000 (pre-period = 0.14%; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.15; post-period = 0.17%; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.18). After adjusting for confounders, the opioid-alone group did not demonstrate a lower rate of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalizations than the opioid/acetaminophen group (incidence rate ratio of opioid-alone over opioid/acetaminophen = 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7). CONCLUSIONS: There is no population data-based evidence supporting elevated risk of hepatotoxicity-related hospitalization associated with opioid/acetaminophen combinations.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with postpartum depression among commercially insured households.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic burden of postpartum depression (PPD) that accrues to commercially insured households in the year following childbirth. METHODS: Administrative claims data from OptumHealth Care Solutions (2009-2016) were used to identify households that included women identified with PPD per the algorithm and propensity score-matched comparison households of women who were not identified with PPD or a history of depression after childbirth. Study outcomes included direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical costs during the first year following childbirth and number of outpatient visits at the household level stratified by household member. RESULTS: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm (N = 7769) incurred 22% higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than unaffected matched controls (N = 41,308) during the first year following childbirth ($36,049 versus $29,448, p < 0.01) and an average of 16 more outpatient visits than unaffected households (p < .01). Costs accrued by mothers comprised the largest share (>50%) of total all-cause spending. Mothers identified with PPD had significantly higher annual mean direct total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending than their matched controls without PPD ($19,611 versus $15,410, p < .01), driven primarily by an average of 11 more outpatient visits than unaffected mothers (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Households affected by PPD as identified by the algorithm incurred higher mean total all-cause medical and pharmaceutical spending during the first year following childbirth than did their matched controls identified without PPD, but not all costs were attributable to maternal treatment for PPD. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the potential economic burden associated with PPD and demonstrated costs may extend beyond the mother to members of the household.

Determinants of direct cost differences among US employees with major depressive disorders using antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: To understand factors driving the economic burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with different treatment regimens, by evaluating the relationship between medical profiles and treatment costs. METHODS: Claims data for US privately insured employees (1999-2004) were analysed. Analysis included adult employees with >/=1 diagnosis of MDD and >/=1 prescription for specific antidepressants following a 6-month washout period. Patients were first classified into treatment pattern groups (switchers/discontinuers/maintainers/augmenters), then stratified into mutually exclusive treatment groups - nonstable, stable and intermediate - based on evidence of stability in treatment therapy. Rates of mental and physical co-morbidities, injuries/accidents, substance abuse and urgent care use were analysed across treatment pattern groups. Direct (medical/drug) costs were calculated per patient per year and disaggregated into depression- and non-depression-related components. A two-part multivariate model controlled for baseline characteristics. Costs were also estimated for patients with MDD only, patients with MDD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and patients with MDD and any type of anxiety. RESULTS: Annual per patient adjusted costs (year 2005 values) were significantly lower among stable patients ($US6215) than among intermediate ($US7317) and nonstable patients ($US9948; p < 0.001). Stable patients also had lower depression- and non-depression-related costs. Patients with MDD and comorbid GAD or any type of anxiety had significantly higher costs than MDD-only patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nonstability of treatment is associated with higher comorbidity rates, more urgent care use and higher total, depression- and non-depression-related direct costs. The stable group represents continuity of care and is associated with significant cost savings. Co-morbidities are associated with increased costs.

Treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs in adult patients with major depressive disorder: a comparison between escitalopram and other SSRI/SNRIs.

OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs for patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis for major depressive disorder (MDD) and at least one prescription for an SSRI or SNRI were identified from the Ingenix Impact Database (2002-2005). The baseline and study observation periods were defined as the 6 months before and after the index date (first date for an SSRI /SNRI pharmacy claim). Comparisons were made between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs using descriptive statistics and multivariate regressions. RESULTS: Escitalopram patients (n=10,465) had better treatment persistence compared to patients initiated on other SSRI/SNRIs (n=28,310): the hazard ratio of all discontinuation was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.94-0.99) for the escitalopram therapy (p=0.003), and the hazard ratio of switching to another second-generation antidepressant was 0.91 (95% CI=0.87-0.94) for the escitalopram therapy (p<0.001). Escitalopram patients also had fewer inpatient service and emergency room visits. Adjusted average total all-cause healthcare costs and inpatient services costs were $839 and $405 lower in the escitalopram group (both p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram may be associated with lower healthcare utilisation and costs among adult MDD patients compared to other SSRI/SNRIs.

