Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 61–65 | Cite as

Utilization and Cost of Health Care Services Associated with Primary Malignant Brain Tumors in the United States

  • Lucie Kutikova
  • Lee Bowman
  • Stella Chang
  • Stacey R. Long
  • Donald E. Thornton
  • William H. Crown
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the economic burden of primary malignant brain tumors in a commercially insured population in the United States, and to identify the primary drivers of health care resource use and cost.

Patients and methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a 1998–2000 database containing inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims for employees, their dependents, and early retirees of over 50 large US employers with wide geographic distribution. Patients were followed from first brain tumor diagnosis until death, termination of health benefits coverage, or study end. Controls without any cancer diagnosis were matched at a 3:1 ratio by demographic characteristics and length of follow-up.

Results

Patients with malignant brain tumors (n = 653) had significantly greater health service utilization and costs for hospitalizations, emergency room visits, outpatient office visits, laboratory tests, radiology services, and pharmacy-dispensed drugs (all P < 0.05) than did controls (n = 1959). Regression-adjusted mean monthly costs were $6364 for brain tumor patients, compared with $277 for controls (P < 0.0001). The primary cost driver was inpatient care ($4502 per month). Total costs during the study period were $49,242 for those with brain tumors and $2790 for controls (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Patients with malignant brain tumors accrued health care costs that were 20 times greater than demographically matched control subjects without cancer. The costs for inpatient services were the primary drivers of total health resource use. Despite their low incidence, primary malignant brain tumors produce a substantial burden on the US health care system. There is a marked need for improved and new approaches to treatment to reduce the resource use and to offset health care costs associated with this disease.

Keywords

Brain tumors Health care resource use Health care costs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Joseph Hirsch, of BioScience Communications, for his assistance in writing this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2005. http://www.cancer.org. Cited 23 Jan 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CBTRUS (2004) Statistical report: primary brain tumors in the United States, 1997–2001. Published by the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States. http://www.cbtrus.org. Cited 23 Jan 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ekman M, Westphal M (2005) Cost of brain tumour in Europe. Eur J Neurol 12(suppl 1):45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silverstein MD, Cascino TL, Harmsen WS (1996) High-grade astrocytomas: resource use, clinical outcomes, and cost of care. Mayo Clin Proc 71:936–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blomqvist P, Lycke J, Strang P, Tronqvist H, Ekbom A (2000) Brain tumors in Sweden 1996: care and costs. J Neurol Psychiatry 69:792–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mendez I, Jacobs P, MacDougall A, Schultz M (2001) Treatment costs for glioblastoma multiforme in Nova Scotia. Can J Neurol Sci 28:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latif AZ, Signorini D, Gregor A, Whittle IR (1998) The costs of managing patients with malignant glioma at a neuro-oncology clinic. Br J Neurosurg 12:118–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang S, Long SR, Kutikova L, Bowman L, Finley D, Crown WH, Bennett CF (2004) Estimating the cost of cancer: results on the basis of claims data analyses for cancer patients diagnosed with seven types of cancer during 1999 to 2000. J Clin Oncol 22:3524–3530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Hoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C (1996) Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1429–1433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnes CA (1985) Disease staging: a clinically oriented dimension of case mix. Am Med Record Assoc 56: 22–27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duan N (1983) Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. J Am Stat Assoc 78:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucie Kutikova
    • 1
  • Lee Bowman
    • 1
  • Stella Chang
    • 2
  • Stacey R. Long
    • 2
  • Donald E. Thornton
    • 1
  • William H. Crown
    • 3
  1. 1.Global Health Outcomes ResearchEli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.ThomsonWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Thomson, i3InnovusCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations