Direct Costs of Opioid Abuse in an Insured Population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) describe the demographics of opioid abusers; (b) compare the prevalence rates of selected comorbidities and the medical and drug utilization patterns of opioid abusers with patients from a control group, for the period from 1998 to 2002; and (c) calculate the mean annual per-patient total health care costs (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, drug, other) from the perspective of a private payer. METHODS: An administrative database of medical and pharmacy claims from 1998 to 2002 of 16 self-insured employer health plans with approximately 2 million lives was used to identify "opioid abusers"-patients with claims associated with ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) codes for opioid abuse (304.0, 304.7, 305.5, and 965.0 [excluding 965.01]). A control group of nonabusers was selected using a matched sample (by age, gender, employment status, and census region) in a 3:1 ratio. Per-patient annual health care costs (mean total medical and drug costs) were measured in 2003 U.S. dollars. Multivariate regression techniques were also used to control for comorbidities and to compare costs with a benchmark of depressed patients. RESULTS: 740 patients were identified as opioid abusers, a prevalence of 8 in 10,000 persons aged 12 to 64 years continuously enrolled in health care plans for whom 12 months of data were available for calculating costs. Opioid abusers, compared with nonabusers, had significantly higher prevalence rates for a number of specific comorbidities, including nonopioid poisoning, hepatitis (A, B, or C), psychiatric illnesses, and pancreatitis, which were approximately 78, 36, 9, and 21 (P<0.01) times higher, respectively, compared with nonabusers. Opioid abusers also had higher levels of medical and prescription drug utilization. Almost 60% of opioid abusers had prescription drug claims for opioids compared with approximately 20% for nonabusers. Prevalence rates for hospital inpatient visits for opioid abusers were more than 12 times higher compared with nonabusers (P<0.01). Mean annual direct health care costs for opioid abusers were more than 8 times higher than for nonabusers ($15,884 versus $1,830, respectively, P < 0.01). Hospital inpatient and physician-outpatient costs accounted for 46% ($7,239) and 31% ($5,000) of opioid abusers' health care costs, compared with 17% ($310) and 50% ($906), respectively, for nonabusers. Mean drug costs for opioid abusers were more than 5 times higher than costs for nonabusers ($2,034 vs. $386, respectively, P<0.01), driven by higher drug utilization (including opioids) for opioid abusers. Even when controlling for comorbidities using a multivariate regression model of a matched control of depressed patients, the average health care costs of opioid abusers were 1.8 times higher than the average health care costs of depressed patients. CONCLUSION: The high costs of opioid abuse were driven primarily by high prevalence rates of costly comorbidites and high utilization rates of medical services and prescription drugs. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by an unrestricted grant from Janssen Medical Affairs, L.L.C. and was obtained by authors Susan Vallow and Jeff Schein, who are employed by Janssen Medical Affairs, L.L.C. Nathaniel Katz is a consultant to Janssen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies that manufacture branded opioid products and nonopioid analgesics; authors Alan G. White, Howard G. Birnbaum, Milena N. Mareva, and Maham Daher disclose no potential bias or conflict of interest relating to this article. White served as principal author of the study. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by White, Vallow, Schein, and Katz. Analysis and interpretation of data were contributed by all authors. Drafting of the manuscript was primarily the work of White, and its critical revision was the work of White and Vallow. Statistical expertise was contributed by White, Birnbaum, and Daher, and administrative, technical, and/or material support was provided by Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment for U.S. patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment in management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Two hundred thirty-three patients with DPNP who completed a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter duloxetine trial were re-randomized into a 52-week, open-label trial of duloxetine 60 mg twice daily versus routine treatment. Routine treatment included pain management therapies. Effectiveness was measured by using the bodily pain domain (BP) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36). Costs were analyzed from 3 perspectives: third party payer (direct medical costs), employer (direct and indirect medical costs), and societal (patient's out-of-pocket costs and total medical costs). Costs of study medications were not included because of limited data. Bootstrap method was applied to calculate statistical inference of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Routine treatment most frequently used included gabapentin (56%), venlafaxine (36%), and amitripytline (15%). From employer and societal perspectives, duloxetine was cost-effective (ICER= -342 dollars and -429 dollars, respectively, per unit of SF-36 BP; both P

Economic burden of illness for employees with painful conditions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the medical services utilization and average annual direct (ie, medical and medication) and indirect (ie, work-loss) costs for employees with painful conditions to a random sample ("average employee"). METHODS: An employer administrative claims database (approximately 600,000 insured lives) was used to identify patients with ICD-9 codes for painful conditions. Direct costs were total employer medical and medication costs and indirect costs were associated with medically related absenteeism days and disability claims. RESULTS: Among employees with painful conditions, total costs were 1.5 to 3.5 times as high (P < 0.01) as those of the average employee (ie, 7088 US dollars to 16,874 US dollars compared with 4,849 US dollars) depending on the painful condition. CONCLUSIONS: Painful conditions are costly to employers, and better management/treatment of such conditions may help reduce the associated employer economic burden.

Direct costs of opioid abuse in an insured population in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) describe the demographics of opioid abusers; (b) compare the prevalence rates of selected comorbidities and the medical and drug utilization patterns of opioid abusers with patients from a control group, for the period from 1998 to 2002; and (c) calculate the mean annual per-patient total health care costs (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, drug, other) from the perspective of a private payer. METHODS: An administrative database of medical and pharmacy claims from 1998 to 2002 of 16 self-insured employer health plans with approximately 2 million lives was used to identify "opioid abusers"--patients with claims associated with ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) codes for opioid abuse (304.0, 304.7, 305.5, and 965.0 [excluding 965.01]). A control group of nonabusers was selected using a matched sample (by age, gender, employment status, and census region) in a 3:1 ratio. Per-patient annual health care costs (mean total medical and drug costs) were measured in 2003 U.S. dollars. Multivariate regression techniques were also used to control for comorbidities and to compare costs with a benchmark of depressed patients. RESULTS: 740 patients were identified as opioid abusers, a prevalence of 8 in 10,000 persons aged 12 to 64 years continuously enrolled in health care plans for whom 12 months of data were available for calculating costs. Opioid abusers, compared with nonabusers, had significantly higher prevalence rates for a number of specific comorbidities, including nonopioid poisoning, hepatitis (A, B, or C), psychiatric illnesses, and pancreatitis, which were approximately 78, 36, 9, and 21 (P<0.01) times higher, respectively, compared with nonabusers. Opioid abusers also had higher levels of medical and prescription drug utilization. Almost 60% of opioid abusers had prescription drug claims for opioids compared with approximately 20% for nonabusers. Prevalence rates for hospital inpatient visits for opioid abusers were more than 12 times higher compared with nonabusers (P<0.01). Mean annual direct health care costs for opioid abusers were more than 8 times higher than for nonabusers ($15,884 versus $1,830, respectively, P < 0.01). Hospital inpatient and physician-outpatient costs accounted for 46% ($7,239) and 31% ($5,000) of opioid abusers. health care costs, compared with 17% ($310) and 50% ($906), respectively, for nonabusers. Mean drug costs for opioid abusers were more than 5 times higher than costs for nonabusers ($2,034 vs. $386, respectively, P<0.01), driven by higher drug utilization (including opioids) for opioid abusers. Even when controlling for comorbidities using a multivariate regression model of a matched control of depressed patients, the average health care costs of opioid abusers were 1.8 times higher than the average health care costs of depressed patients. CONCLUSION: The high costs of opioid abuse were driven primarily by high prevalence rates of costly comorbidites and high utilization rates of medical services and prescription drugs.