Health insurance problems among insured rheumatoid arthritis patients

Societal cost of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the US

OBJECTIVE

To estimate comprehensive cost of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to society and individual stakeholders, including patients/employees, employers, family members/caregivers, and government.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

The prevalence and impact of managed care for persons with rheumatoid arthritis in 1994 and 1999

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the proportion of persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in managed care and fee-for-service settings in 1994 and 1999, to ascertain whether there are differences in utilization between persons in the 2 systems of care in the 2 years, and to determine whether 1994 managed care status or change between 1994 and 1999 in managed care status affects outcomes.

METHODS

The present study uses data from the University of California, San Francisco RA Panel Study, in which 310 patients with RA from a random sample of Northern California rheumatologists were interviewed annually between 1994 and 1999 using a structured survey instrument. We use linear and logistic regression to compare the health care utilization and outcomes of persons in managed care and fee-for-service after adjusting for differences in demographic and health characteristics.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents in managed care increased from 60% to 79% between 1994 and 1999, including an increase from 37% to 68% among persons eligible for Medicare and an increase from 74% to 92% among persons ineligible for Medicare. With the exception of physical therapy visits in 1999, patients with RA in managed care did not report significantly different utilization of any service for RA than those in fee-for-service in either 1994 and 1999, including hospital admissions and joint replacement surgery. Managed care status in 1994, and change in managed care status between 1994 and 1999, were not associated with significantly different outcomes in 1999.

CONCLUSION

Despite the growth in the proportion of patients with RA in managed care, those in managed care did not differ from those in fee-for-service settings in utilization or outcomes.

Arthritis health service utilization among the elderly: the role of urban-rural residence and other utilization factors

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of urban-rural residence and other factors on the utilization of any type of arthritis-related physician care and on rheumatologist utilization.

METHODS

A population-based random sample of adults 65 years of age or older with self-reported arthritis from 10 urban and 12 rural Iowa counties were surveyed by telephone interview. We estimated the arthritis prevalence and health service utilization in this sample and evaluated the effects of predisposing, enabling, and need factors on utilization and satisfaction. Health care utilization was defined as ever having visited specific types of providers for arthritis-related care.

RESULTS

A total of 488 individuals participated: 227 from urban counties and 261 rural respondents. Urban respondents more commonly reported having received a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from their physicians but were less likely to report rheumatoid arthritis. A greater proportion of urban versus rural respondents had utilized any physician for arthritis care (50.7% versus 41.0%, P = 0.032) and had more often seen an orthopedist (18.1% versus 9.6%, P = 0.006) or general internist (18.5% versus 8.8%, P = 0.002). A diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, younger age, living with another person, higher income, and further distance from an arthritis provider were significantly associated with prior rheumatologist utilization. The strongest adjusted predictor of any physician visit for arthritis care was whether older adults drove themselves to their provider. For rheumatologist utilization, a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and age were independently associated.

CONCLUSIONS

The most striking finding was the consistent association of need factors (such as the desire for medical advice), joint swelling, and the presence of a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis with physician utilization. We identified significant urban-rural variations in factors both enabling and predisposing to arthritis care, although urban-rural status did not appear to independently influence arthritis physician utilization. In a rural state with a relatively small number of rheumatologists, deleterious enabling factors such as greater distance from the doctor and lack of supplemental insurance did not provide significant obstacles to either rheumatologist or generalist utilization.