Are you Yohanne Kidolezi?

Claim your profile

Publications (12)33.81 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the short-term impact of Florida Medicaid's policy change on olanzapine discontinuation and health care resource utilization among olanzapine-treated patients with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnoses. The announced policy change, effective on July 11, 2005, but rescinded on September 9, 2005, reclassified olanzapine as nonpreferred and gave physicians 60 days to change antipsychotics for current users. Prescription patterns, health care resource utilization, and Medicaid payments were compared between patients using olanzapine on July 11, 2005, and matched prior-year controls. For reference, parallel analyses were conducted in New Jersey Medicaid, where access to olanzapine remained constant. The effect of Florida's policy change was also estimated among policy-sensitive olanzapine users by treating year (2004 vs 2005) as an instrumental variable. Matched Florida cohorts (N = 4,255) showed increases from 2004 to 2005 in 6-month rates of switching from olanzapine (+326%), hospitalization (+19.8%), and emergency room visits (+19.7%) (all P values < .001). Concurrently in the matched New Jersey cohorts (N = 2,680), there were no significant changes in these outcomes from 2004 to 2005. Among matched Florida policy-sensitive olanzapine users, an additional 9.3% experienced hospitalization in 2005 versus 2004 (P < .001), and increased payments for medical services and other antipsychotics largely offset decreased payments for olanzapine. The announced reclassification of olanzapine to nonpreferred status substantially disrupted the continuity of olanzapine therapy for many Florida Medicaid recipients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and was associated with increased hospitalization and emergency room visits. During the 6 months following the policy change, increased payments for medical services largely offset reduced payments for olanzapine.
    The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 01/2011; 72(6):787-94. · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) imposes substantial cost from the perspective of employers. The objective of this study was to assess direct healthcare costs and indirect (disability and medical-related absenteeism) costs associated with TRD compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD). Employees with one or more inpatient, or two or more outpatient/other MDD diagnoses (ICD-9-CM: 296.2x, 296.3x) from 2004 through 2007, ages 18-63 years, were selected from a claims database. Employees who initiated a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration or who met published TRD criteria were classified as TRD likely (N = 2312). The index date was the date of the first antidepressant, starting 1/1/2004. The control group was an age- and sex-matched cohort of employees with MDD but without TRD. All had continuous eligibility during the 6-month pre-index (baseline) and 24-month post-index (study) period. McNemar tests were used to compare baseline comorbidities. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare costs from employer perspective. TRD-likely employees were on average 48 years old, and 64.8% were women. Compared with MDD controls, TRD-likely employees had significantly higher rates of mental-health disorders, chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. Average direct 2-year costs were significantly higher for TRD-likely employees ($22,784) compared with MDD controls ($11,733), p < 0.0001. Average indirect costs were also higher among TRD-likely employees ($12,765) compared with MDD controls ($6885), p < 0.0001. Limitations of claims data related to accuracy of diagnosis coding and lack of clinical information apply to this study. Based on comorbidities and healthcare resources used, patients with TRD appeared to represent a clinically complex subgroup of individuals with MDD. TRD was associated with significant cost burden.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 10/2010; 26(10):2475-84. · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The direct cost burden of epilepsy in the US from a third-party payer perspective has not been evaluated. Furthermore, no study has quantified the indirect (work-loss) cost burden of epilepsy from an employer perspective in the US. Objective: To assess the annual direct costs for privately insured US patients diagnosed with epilepsy, and indirect costs for a subset of employees from an employer perspective. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a claims database for the privately insured, including employee disability claims from 1999 through 2005 and comprising 17 US companies, was conducted. A total of 4323 patients aged 16-64 years (including 1886 employees) with at least one epilepsy diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 345.x) over the period 1999-2004 were included. The control group was a demographically matched cohort of randomly chosen beneficiaries without an epilepsy diagnosis. All had continuous health coverage during 2004 (baseline) and 2005 (study period). Main outcome measures included annual direct (medical and pharmaceutical) costs and, for employees, indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) and total costs for the study period. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for univariate comparisons of annual direct costs, indirect costs (costs for the subset of employees with these data), and total (direct and indirect) costs during the study period. Two-part multivariate models that adjusted for patient characteristics were also used to compare costs between the study and control groups. Results: Patients with epilepsy were an average age of 43 years and 57% were female. They had more co-morbidities than controls. On average, direct annual costs were significantly higher per patient with epilepsy than per control ($US10 258 vs $US3862, respectively; p < 0.0001) [year 2005 values], with an annual per-patient difference of $US6396. Epilepsy-related costs ($US2057) accounted for 20% of direct costs for patients with epilepsy. Annual indirect costs were significantly higher for employees with epilepsy than for employed controls ($US3192 vs $US1242, respectively; p < 0.0001), with a difference of $US1950. Total direct plus indirect costs for employees with epilepsy were also higher than those for employed controls ($US13 595 vs $US5338, respectively; p < 0.0001), with a difference of $US8257. Conclusions: Epilepsy was associated with significant economic burden. The excess direct costs in patients with epilepsy are underestimated when only epilepsy-related costs are considered.