Antidepressant treatment patterns and costs among US employees.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medical and cost profiles of patients treated for depression classified by treatment pattern groups. METHODS: An analysis used de-identified 1999-2004 employer claims data (n=2.9 million beneficiaries) for employees with > or =1 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and > or =1 antidepressant prescription, following a 6-month washout period of no antidepressant prescription. Patients were classified into switcher/discontinuer/augmenter/maintainer during Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set-defined initial and subsequent treatment periods, then grouped into stable, intermediate, or non-stable treatment groups, based on stability of treatment patterns. Medical/cost profiles for 6-month pre- and 12-month post-index periods were compared descriptively, and multivariate regressions were estimated, controlling for baseline characteristics/severity markers. Cost savings reflect differences between treatment pattern groups from a current US perspective. RESULTS: Of the 5,225 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 60.8% were in stable, 24.5% in intermediate and 14.7% in non-stable treatment groups. No significant differences existed in medical profiles and costs between the three groups in the pre-index period. In the post-index period, stable group patients had lower costs compared to intermediate and non-stable groups. Stable group patients generated cost savings of $1,842 compared to intermediate and $5,231 compared to non-stable groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Patients on a more stable treatment regimen yield significant cost savings compared to patients on a less stable regimen.

Burden of treatment-resistant depression in Medicare: A retrospective claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed the incremental economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (i.e., non-TRD MDD) in commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured patients, but none have focused on Medicare-insured patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with TRD versus non-TRD MDD or without major depressive disorder (MDD; i.e., non-MDD) in a Medicare-insured population. METHODS: Adult patients were retrospectively identified from the Chronic Condition Warehouse de-identified 100% Medicare database (01/2010-12/2016). MDD was defined as ≥1 MDD diagnosis and ≥1 claim for an antidepressant. Patients initiated on a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatment regimens of adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined as the date of the first antidepressant claim for the TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts, and as a randomly imputed date for the non-MDD cohort. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to non-TRD MDD patients and randomly selected non-MDD patients based on propensity scores. Analyses were also performed for a subset of patients aged ≥65. RESULTS: Of 29,543 patients with MDD, 3,225 (10.9%) met the study definition of TRD; 157,611 were included in the non-MDD cohort. Matched patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD were, on average, 58.9 and 59.0 years old, respectively. The TRD cohort had higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HRU than the non-TRD MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36) and non-MDD cohorts (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.84, all P<0.001). The TRD cohort had significantly higher total PPPY healthcare costs than the non-TRD MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $20,425, adjusted cost difference = $3,385) and non-MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $14,542, adjusted cost difference = $4,015, all P<0.001). Similar results were found for the subset of patients ≥65. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

Medicaid spending burden among beneficiaries with treatment-resistant depression.

AIM: To evaluate Medicaid spending and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). MATERIALS & METHODS: TRD beneficiaries were identified from Medicaid claims databases (January 2010-March 2017) and matched 1:1 with major depressive disorder (MDD) beneficiaries without TRD (non-TRD-MDD) and randomly selected patients without MDD (non-MDD). Differences in HRU and per-patient-per-year costs were reported in incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences (CDs), respectively. RESULTS: TRD beneficiaries had higher HRU than 1:1 matched non-TRD-MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.41) and non-MDD beneficiaries (N = 14,710 per cohort; e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 3.42, p < 0.01). TRD beneficiaries incurred greater costs versus non-TRD-MDD (CD = US$4382) and non-MDD beneficiaries (CD = US$8294; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: TRD is associated with higher HRU and costs versus non-TRD-MDD and non-MDD. TRD poses a significant burden to Medicaid.

Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey replication.

CONTEXT: There is growing recognition that bipolar disorder (BPD) has a spectrum of expression that is substantially more common than the 1% BP-I prevalence traditionally found in population surveys. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, correlates, and treatment patterns of bipolar spectrum disorder in the US population. DESIGN: Direct interviews. SETTING: Households in the continental United States. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 9282 English-speaking adults (aged >or=18 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Version 3.0 of the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a fully structured lay-administered diagnostic interview, was used to assess DSM-IV lifetime and 12-month Axis I disorders. Subthreshold BPD was defined as recurrent hypomania without a major depressive episode or with fewer symptoms than required for threshold hypomania. Indicators of clinical severity included age at onset, chronicity, symptom severity, role impairment, comorbidity, and treatment. RESULTS: Lifetime (and 12-month) prevalence estimates are 1.0% (0.6%) for BP-I, 1.1% (0.8%) for BP-II, and 2.4% (1.4%) for subthreshold BPD. Most respondents with threshold and subthreshold BPD had lifetime comorbidity with other Axis I disorders, particularly anxiety disorders. Clinical severity and role impairment are greater for threshold than for subthreshold BPD and for BP-II than for BP-I episodes of major depression, but subthreshold cases still have moderate to severe clinical severity and role impairment. Although most people with BPD receive lifetime professional treatment for emotional problems, use of antimanic medication is uncommon, especially in general medical settings. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first prevalence estimates of the BPD spectrum in a probability sample of the United States. Subthreshold BPD is common, clinically significant, and underdetected in treatment settings. Inappropriate treatment of BPD is a serious problem in the US population. Explicit criteria are needed to define subthreshold BPD for future clinical and research purposes.

Management of anaemia: a critical and systematic review of the cost effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are genetically engineered forms of erythropoietin that are used in the treatment of anaemia. Their successful use in the treatment of anaemia associated with renal disease, cancer and other diseases, as well as the development of multiple agents, has increased the visibility of these agents in the clinical and health economics literature. The circumstances under which the use of ESAs is cost effective, or indeed, whether it is cost effective, is of central concern for clinicians and payers who must make informed decisions regarding the management of these costly resources. Much of the recent literature on ESAs in the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease and cancer, the two major therapeutic areas for ESA treatment, has focused on comparisons between individual ESAs, particularly epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa. While there have been some studies of cost effectiveness, many studies in these treatment areas have employed a cost-minimization approach and have relied on published prices rather than actual market prices. In general, this review of the literature suggests a cost advantage for epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa in the treatment of anaemia in renal and oncology indications. For other indications in which the literature is less developed, such as anaemia induced by antiviral therapy and blood management in surgery, small prospective studies or decision-analytic models comparing ESA therapy and standard care have been most common. Few conclusions can be drawn about the overall and relative costs or cost effectiveness of ESAs in these treatment areas. With the recent concerns about the safety of ESAs, especially when used outside the approved product labelling, future evaluations of epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa should factor their safety profiles into estimates of cost effectiveness. Moreover, additional studies are needed to evaluate whether the treatment of anaemia with ESAs is cost effective compared with no treatment or minimal blood transfusions, and whether the cost effectiveness of ESAs would be improved if ESA doses and durations were reduced. With the introduction of new longer-acting ESAs, such as the continuous erythropoietin receptor activator, the relative cost effectiveness among the different ESAs will continue to be an important question for public and private payers, policy makers and clinicians who must consider the emergence of new data and changing dosing patterns when making decisions about the use of these important but costly agents.

