Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background The objective of this study was to assess the disease burden of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a commercial managed care setting by comparing direct health care costs and adverse event outcomes between patients with AD and without AD. Methods The study design used eligibility, medical, and pharmacy claims data from a large, national, geographically diverse, fee-for-service U.S. managed health plan. Commercially insured patients aged 65 years and older with a pharmacy benefit with evidence of AD (n = 4,450) and a control group without AD (n = 13,650) were matched by age, gender, plan location, and length of enrollment. Adverse event outcomes, comorbid conditions, and annualized health care costs were compared. Incremental costs were calculated by using a two-part model to estimate the burden of illness; incremental cost confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrap analysis. Results Patients with AD had generally higher health care costs and higher risk of acute adverse outcomes than the control cohort. Annual adjusted total health care costs per patient were approximately $1,418 greater for the AD cohort. Patients with AD had an unadjusted fracture risk of 14.6% versus 6.2% in the matched cohort and accidental injury/falls risk of 27.4% versus 11.4%. Conclusions Few studies have examined the disease burden of AD in commercial managed care settings. Similar to results of comparative studies with Medicare data, the disease burden is greater for patients with AD compared with a matched control cohort, with a different mix and a greater number of comorbid health care conditions partially accounting for this difference. As membership in commercial and Medicare managed care plans increases, plans will need to develop effective mechanisms to manage the health care of high-risk, high-cost patients with AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Frytak, JR., Henk, H. J., Zhao, Y., Bowman, L., Flynn, J. A., & Nelson, M. (2008). Health service utilization among Alzheimer's disease patients: evidence from managed care. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.02.007
Vancouver
Frytak JR, Henk HJ, Zhao Y, Bowman L, Flynn JA, Nelson M. Health service utilization among Alzheimer's disease patients: evidence from managed care. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2008.02.007. PMID: 18790463.
BibTeX
@article{frytak2008-18790463,
author = {Frytak, JR. and Henk, H. J. and Zhao, Y. and Bowman, L. and Flynn, J. A. and Nelson, M.},
title = {{Health service utilization among Alzheimer's disease patients: evidence from managed care}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2008.02.007},
pmid = {18790463},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.02.007}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Patients with AD had generally higher health care costs and higher risk of acute adverse outcomes than the control cohort.
- Patients with AD had an unadjusted fracture risk of 14.6% versus 6.2% in the matched cohort and accidental injury/falls risk of 27.4% versus 11.4%.
- Similar to results of comparative studies with Medicare data, the disease burden is greater for patients with AD compared with a matched control cohort, with a different mix and a greater number of comorbid health care conditions partially accounting for this difference.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants4,450
- Effect size14.6%; 6.2%; 27.4%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 4,450 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18790463) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.