Insurer and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Osteoarthritis in the US Evidence From National Survey Data

De Puy, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana, USA.
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 7.76). 12/2009; 60(12):3546-53. DOI: 10.1002/art.24984
Source: PubMed


Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major debilitating disease affecting approximately 27 million persons in the US. Yet, the financial costs to patients and insurers remain poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to quantify by multivariate analyses the relationships between OA and annual health care expenditures borne by patients and insurers.
Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for the years 1996-2005 were used. MEPS is a large, nationally representative US database that includes information on health care expenditures, medical conditions, health insurance status, and sociodemographic characteristics. Individual and nationally aggregated cost estimates are provided.
OA was found to contribute substantially to health care expenditures. Among women, OA increased out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures by $1,379 per annum (2007 dollars) and insurer expenditures by $4,833. Among men, OA increased OOP expenditures by $694 per annum and insurer expenditures by $4,036. Given the high prevalence of OA, the aggregate effects on health care expenditures were very large. OA raised aggregate annual medical care expenditures by $185.5 billion. Of that amount, insurer expenditures were $149.4 billion and OOP expenditures were $36.1 billion. Because of the greater prevalence of OA in women and their more intensive use of health care, total expenditures for this group accounted for $118 billion, or almost two-thirds of the total increase in health care expenditures resulting from OA.
The health care cost burden associated with OA is quite large for all groups examined and is disproportionately higher for women. Although insurers bear the brunt of treatment costs for OA, the OOP costs are also substantial.

Download full-text


Available from: Candace Gunnarsson, Nov 11, 2014
24 Reads
  • Source
    • "Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder in the world [1]. In the United States, the symptomatic knee OA occurs in 10% of the male and 13% of the female population with 60 years of age or more, with an estimated financial burden of US$ 47.8 billion annually [2] [3]. In Brazil, this disease is estimated to affect 6% to 12% of the adults with more than one third of those aged 65 years or over [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder in the world. Among the mechanisms involved in osteoarthritis, biomarkers (cytokines profile) may be related to pain and pain intensity, functional capacity, and pressure pain thresholds (PPT). Thus, the study of these relationships may offer useful information about pathophysiology and associated mechanisms involved in osteoarthritis. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the seric concentration of pro (IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis and to correlate the levels of these biomarkers with the patients’ functional capacity and pressure pain threshold (PPT) values.
  • Source
    • "An estimated 27 million people in the United States (US) have OA [1], and nearly half of all Americans are projected to develop knee OA during their lifetime [2]. Based on the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, associated insurer and out of pocket healthcare costs account for more than $185 billion per year with another $10 billion lost from absenteeism at work [3, 4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (OA) causes pain and long-term disability with annual healthcare costs exceeding $185 billion in the United States. Few medical remedies effectively influence the course of the disease. Finding effective treatments to maintain function and quality of life in patients with knee OA is one of the national priorities identified by the Institute of Medicine. We are currently conducting the first comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomized trial of Tai Chi versus a physical-therapy regimen in a sample of patients with symptomatic and radiographically confirmed knee OA. This article describes the design and conduct of this trial.Methods/DesignA single-center, 52-week, comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial of Tai Chi versus a standardized physical-therapy regimen is being conducted at an urban tertiary medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. The study population consists of adults ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA (American College of Rheumatology criteria). Participants are randomly allocated to either 12 weeks of Tai Chi (2x/week) or Physical Therapy (2x/week for 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks of rigorously monitored home exercise). The primary outcome measure is pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities WOMAC) subscale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include WOMAC stkiffness and function domain scores, lower extremity strength and power, functional balance, physical performance tests, psychological and psychosocial functioning, durability effects, health related quality of life, and healthcare utilization at 12, 24 and 52 weeks.DiscussionThis study will be the first randomized comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial of Tai Chi versus Physical Therapy in a large symptomatic knee OA population with long-term follow up. We present here a robust and well-designed randomized comparative-effectiveness trial that also explores multiple outcomes to elucidate the potential mechanisms of mind-body effect for a major disabling disease with substantial health burdens and economic costs. Results of this study are expected to have important public health implications for the large and growing population with knee OA.Trial identifier: NCT01258985Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-333) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 09/2014; 14(1):333. DOI:10.1186/1472-6882-14-333 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability in the elderly. Patients with osteoarthritis contribute to higher annual healthcare-related costs than those without (Kotlarz et al. 2009, Berger et al. 2011). Increase in life expectancy and ageing populations are expected to make osteoarthritis the fourth leading cause of disability by the year 2020 (Woolf and Pfleger 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose The continuously increasing demand for joint replacement surgery in the past decades imposes higher constraints on the budgets of hospitals and healthcare providers. We undertook an analysis of historical trends in total hip replacement performed in Sweden between 1968 and 2012 in order to provide projections of future demand. Data and methods We obtained data on total hip replacements registered every year and on the evolution of the Swedish population between 1968 and 2012. We assumed the existence of a maximum incidence. So we adopted a regression framework that assumes the existence of an upper limit of total hip replacement incidence. Results We found that the incidence of total hip replacement will continue to increase until a projected upper incidence level of about 400 total hip replacements per 105 Swedish residents aged 40 years and older will be reached around the year 2107. In 2020, the estimated incidence of total hip replacement will be 341 (95% prediction interval (PI): 302–375) and in 2030 it will be 358 (PI: 317–396). Using official forecasted population growth data, about 18,000 operations would be expected to be performed in 2020 and 20,000 would be expected to be performed in 2030. Interpretation Growing incidence, population growth, and increasing life expectancy will probably result in increased demand for hip replacement surgery. Our findings could serve as a basis for decision making.
    Acta Orthopaedica 04/2014; 85(3). DOI:10.3109/17453674.2014.913224 · 2.77 Impact Factor
Show more