Anaphylaxis: A Payor's Perspective on Epinephrine Autoinjectors - 31/12/13

Abstract |
The scope of expenditures due to anaphylaxis likely is underestimated by health care payors because anaphylaxis is underdiagnosed and, when reported, most costs of anaphylaxis borne by payors relate to direct medical expenses. Direct costs of anaphylaxis have been estimated at $1.2 billion per year, with direct expenditures of $294 million for epinephrine, and indirect costs of $609 million. More accurate diagnostic coding will allow payors to improve their understanding of the full impact of anaphylaxis on health care plans, employers, patients, and their families. Similarly, more accurate diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis should have a direct effect on overall cost savings achieved in this disease state. This includes savings in both direct costs, such as emergency department visits, and indirect costs, such as lost productivity of patients and caregivers. Educating medical personnel on treatment guidelines regarding the specific use of appropriate epinephrine autoinjectors will contribute to cost savings. Even though the cost of autoinjectors has been increasing, evidence indicates that the cost of improper response to, and treatment of, anaphylaxis outweighs that increase. At this time, there are several branded epinephrine autoinjectors and one generic equivalent for one of these branded products available on the US market; the branded autoinjectors are not considered equivalents for substitution. Barriers to coverage and access, such as managed care organization tier classification, medication copay, and socioeconomic status of specific patients, need to be examined more closely and addressed. Education in the proper use of epinephrine autoinjectors, including regular checking of medication expiration dates, is critical for proper management of anaphylaxis and minimizing the costs of anaphylactic events. Managed care organizations can play a role in educational initiatives.
El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.Keywords : Allergy, Anaphylaxis, Cost analysis, Epinephrine, Insurance coverage, Managed care, Medical education, Patient education, Quality of health care
Esquema
| Funding: This work was supported by Mylan Specialty L.P. |
|
| Conflict of Interest: Jeffrey D. Dunn, PharmD, MBA, has served as an advisor for Mylan Specialty L.P. and received an honorarium for attending the Partnership for Anaphylaxis Round Table. No payment was received for writing of this manuscript. David A. Sclar, BPharm, PhD, has served as an advisor for Mylan Specialty L.P. (including receipt of an honorarium for attending the Partnership for Anaphylaxis Round Table), 3M, Allergan, Alza, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Axcan, Baxter Bioscience, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Laboratories, Gambro, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Optimer, Pfizer, Teva, and Wyeth. No payment was received for writing of this manuscript. |
|
| Authorship: Drs Dunn and Sclar both fully qualify for authorship of the manuscript, having made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; and the identification and interpretation of the appropriate published literature. Both authors were equally involved in drafting and critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content, reviewed the final manuscript, and gave approval for submission. Drs Dunn and Sclar are both accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
Vol 127 - N° 1S
P. S45-S50 - janvier 2014 Regresar al númeroBienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.
¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?
