Influence of medication choice and comorbid diabetes: The cost of bipolar disorder in a privately insured US population
Bipolar disorder is the most expensive mental disorder for US employer health plans. No published studies have examined the impact of comorbid diabetes on the cost of treating bipolar disorder. The objectives of this work were to determine the direct costs incurred by patients with bipolar disorder in a US managed care plan, and to examine the influence (1) of drug therapy regimen on bipolar-related costs, and (2) of diabetes on bipolar-related and all-cause costs.
A retrospective analysis of claims in a US private insurance database from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002 was performed. The database included at least 4.7 million enrollees each year. Diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with bipolar disorder; patients with diabetes were identified using diagnosis codes and medication use.
From 1999-2002, treated bipolar disorder was identified in 262 (33.9) [mean (standard deviation)] cases per 100,000 enrollees. Among patients with bipolar disorder in this cohort, between 6.3 and 7.4% were treated for diabetes each year. Among patients with newly treated bipolar disorder, 61.8% received initial therapy with only mood stabilizers, 24.3% received only atypical antipsychotics, and 13.9% received both. Mean all-cause cost for patients with bipolar disorder was US$2,690 in the 6 months before the first bipolar-related claim, and US$6,826 in the following year. Of the latter cost, bipolar-related cost was US$1,272. Patients with comorbid diabetes had much higher all-cause cost (US$11,317) than those without diabetes in the year following the first bipolar-related claim, but only slightly higher bipolar-related cost (US$1,349). Among newly treated bipolar disorder patients, all-cause and bipolar-related cost in the year after diagnosis was lowest in patients receiving only mood stabilizers. Ordinary least squares regression analysis found that treatment with mood stabilizers only was associated with 41% lower bipolar-related cost than treatment with atypical antipsychotics only (P < .001). Significant individual associations were also found between bipolar-related cost and bipolar disorder I diagnosis, severe bipolar disorder and comorbid personality disorders (P < .001 for each) but not comorbid diabetes (P = .27).
These results suggest that patients with bipolar disorder who receive only mood stabilizer therapy incur lower bipolar-related and all-cause cost than those receiving only atypical antipsychotics. In contrast to that for all-cause cost, comorbid diabetes had little impact on direct costs related to treating bipolar disorder itself.
Available from: Richard G Frank
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the longitudinal usual care quality and costs of bipolar-I depression treatment in adults.
Observational study of claims data from a privately insured population, ages 18-64, diagnosed with bipolar-I depression (N = 925), treated in 1999 and 2000, examining depressed phase specific and annualized treatment quality (receipt of antimanic medication and/or psychotherapy). Treatment costs were calculated and stratified by quality.
Little than half (56%) of the patients diagnosed with bipolar-I depression received both an antimanic agent and psychotherapy during their acute phase depression treatment, whereas 15% received an antimanic agent without psychotherapy. Eighteen to 28% of spending was accounted for by treatment that did not meet the standards of practice guidelines-and two-thirds to three-quarters of it was treatment that included an antidepressant without an antimanic agent (care that is advised against by guidelines).
Considerable resources were spent in care inconsistent with guidelines- much of that was care that could worsen the course of bipolar illness. This provides an opportunity for policy makers to develop mechanisms of quality improvement that redirect a substantial proportion of resource dollars to care that is more efficacious. Further, when conducting quality assessment and examining outcomes using administrative data, hospital admissions alone are an inadequate measure of bipolar disorder affective instability in claims data.
Psychopharmacology bulletin 02/2008; 41(2):24-39. · 0.50 Impact Factor
Available from: Sidney H Kennedy
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) published guidelines for the management of bipolar disorder in 2005, with a 2007 update. This second update, in conjunction with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD), reviews new evidence and is designed to be used in conjunction with the previous publications. The recommendations for the management of acute mania remain mostly unchanged. Lithium, valproate, and several atypical antipsychotics continue to be first-line treatments for acute mania. Tamoxifen is now suggested as a third-line augmentation option. The combination of olanzapine and carbamazepine is not recommended. For the management of bipolar depression, lithium, lamotrigine, and quetiapine monotherapy, olanzapine plus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and lithium or divalproex plus SSRI/bupropion remain first-line options. New data support the use of adjunctive modafinil as a second-line option, but also indicate that aripiprazole should not be used as monotherapy for bipolar depression. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, and olanzapine continue to be first-line options for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. New data support the use of quetiapine monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for the prevention of manic and depressive events, aripiprazole monotherapy for the prevention of manic events, and risperidone long-acting injection monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, and adjunctive ziprasidone for the prevention of mood events. Bipolar II disorder is frequently overlooked in treatment guidelines, but has an important clinical impact on patients' lives. This update provides an expanded look at bipolar II disorder.
Bipolar Disorders 06/2009; 11(3):225-55. DOI:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00672.x · 4.97 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This investigation estimated medical costs attributable to treatment of patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis in routine US clinical practice.
Using Medstat MarketScan claims data, direct costs of care and rates of cardiovascular (CV) events (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization) were examined for patients≥18 years of age with and without a diagnostic code for atherosclerosis from 1/1/2002 through 12/31/2004. Patients with an atherosclerosis ICD-9 code who had no history of CV events in the preceding 12 months (n=75,469) were evaluated. A comparison cohort (n=238,702) was matched on age, gender, geographic region, enrollment time period, and Charlson comorbidity index to estimate incremental costs attributable to atherosclerosis. Differences between patient groups were tested for CV event rates per 1,000 patients and monthly costs for 6 and 12 months before and after diagnosis.
Patients had a mean age of 58 years, 52% men, and a comorbidity index of 0.49. Patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis had significantly higher (p<0.001) rates of CV events (240/1000) after diagnosis, compared with patients without atherosclerosis (32/1000). Mean direct cost of care for patients diagnosed with atherosclerosis was $579/month for 12 months before and $1,074/month for 12 months after diagnosis, an 85% increase. Change in mean annual costs pre/post-index date was $5,232 ($436/month) higher among patients with than those without atherosclerosis (p<0.001).
The study population was restricted to patients with diagnosed clinical atherosclerosis based on specific ICD-9 codes. Matching of the patient cohorts was based on observed characteristics and other unobserved differences may exist.
Patients with diagnosed atherosclerosis incur significant clinical and economic burden, indicating a need for earlier diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis to help in reducing this burden.
Journal of Medical Economics 09/2010; 13(3):500-7. DOI:10.3111/13696998.2010.506348 · 1.58 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.