The Relative Burden of Menopausal and Postmenopausal Symptoms versus Other Major Conditions: A Retrospective Analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: The direct costs associated with menopausal and postmenopausal symptoms (hereafter "menopausal symptoms") may include the costs of physician and emergency department visits, medications, laboratory testing, and the management of side effects. However, much remains unknown about the costs related to menopausal symptoms, including how they compare with the costs of other diseases that are common among menopausal women. OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic burden of menopausal symptoms with other select prevalent chronic conditions among a nationally representative sample of US menopausal women aged 45 to 65 years. METHODS: Women aged 45 to 65 years who have not had a hysterectomy and who participated in the 2010-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component were included in the analysis. We estimated the direct costs of care associated with the management of menopausal symptoms and compared them with the direct costs of care for other indications, including osteoporosis, influenza, disorders of lipid metabolism, essential hypertension, mood disorders, esophageal disorders, headache, osteoarthritis, urinary tract infections, asthma, glaucoma, anxiety disorder, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/bronchiectasis, and cataract. Regression analyses were used to estimate the differences in direct costs, which included total expenditures and charges for inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department visits. RESULTS: The annual per-patient direct cost of menopausal symptoms was $248 in 2010-2012 dollars. Based on the modeled costs, menopausal symptoms were associated with significantly higher annual costs than osteoporosis, disorders of lipid metabolism, and esophageal disorders; and these annual costs were comparable to those of influenza, asthma, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and headache. The direct costs associated with the management of menopausal symptoms were significantly lower than the direct costs associated with osteoarthritis, mood disorders, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/bronchiectasis, urinary tract infections, diabetes, glaucoma, and cataract. CONCLUSION: The direct costs of care for menopausal symptoms are substantial and are similar to or greater than the direct healthcare costs associated with a number of medical conditions often requiring medical attention in menopausal women.

The Comparative Burden of Chronic Widespread Pain and Fibromyalgia in the United States.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Little information exists on the comparative patient and economic burden of chronic widespread pain (CWP) and fibromyalgia (FM) in the United States. METHODS: This multistage, observational study included an online screening survey of a large geographically diverse US sample to assess CWP status, a physician/site visit to determine FM diagnosis, and an online subject questionnaire to capture clinical characteristics, pain, health status, functioning, sleep, healthcare resource use (HRU), productivity, and costs. Based on the screener and physician evaluation, mutually exclusive groups of subjects without CWP (CWP-), with CWP but without FM (CWP+), and with confirmed FM were identified. RESULTS: Disease burden was examined in 472 subjects (125 CWP-, 176 CWP+, 171 FM). Age, race, and ethnicity were similar across groups. Mean body mass index and number of comorbidities increased from CWP- to CWP+ to FM (P = 0.0044, P < 0.0001, respectively). From CWP- to CWP+ to FM, there were reductions in health status (EQ-5D, SF-12) and sleep outcomes (MOS-SS, SSQ) (all P < 0.05). Pain severity, interference with function (BPI-SF), and overall work impairment (WPAI:SHP) increased from CWP- to CWP+ to FM (all P < 0.0001). Higher proportions of CWP+ (52.8%) and FM subjects (62.6%) were taking pain-related prescription medications relative to CWP- subjects (32.8%; P < 0.0001). Significant differences in total direct and indirect costs across the three groups (both P < 0.0001) were observed, with highest costs among FM subjects. CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia subjects were characterized by the greatest disease burden with more comorbidities and pain-related medications, poorer health status, function, sleep, lower productivity, and higher costs.

Impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal (GI) blood loss is a common medical condition which can have serious morbidity and mortality consequences and may pose an enormous burden on healthcare utilization. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the impact of upper and lower GI blood loss on healthcare utilization and costs. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles from MEDLINE published between 1990 and 2010. Articles were limited to studies with patients ≥18 years of age, non-pregnant women, and individuals without anemia of chronic disease, renal disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, HIV, iron-deficiency anemia or blood loss due to trauma or surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract and article relevance. RESULTS: Eight retrospective articles were included which used medical records or claims data. Studies analyzed resource utilization related to medical care although none of the studies assessed indirect resource use or costs. All but one study limited assessment of healthcare utilization to hospital use. The mean cost/hospital admission for upper GI blood loss was reported to be in the range $3180-8990 in the US, $2500-3000 in Canada and, in the Netherlands, the mean hospital cost/per blood loss event was €11,900 for a bleeding ulcer and €26,000 for a bleeding and perforated ulcer. Mean cost/ hospital admission for lower GI blood loss was $4800 in Canada, and $40,456 for small bowel bleeding in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the impact of GI blood loss on healthcare costs is substantial but studies are limited. Additional investigations are needed which examine both direct and indirect costs as well as healthcare costs by source of GI blood loss focusing on specific populations in order to target treatment pathways for patients with GI blood loss.

Community interventions for cardiovascular disease.

Review of the community-based CVD intervention programs suggests that a number of components have been successful using varying methods and materials for CVD risk reduction. It should be noted, however, that in multi-intervention programs it is often difficult to determine which components of the intervention were responsible for the overall success of the study. The community-based approach to CVD prevention is generalizable, cost-effective (because of the use of mass communication methods), and has the potential for modifying the environment and influencing health policies. Based on the experiences and successes of a number of community projects, recommendations have been proposed for developing future programs. Although they are not totally comprehensive, it has been suggested that a community-based intervention program should consider the following recommendations: 1) An understanding of the community: the needs and priorities of the community should be assessed, and close collaboration with individuals from the community, including community leaders, opinion leaders, community health care providers, and community organizations from various sectors of the community, should be consulted. Efforts should be focused on underserved and vulnerable populations. 2) Inclusion of community activities: these activities should be integrated within the context of the community environment, including primary health care services, voluntary organizations, grocery stores, restaurants, work sites, schools, and local media. 3) Inclusion mass media messages: the mass media can provide information and reinforcement of the behavior change. 4) Develop cost-effective interventions to assure that the community is exposed to an effective dose of the intervention. 5) Work with community organizations to help change social and physical environments to make them more conducive to health and healthy life-styles changes. 6) Develop a reliable monitoring and evaluation system: monitor the change process and conduct summary evaluations. 7) Disseminate the results to ensure that the benefits from the community program reach all communities. 8) For national implementation, the intervention program should work closely with national policy makers throughout the project.