Differences in health care resource utilization and costs for keratinocyte carcinoma among racioethnic groups: A population-based study - 27/01/22

Abstract |
Background |
As the United States becomes more diverse, determining differences in health care utilization and costs in the management of skin cancers is fundamental to decision-making in health care resource allocation and improving care for underserved populations.
Objective |
To compare health care use and costs among non-Hispanic White, Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black patients with keratinocyte carcinoma.
Methods |
A nationwide cross-sectional study was performed using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from 1996 to 2015.
Results |
Among 54,503,447 patients with keratinocyte carcinoma (weighted) over a 20-year period, 53,134,351 (97%) were non-Hispanic White; 836,030 (1.5%) were Hispanic White; and 170,755 (0.3%) were non-Hispanic Black. Compared to non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic White patients had significantly more ambulatory visits per person per year (5.4 vs 3.5, P = .003). Compared to non-Hispanic White patients, non-Hispanic Black patients had significantly more ambulatory visits (13.1 vs 3.5, P = .027) and emergency department visits (2.3 vs 1.1, P < .001), and incurred significantly higher ambulatory costs ($5089 vs $1131, P = .05), medication costs ($523 vs $221, P = .022), and total costs per person per year ($13,430 vs $1290, P = .032).
Limitations |
Data for squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas are combined.
Conclusions |
Keratinocyte carcinoma was more costly to treat and required more health care resources in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic White patients than in non-Hispanic White patients.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : basal cell carcinoma, BCC, ethnicity, health care cost, health care resource use, health care utilization, KC, keratinocyte carcinoma, minorities, NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer, race, SCC, skin of color, squamous cell carcinoma
Abbreviations used : BCC, ED, KC, MEPS, PPPY, SCC, SEM
Plan
| Funding sources: None. |
|
| IRB approval status: Reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California Internal Review Board, approval #IIR00002254. |
|
| Reprints not available from the authors. |
Vol 86 - N° 2
P. 373-378 - février 2022 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