Direct and Indirect Cost Burden and Change of Employment Status in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Matched-Cohort Study Using a US Commercial Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) poses a substantial burden to health care payers including employers, costing an estimated $29 billion-$48 billion yearly in the United States. Furthermore, variation of burden across increasing levels of resistance and the potential impact of TRD on employment status remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss, indirect costs, and employment status change in TRD. METHODS: A claims-based algorithm identified adults with TRD from a US claims database of privately insured employees and dependents (January 2010-March 2015). TRD patients were matched 1:1 on demographics to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) (non-TRD MDD) and without MDD (non-MDD), who were identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Costs, HRU, and employment status change were compared over 2 years following the first antidepressant (randomly imputed date for non-MDD), adjusting for baseline comorbidity index and costs. RESULTS: TRD patients (N = 6,411) had more HRU than either matched control cohort, translating into higher per patient per year (PPPY) health care costs: $6,709 and $9,917 more than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively (P < .001 for both). TRD patients with work loss data (N = 1,908) had 35.8 work loss days PPPY (1.7 and 6.2 times the work loss rate in non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients, respectively). Work loss-related costs in TRD patients were $1,811 higher than non-TRD MDD and $3,460 higher than in non-MDD patients (P < .001). TRD patients had 1.3-1.4 times the rate of employment status change versus control cohorts (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: TRD, even compared to MDD, poses a significant direct and indirect cost burden to US employers and may be associated with higher rates of employment status change.

Estimated costs of prescription opioid analgesic abuse in the United States in 2001: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the costs to society of prescription opioid analgesic (RxO) abuse in the United States. METHODS: Costs associated with RxO abuse were grouped into healthcare, criminal justice, and workplace categories. Costs were estimated by either (1) a quantity method that multiplies the number of RxO abusers derived from various national surveys by the estimated per abuser cost, or (2) an apportionment method that starts with overall (ie, prescription and nonprescription) drug abuse costs for a cost component (eg, police protection) and apportions the share of costs based on the prevalence of RxO abuse relative to overall drug abuse. Medical costs in excess of those for otherwise similar nonabusers were based on an analysis of a large administrative claims database for an employed population using multivariate regression methods. RESULTS: A lower bound estimate of the costs of RxO abuse in the United States was 8.6 billion dollars in 2001 (or 9.5 billion dollars in 2005 dollars). Of this amount, 2.6 billion dollarswere healthcare costs, 1.4 billion dollars were criminal justice costs, and 4.6 billion dollars were workplace costs. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of RxO abuse represent a substantial economic burden. Rising trends of RxO abuse suggest an escalating economic and public health burden in coming years in the United States, and potentially, elsewhere.

Costs of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US: excess costs of persons with ADHD and their family members in 2000.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimate of the cost of ADHD by consider ing the healthcare and work loss costs of persons with ADHD, as well as those costs imposed on their family members. METHODS: Excess per capita healthcare (medical and prescription drug) and work loss (disability and work absence) costs of treated ADHD patients (ages 7 years-44 years) and their family members (under 65 years of age) were calculated using administrative claims data from a single large company; work loss costs are from disability data or imputed for medically related work loss days. Excess costs are the additional costs of patients and their family members over and above those of comparable control individuals. The excess costs of untreated individuals with ADHD and their family members were also estimated. All per capita costs were extrapolated using published prevalence and treatment rates and population data; the prevalence of persons with ADHD was based upon the literature. RESULTS: The total excess cost of ADHD in the US in 2000 was $31.6 billion. Of this total, $1.6 billion was for the ADHD treatment of patients, $12.1 billion was for all other healthcare costs of persons with ADHD, $14.2 billion was for all other healthcare costs of family members of persons with ADHD, and $3.7 billion was for the work loss cost of adults with ADHD and adult family members of persons with ADHD. CONCLUSION: The annual cost of ADHD in the US is substantial. Both treated and untreated persons with ADHD, as well as their family members, impose consider able economic burdens on the healthcare system as a result of this condition. While these first estimates of the cost of ADHD to the nation are suggestive of its substantial economic burden, future research needs to refine and build on this analysis, particularly in the context of a model to control for related co-morbidities. Similarly, since these results are based on data from a single company for the period 1996-1998, the analysis should be validated with more representative, current data.

The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010).

