Costs of asthma in the United States: 2002-2007 - 10/08/11
Abstract |
Background |
The economic burden of asthma is an important measure of the effect of asthma on society. Although asthma is a costly illness, the total cost of asthma to society has not been estimated in more than a decade.
Objective |
The purpose of this study is to provide the public with current estimates of the incremental direct medical costs and productivity losses due to morbidity and mortality from asthma at both the individual and national levels for the years 2002-2007.
Methods |
Data came from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Two-part models were used to estimate the incremental direct costs of asthma. The incremental number of days lost from work and school was estimated by negative binomial regressions and valued following the human capital approach. Published data were used to value lives lost with an underlying cause of asthma.
Results |
Over the years 2002-2007, the incremental direct cost of asthma was $3,259 (2009 dollars) per person per year. The value of additional days lost attributable to asthma per year was approximately $301 for each worker and $93 for each student. For the most recent year available, 2007, the total incremental cost of asthma to society was $56 billion, with productivity losses due to morbidity accounting for $3.8 billion and productivity losses due to mortality accounting for $2.1 billion.
Conclusion |
The current study finds that the estimated costs of asthma are substantial, which stresses the necessity for research and policy to work toward reducing the economic burden of asthma.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key Words : Asthma, expenditures, Two-part model, direct cost, productivity losses, mortality losses
Abbreviations used : GLM, ICD-9-CM, MEPS
Plan
Supported by the Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. |
|
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. |
|
Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: S. B. L. Barnett has received research support from the OakRidge Institute for Science and Education. T. A. Nurmagambetov has declared no conflict of interest. |
Vol 127 - N° 1
P. 145-152 - janvier 2011 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 ?