4.2 Article

Pain Conditions Ranked by Healthcare Costs for Members of a National Health Plan

期刊

PAIN PRACTICE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 117-131

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/papr.12066

关键词

chronic pain; acute pain; back pain; osteoarthritis; cost drivers; claims analysis

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs specific to pain are a growing concern, as increasing dollar amounts are spent on pain-related conditions. Understanding which pain conditions drive the highest utilization and cost burden to the healthcare system would enable providers and payers to better target conditions to manage pain adequately and efficiently. The current study focused on 36 noncancer chronic and 14 noncancer acute pain conditions and measured the HCRU and costs per member over 365days. These conditions were ranked by per-member costs and total adjusted healthcare costs to determine the most expensive conditions to a national health plan. The top 5 conditions for the commercial line of business were back pain, osteoarthritis (OA), childbirth, injuries, and non-hip, non-spine fractures (adjusted annual total costs for the commercial members were $119 million, $98 million, $69 million, $61 million, and $48 million, respectively). The top 5 conditions for Medicare members were OA, back pain, hip fractures, injuries, and non-hip, non-spine fractures (adjusted annual costs for the Medicare members were $327 million, $218 million, $117 million, $82 million, and $67 million, respectively). The conditions ranked highest for both per-member and total healthcare costs were hip fractures, childbirth, and non-hip, non-spine fractures. Among these, hip fractures in the Medicare member population had the highest mean cost per member (adjusted per-member cost was $21,058). Further examination specific to how pain is managed in these high-cost conditions will enable providers and payers to develop strategies to improve patient outcomes through appropriate pain management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据