Cost of treating bipolar disorder in the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program.

Department of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, 1540 E. Alcazar St., Rm. CHP-140, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
Journal of Affective Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.71). 10/2002; 71(1-3):131-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00394-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder affects approximately 1% of the population at an annual cost of $45 billion in the US. Estimates of non-compliance with mood stabilizer therapy range as high as 64%. The objective of this study was to document the use patterns with mood stabilizers achieved by patients with bipolar disorder and to estimate the direct health care costs associated with sub-optimal drug therapy.
Paid claims for 3,349 California Medicaid patients with bipolar disorder were used to document the use patterns for mood stabilizers achieved by patients with bipolar disorder. The impact of the patient's drug use patterns on likelihood of antipsychotic or antidepressant use within 1 year and health care costs incurred during the first posttreatment year were also estimated.
Only 42.4% of patients used a mood stabilizer during the first posttreatment year; over 60% of treated patients switch or augment their initial therapy within 1 year, and only 5.5% of patients used a mood stabilizer consistently for 1 year. Direct health care costs were significantly higher among those patients who delayed or did not use mood-stabilizing agents during the first year.
Medi-Cal covers poor and disabled patients and is not representative of the general population. Paid claims data do not include clinical markers for severity of illness or treatment response.
Suboptimal use patterns for mood stabilizing medications were frequent and costly. Strategies to improve compliance with mood stabilizer regimens, along with new treatment options, are needed to improve treatment outcomes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The article reviews the existing evidence and the concept of the anti-suicidal effect of lithium long-term treatment in bipolar patients. The core studies supporting the concept of a suicide preventive effect of lithium in bipolar patients come from the international research group IGSLI, from Sweden, Italy, and recently also from the U.S. Patients on lithium possess an eight- time lower suicide risk than those off lithium. The anti-suicidal effect is not necessarily coupled to lithium's episode suppressing efficacy. The great number of lives potentially saved by lithium adds to the remarkable benefits of lithium in economical terms. The evidence that lithium can effectively reduce suicide risk has been integrated into modern algorithms in order to select the optimal maintenance therapy for an individual patient.
    Archives of Suicide Research 02/2005; 9(3):307-19. DOI:10.1080/13811110590929550 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to the estimates of the World Bank and the World Health Organization bipolar disorder is the sixth leading cause of handicap throughout the world. The burden of this disease is similar to the one of schizophrenia. But cost-of-illness studies are too seldom. Although preventive treatments of bipolar disorder are available for more than fifty years, their economic impact has rarely been studied. This review shows that the yearly cost of bipolar disorder is between 10,000 and 16,000 euro (12,000 and 18,000 US dollars). Eighty percent are indirect costs, 15% are linked to hospitalization and 5% to drugs. Hospitalization costs are lower in Health Maintenance Organization or general population studies than in studies performed on populations receiving care from psychiatric institutions or with a low socio-economic status. The use of mood stabilizers has a substantial impact on direct costs which are halved and consequently on indirect costs. But different surveys all agree on the dramatic under-use of mood stabilizers which may be adequately prescribed to only a quarter of bipolar patients. Therefore, the optimization of mental health system resources should prompt incentives to better screen, diagnose, and treat patients with a bipolar disorder.
    L Encéphale 01/2003; 32(1 Pt 1):18-25. · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bipolar disorder greatly impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical and social functioning, employment, and work productivity, and greatly increases health-care utilization and costs. Our objective was to characterize how bipolar disorder impacts HRQoL, work impairment, and health-care utilization and costs. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify bipolar disorder studies of HRQoL, functioning, work impairment, and health-care utilization and costs. We searched Medline, ClinPSYC, and HealthSTAR for English-language articles published between January 1985 and November 2002 using MeSH headings and keywords. Additional articles were identified from references of relevant articles. We identified 65 HRQoL articles, 14 work-impairment articles, and 28 utilization-and-care-cost articles. For all HRQoL instruments used, bipolar disorder patients' HRQoL was rated similarly to that of unipolar depression patients, and equal to or lower compared with patients with other chronic nonmental illnesses. Current treatments have been shown to improve HRQoL and physical and social functioning; some data indicate that management may improve selfreported work impairment and absenteeism. Bipolar disorder patients have been found to utilize health-care services more than do patients with depression or chronic medical conditions. Inpatient costs are the largest cost contributor; treatment to prevent recurrence has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce costs. Bipolar disorder imposes a tremendous burden on patients and the health-care system, resulting in decreased HRQoL and increased medical and work impairment costs. Limited data suggest that appropriate management can improve HRQoL and functioning while reducing utilization and cost.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 02/2004; 20(2):139-54. DOI:10.1185/030079903125002801 · 2.37 Impact Factor