3.9 Article

Trends in Glaucoma Medication Expenditure Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2001-2006

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 10, Pages 1345-1350

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.142

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Eye Institute [R21 EY019096]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To study trends of glaucoma medication expenditure from 2001 to 2006 using a nationally representative sample of US adults. Methods: We analyzed glaucoma medication expenditure trends among participants of the 2001-2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a subsample of the National Health Interview Survey, which is a continuous multipurpose, multistage area probability survey of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population. After adjusting for survey design and inflation using the 2009 inflation index, data from 1404 participants 18 years and older using glaucoma medication were analyzed. Results: Mean annual glaucoma medication expenditure per subject increased from $445 in 2001 to $557 in 2006 (slope=20.8; P < .001). Subgroup analysis showed expenditure increased significantly in women (P=.02), those with public-only insurance (P < .001), and those with less than a high school education (P < .008). Over the survey period, a significant decrease in expenditures on beta-blockers (P=.048) and significant increases in expenditures on prostaglandin analogs (P=.01) and alpha-agonists (P=.01) were found. Conclusions: Factors associated with increasing glaucoma medication expenditure trends include the increasing use of prostaglandin analogs, changes in insurance coverage, and possibly more aggressive glaucoma treatment. The findings are pertinent to the development of cost-effective strategies that optimize treatment and reduce expenditures. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(10):1345-1350. Published online June 13, 2011. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.142

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available