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of depression in the United States--including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and dysthymia--was estimated at $83.1 billion in 2000. We update these findings using recent data, focusing on MDD alone and accounting for comorbid physical and psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Using national survey (DSM-IV criteria) and administrative claims data (ICD-9 codes), we estimate the incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD as well as the share of these costs attributable to MDD, with attention to any changes that occurred between 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: The incremental economic burden of individuals with MDD increased by 21.5% (from $173.2 billion to $210.5 billion, inflation-adjusted dollars). The composition of these costs remained stable, with approximately 45% attributable to direct costs, 5% to suicide-related costs, and 50% to workplace costs. Only 38% of the total costs were due to MDD itself as opposed to comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid conditions account for the largest portion of the growing economic burden of MDD. Future research should analyze further these comorbidities as well as the relative importance of factors contributing to that growing burden. These include population growth, increase in MDD prevalence, increase in treatment cost per individual with MDD, changes in employment and treatment rates, as well as changes in the composition and quality of MDD treatment services.

The economic burden of depression with painful symptoms.

The economic burden of depression is substantial. The condition is highly prevalent, with both psychiatric and physical symptoms that often inflict pain. The chronic and often debilitating nature of depression results in costly medical therapies, as well as impaired workplace productivity. As a result, the overall economic burden of depression is comparable to that of serious physical illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease. This article presents an overview of the economic burden of depression and provides background on the relationship between depression and pain in this context. Research findings are also presented on the economic burden associated with a particular manifestation of pain among depressed patients, fibromyalgia. When painful physical symptoms accompany the already debilitating psychiatric and behavioral symptoms of depression, the economic burden that ensues for patients and their employers increases considerably. On purely economic grounds, more aggressive outreach may be warranted for patients with depression and comorbid pain to initiate treatment before symptoms are allowed to persist. However, more research is needed to assess the comprehensive economic impact that depression with painful physical symptoms can have on society.

Economic consequences of not recognizing bipolar disorder patients: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study compared treatment patterns and costs for patients with recognized and unrecognized bipolar disorder with those of depressed patients without a bipolar disorder claim. METHOD: Claims data for 7 large national employers covering 585,584 persons aged less than 65 years were used to identify patients diagnosed with depression and initially treated with antidepressants. Data on employees, as well as spouses and dependents, for the period 1998 to mid-2001 were used. Patients were identified as bipolar based on the criteria of a bipolar diagnosis claim (ICD-9 codes: 296.0, 296.1, 296.4-296.8) and/or a mood stabilizer prescription claim. Of the patients identified as bipolar, unrecognized bipolar disorder (unrecognized-BP) patients met the criteria after antidepressant initiation, while recognized bipolar disorder (recognized-BP) patients met the criteria at or before initiation. The remaining patients in the sample were non-bipolar depressed (non-BP) patients. Outcome measures included treatment patterns and monthly medical costs in the 12 months subsequent to initiation of antidepressant treatment. RESULTS: Of the 9009 patients treated for depression with antidepressants, there were 8383 non-BP patients (93.1%), 293 recognized-BP patients (3.3%), and 333 unrecognized-BP patients (3.7%). Use of combination therapies varied among the non-BP (11%), unrecognized-BP (32%), and recognized-BP patients (44%) (all pairwise p <.01). Use of mood stabilizers was less frequent among unrecognized-BP patients (14%) than recognized-BP patients (34%) (p <.0001). Unrecognized-BP patients incurred significantly greater (p <.05) mean monthly medical costs ($1179 US dollars) in the 12 months following initiation of antidepressant treatment compared with recognized-BP patients ($801 US dollars) and non-BP patients ($585 US dollars). Monthly indirect costs were significantly greater (p <.05) for unrecognized-BP ($570 US dollars) and recognized-BP ($514 US dollars) employees compared with non-BP employees ($335 US dollars) in the 12 months following antidepressant initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of medication treatment for bipolar disorder were suboptimal. Accurate and timely recognition of bipolar disease was associated with lower medical costs and lower indirect costs due to work loss.