    PharmacoEconomics 01/2010; 28(8):675-85. · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    01/2010;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Compare annual direct and indirect costs between privately insured U.S. patients with epileptic partial onset seizures (POS) and matched controls. One thousand eight hundred fifty-nine patients (including a subset of 758 employees) with >or=1 (POS) diagnosis (ICD-9-CM: 345.4.x-345.7.x), 1999-2004, ages 16-64 years, were identified from a privately insured claims database. Control group was an age- and gender-matched cohort of randomly chosen beneficiaries without epilepsy (ICD-9-CM: 345.x). All were required to have continuous health coverage during 2004 (baseline) and 2005 (study period). Chi-square tests were used to compare baseline comorbidities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for comparisons of annual direct (medical and pharmaceutical) and indirect costs during the study period. Patients with POS were on average 42 years of age, and 57% were women. Patients with POS had significantly higher rates of mental health disorders, migraine, and other neurologic disorders, and higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) compared with controls. On average, direct annual costs were significantly higher for POS patients ($11,276) compared with controls ($4,087), p < 0.001; difference of $7,190. Epilepsy-related costs (i.e., costs for antiepileptic drugs, claims with epilepsy or convulsions diagnoses) accounted for $3,290 (29% of direct costs). Employees with POS had substantial and significantly higher indirect (disability- and medically related absenteeism) costs compared with controls ($3,431 vs. $1,511, p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses supported the matched-control univariate findings. Patients with POS had significantly higher costs compared with matched controls. Epilepsy-related costs underestimate the excess costs of patients with partial onset seizures.
    Epilepsia 12/2009; 51(5):838-44. · 3.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, statin adherence, and direct (medical and drug) and indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) costs in US employees in whom atorvastatin or simvastatin was newly prescribed. Active employees aged 18 to 64 years with a new atorvastatin or simvastatin prescription were identified from a deidentified claims database for 23 privately insured US companies from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006. Employees given atorvastatin were matched to those given simvastatin according to propensity scores based on patient characteristics, index statin dose, preindex cardiovascular events, and wage. Outcomes were compared between matched cohorts during the 2-year postindex period, including the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, adherence to the index statin, use of other lipid-lowering drugs, direct medical costs for third-party payers, and indirect costs to employers. Indirect costs were computed as follows: Disability Payments + Daily Wage x Days of Medically Related Absenteeism. Atorvastatin and simvastatin drug costs were imputed using recent pricing to account for the availability of lower-cost generic simvastatin after the study period. Among 13,584 matched pairs, treatment with atorvastatin vs simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, higher adherence, and less use of other lipid-lowering drugs. The increase in statin costs associated with atorvastatin vs simvastatin therapy was almost completely offset by reductions in medical service and indirect costs. In this study, treatment with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, reduced indirect costs, and a minimal difference in total costs to employers.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 12/2009; 84(12):1065-72. · 5.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate comprehensive cost of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to society and individual stakeholders, including patients/employees, employers, family members/caregivers, and government. Administrative claims databases covering privately insured and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in the US were used to compute the excess payer and beneficiary-paid costs per patient with RA compared with matched controls. Similarly, per-person excess costs for caregivers and uninsured patients with RA were estimated. Costs were estimated for other burdens, including costs of work-loss to employers, adaptations to home and work environments, lost on-the-job productivity, informal and hired care/household help, and job turnover costs. Intangible costs associated with quality-of-life deterioration were estimated based on legal system jury awards, whereas costs for premature mortality were based on lifetime earnings data. Per-capita cost estimates were weighted by the relevant population to estimate societal costs. Because data were incomplete, several assumptions were required; these assumptions could lead to an over- or under-estimation of cost burdens. Annual excess health care costs of RA patients were $8.4 billion, and costs of other RA consequences were $10.9 billion. These costs translate to a total annual cost of $19.3 billion. From a stakeholder perspective, 33% of the total cost was allocated to employers, 28% to patients, 20% to the government, and 19% to caregivers. Adding intangible costs of quality-of-life deterioration ($10.3 billion) and premature mortality ($9.6 billion), total annual societal costs of RA (direct, indirect, and intangible) increased to $39.2 billion. Societal costs of RA in the US are $19.3 billion and $39.2 billion (in 2005 dollars) without and with intangible costs, respectively. This study was one of the first to attempt to quantify the comprehensive burdens of RA. Despite several assumptions made in areas in which few data exist, the findings generate useful insights into the full burden of RA.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 11/2009; 26(1):77-90. · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 01/2009; 12(3). · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Value in Health 01/2009; 12(3). · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To present data on the comparative and interactive workplace costs of depression relative to other health problems in the workforce of a large employer. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire was used to assess self-reported health problems and work performance. Survey data were linked to medical-pharmacy claims data. Regression analysis was used to assess comparative effects of depression in the absence and presence of comorbidities on Health and Work Performance Questionnaire measures of work performance. Depression had the largest individual-level effect on work performance of any condition examined. Several comorbid conditions exacerbated the effect of depression, but had no effects in the absence of depression. Depression is a strong predictor of decrements in work performance. Other conditions that often co-occur with depression, including anxiety and fatigue-sleep disturbance, exacerbate the adverse effect of depression.
    Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 08/2008; 50(7):809-16. · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • HG Birnbaum, J Ivanova, Y Kidolezi, S Caleo
    Value in Health 01/2008; 11(6). · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • HG Birnbaum, J Ivanova, Y Kidolezi, S Caleo
    Value in Health 01/2008; 11(6). · 2.19 Impact Factor