Background The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s Cost of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Care Initiative seeks to quantify the wide-ranging health care costs affecting patients living with IBD. We aimed to (1) describe the annualized direct and indirect costs of care for patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), (2) determine the longitudinal drivers of these costs, and (3) characterize the cost of care for newly diagnosed patients. Methods We analyzed the Optum Research Database from the years 2007 to 2016, representing commercially insured and Medicare Advantage–insured patients in the United States. Inclusion for the study was limited to those who had continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefit coverage for at least 24 months (12 months before through 12 months after the index date of diagnosis). The value of patient time spent on health care was calculated as number of workplace hours lost due to health care encounters multiplied by the patients’ estimated average wage derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comparisons between IBD patients and non-IBD patients were analyzed based on demographics, health plan type, and length of follow-up. We used generalized linear models to estimate the association between total annual costs and various patient variables. Results There were 52,782 IBD patients (29,062 UC; 23,720 CD) included in the analysis (54.1% females). On a per-annual basis, patients with IBD incurred a greater than 3-fold higher direct cost of care compared with non-IBD controls ($22,987 vs $6956 per-member per-year paid claims) and more than twice the out-of-pocket costs ($2213 vs $979 per-year reported costs), with all-cause IBD costs rising after 2013. Patients with IBD also experienced significantly higher costs associated with time spent on health care as compared with controls. The burden of costs was most notable in the first year after initial IBD diagnosis (mean = $26,555). The study identified several key drivers of cost for IBD patients: treatment with specific therapeutics (biologics, opioids, or steroids); ED use; and health care services associated with relapsing disease, anemia, or mental health comorbidity. Conclusion The costs of care for IBD have increased in the last 5 years and are driven by specific therapeutics and disease features. In addition, compared with non-IBD controls, IBD patients are increasingly incurring higher costs associated with health care utilization, out-of-pocket expenditures, and workplace productivity losses. There is a pressing need for cost-effective strategies to address these burdens on patients and families affected by IBD.

SLE is associated with high levels of healthcare utilization and costs in a managed care health plan. Inpatient hospital stays were the primary medical cost drivers, followed by physician office visits and outpatient hospital visits.

Refractory MG patients have significantly greater clinical burden and are more likely to utilize intensive healthcare resources than nonrefractory patients. Furthermore, refractory patients may be at greater risk of crises throughout the disease course than previous studies have suggested. Muscle Nerve, 2018.

Algorithms to distinguish metastatic BC, LC, and CRC from locally advanced disease should use tumor-specific primary cancer codes with 2 claims for the specific primary cancer >30-42 days apart to reduce misclassification. These performed best overall in specificity, positive predictive values, and overall accuracy to identify metastatic cancer in a health care claims database.

In the article titled "The Cost of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Initiative From the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation", based on inquiries, we updated this paper to include a breakdown of demographics and costs based on disease state (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis) in addition to the published data on IBD overall.

