Out-of-Pocket Household Expenditures on Medical Injections in Cambodia.

BACKGROUND: Cambodia has one of the highest rates of overall medical injection usage worldwide. Therapeutic injections, which are often unnecessary, contribute to the spread of blood-borne diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study describes injection practices and associated household expenditures in rural northwest Cambodia. METHODS: We assessed care-seeking patterns of surveyed adult family members who sought healthcare in the previous 30 days, including location of care, medical injection use, and out-of-pocket household expenditures for treatment. A regression model was used to explore the impact of injection use on out-of-pocket household expenditures. RESULTS: Among 480 households sampled, 298 included members who had been sick within the previous 30 days; a total of 342 episodes of care had been sought. Private providers accounted for over 66% (n = 226) of all episodes of care, with public and informal providers accounting for 20% (n = 69) and 14% (n = 47), respectively. Injections were administered in over 120 (35%) episodes of care, with 81% of injections administered by private providers. Patients who received injections incurred total out-of-pocket household expenditures that were, on average, 126,590 Cambodian Riel (KHR) (US$31.65) higher than those who did not receive injections (p < 0.01), equivalent to nearly half of the country's total annual health expenditure per capita. Receiving injections and perceived severity of illness were significantly associated with higher out-of-pocket household expenditures. CONCLUSION: This study found high levels of medical injection use, particularly among private healthcare providers, which was significantly associated with high healthcare expenditures. Reducing the number of medical injections would not only reduce disease transmission risk but also contribute to reduced healthcare costs and greater financial protection.

The impact of ß-amyloid positron emission tomography on the diagnostic and treatment decisions of dementia experts.

AIM: Amyloid positron emission tomography (aPET) measurement of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology could improve the accurate diagnosis of cognitive disorders. Appropriate use criteria recommend that only dementia experts order aPET. MATERIALS & METHODS: We surveyed 145 dementia experts about their current approaches to evaluation and treatment and the likely influence of aPET. RESULTS: Experts expected aPET to alter diagnostic procedures and patient management and also increase diagnostic certainty. They anticipated confirming AD or altering pharmacological treatment following positive results more than excluding AD following negative results. Experts familiar with aPET reported changes that were more consistent with appropriate use criteria and published evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about aPET strongly influenced effects on diagnostic certainty and changed clinical practice. Dementia experts may need additional training to achieve optimal benefit from aPET.

Changes in Patterns of Utilization and Cost of Health Care Services Associated With Initiation of Asenapine for the Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adults.

PURPOSE: To examine changes in patterns of utilization and cost of health care services associated with initiation of asenapine for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2 large US health care claims databases. METHODOLOGY: All adults who initiated therapy with asenapine between Aug. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012, were identified; the date of the earliest claim for asenapine during this period was deemed the index date. Patients without ≥1 claims with a schizophrenia diagnosis within 12 months prior to the index date were excluded. We compared patterns of utilization and cost of health care services between 6-month periods immediately before and after index date ("preindex"and "postindex" respectively). RESULTS: 366 patients were identified who initiated asenapine and who met all other selection criteria; mean (SD) age was 40.5 (16.3) years and 57.1% were women. Relative to preindex, patients were less likely during postindex to be hospitalized (41.8% vs 26.2%, P<.001) or to visit the emergency room (24.9% vs 18.9%, P=.03). Mean (SD) total health care costs decreased by $4776 in the postindex period ($16,811 [$26,176] vs $12,035 [$17,037] during preindex), primarily due to a decrease in inpatient costs ($10,616 [$24,977] vs $5286 [$15,846]); mean pharmacy costs increased by $828 ($3656 [$3309] vs $4482 [$3,073]) (all P<.001). CONCLUSION: Use of asenapine for the treatment of schizophrenia was associated with reduced levels of health care utilization and cost during the 6-month period immediately following therapy initiation, primarily due to reduced levels of inpatient care.

Impact of initiation of asenapine on patterns of utilization and cost of healthcare resources associated with the treatment of bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of initiation of asenapine on "real-world" levels of utilization and cost of healthcare services for the treatment of bipolar I disorder (BPD) in the US. METHODS: Using two large US healthcare claims databases that collectively included commercially insured patients aged < 65 years and Medicare enrollees, this study identified all adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of BPD who began therapy with asenapine between 2009-2012. The date of the earliest claim for asenapine during this period was deemed the 'index date', and patients without continuous enrollment for the 6-month periods before and after this date were excluded ('pre-index' and 'post-index', respectively). Healthcare claims with a BPD diagnosis, plus psychiatric medications and the costs thereof (2012 dollars) were deemed 'BPD-related'. Differences in BPD-related utilization and cost of healthcare services were compared between the pre- and post-index periods. RESULTS: A total of 1403 patients met all selection criteria; the mean age was 42.8 years and 70.6% were women. Relative to pre-index, significant decreases were noted in post-index use of BPD-related healthcare services, most notably admissions (from 24.0% to 12.3% during the post-index period) and emergency department visits (from 4.6% to 2.6%) (both p < 0.05). While pharmacy costs increased, mean total post-index BPD-related healthcare costs were $979 lower than pre-index ($5002 vs $5981; p < 0.05), primarily due to the decrease in BPD-related admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the 6-month period beforehand, levels of utilization of BPD-related healthcare services and costs decreased during the 6-month period immediately following initiation of asenapine therapy.