Background Mental health diagnoses (MHDs) were identified as significant drivers of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related costs in an analysis titled “Cost of Care Initiative” supported by the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. In this subanalysis, we sought to characterize and compare IBD patients with and without MHDs based on insurance claims data in terms of demographic traits, medical utilization, and annualized costs of care. Methods We analyzed the Optum Research Database of administrative claims from years 2007 to 2016 representing commercially insured and Medicare Advantage insured IBD patients in the United States. Inflammatory bowel disease patients with and without an MHD were compared in terms of demographics (age, gender, race), insurance type, IBD-related medical utilization (ambulatory visits, emergency department [ED] visits, and inpatient hospitalizations), and total IBD-related costs. Only patients with costs >$0 in each of the utilization categories were included in the cost estimates. Results Of the total IBD study cohort of 52,782 patients representing 179,314 person-years of data, 22,483 (42.6%) patients had at least 1 MHD coded in their claims data with a total of 46,510 person-years in which a patient had a coded MHD. The most commonly coded diagnostic categories were depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, adjustment disorders, substance use disorders, and bipolar and related disorders. Compared with patients without an MHD, a significantly greater percentage of IBD patients with MHDs were female (61.59% vs 48.63%), older than 75 years of age (9.59% vs 6.32%), white (73.80% vs 70.17%), and significantly less likely to be younger than 25 years of age (9.18% vs 11.39%) compared with those without mental illness (P < 0.001). Patients with MHDs had significantly more ED visits (14.34% vs 7.62%, P < 0.001) and inpatient stays (19.65% vs 8.63%, P < 0.001) compared with those without an MHD. Concomitantly, patients with MHDs had significantly higher ED costs ($970 vs $754, P < 0.001) and inpatient costs ($39,205 vs $29,550, P < 0.001) compared with IBD patients without MHDs. Patients with MHDs also had significantly higher total annual IBD-related surgical costs ($55,693 vs $40,486, P < 0.001) and nonsurgical costs (medical and pharmacy) ($17,220 vs $11,073, P < 0.001), and paid a larger portion of the total out-of-pocket cost for IBD services ($1017 vs $905, P < 0.001). Conclusion Patients whose claims data contained both IBD-related and MHD-related diagnoses generated significantly higher costs compared with IBD patients without an MHD diagnosis. Based on these data, we speculate that health care costs might be reduced and the course of patients IBD might be improved if the IBD-treating provider recognized this link and implemented effective behavioral health screening and intervention as soon as an MHD was suspected during management of IBD patients. Studies investigating best screening and intervention strategies for MHDs are needed.

This study examined achievement of blood pressure (BP) goals, changes in antihypertensive therapy and reasons for these changes among adults with hypertension initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Claims data were examined for changes to medication regimens. Patient charts for 501 patients provided BP levels and reasons for changing medications. BP goal achievement was highest for initiators of ARBs (81.4%), compared with ACEIs (75.5%; P ¼ NS) and CCBs (68.9%; Po0.01). Changes in antihypertensive therapy were least likely among ARB recipients (59.9%) compared with ACEIs (71.86%; P ¼ 0.02) and CCBs (74.85%; Po0.01). Failure to achieve BP goals was the most common reason for change in therapy (ARB, 32.9%; ACEI, 42.5%, P ¼ NS; CCB, 47.9%, Po0.01). Although most patients achieved target BP goals, many required changes in treatment regimens. Initial choice of antihypertensive therapy may mitigate changes in therapies and better achieve BP goals.

Introduction To reduce health care costs and improve care, payers and physician groups are piloting value‐based and episodic or bundled‐care payment models in oncology. Disease progression and associated costs may affect these models, particularly if such programs do not account for disease severity and progression risk across patient populations. This study estimated the incremental cost of disease progression in patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), colorectal cancer (mCRC) and lung cancer (mLC) and compared costs among patients with and without progression. Methods This was a retrospective study using U.S. administrative claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage health care enrollees with evidence of mBC, mCRC, and mLC and systemic antineoplastic agent use from July 1, 2006, to August 31, 2014. Outcome measures included disease progression, 12‐month health care costs, and 3‐year cumulative predictive health care costs. Results Of 5,709 patients with mBC, 3,707 patients with mCRC, and 5,201 patients with mLC, 56.8% of patients with mBC, 58.1% of those with mCRC, and 80.3% of those with mLC patients had evidence of disease progression over 12 months. Among patients with mBC and mCRC, adjusted and unadjusted health care costs were significantly higher among progressors versus nonprogressors. Per‐patient‐per‐month costs, which accounted for variable follow‐up time, were almost twice as high among progressors versus nonprogressors in patients with mBC, mCRC, and mLC. In each of the three cancer types, delays in progression were associated with lower health care costs. Conclusion Progression of mLC, mBC, and mCRC was associated with higher health care costs over a 12‐month period. Delayed cancer progression was associated with substantial cost reductions in patients with each of the three cancer types. Implications for Practice Data on the rates and incremental health care costs of disease progression in patients with solid tumor cancers are lacking. This study estimated the incremental costs of disease progression in patients diagnosed with lung cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer and compared health care costs in patients with and without evidence of disease progression in a real‐world population. The data obtained in our study quantify the economic value of delaying or preventing disease progression and may inform payers and physician groups about value‐based payment programs.